Posted on 09/26/2005 12:14:08 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
Mimeographs and carbon papers are not allowed.
After reading the complete article, I would hardly characterize Behe as being anything other than sceptical of Lenski's work.
I don't see where Behe is at all skeptical of Lenski's work. Behe in fact specifically brings up Lenski's work, and says if anything cool came out of it, that would convince him. And Lenski says something cool has in fact come out of it. We'll have a wait a couple of weeks to find out what that is.
Behe said he might find the mainstream scientists' argument compelling if they were to observe evolutionary leaps in the laboratory. He pointed to an experiment by Richard Lenski, a professor of microbial ecology at Michigan State University, who has been observing the evolution of E. coli bacteria for more than 15 years. "If anything cool came out of that," Behe said, "that would be one way to convince me."
Behe said that if he was correct, then the E. coli in Lenski's lab would evolve in small ways, but would never change in such a way that the bacteria would develop entirely new abilities.
In fact, that is what appears to have happened. Lenski said his experiment was not intended to explore this aspect of evolution, but "we have recently discovered a pretty dramatic exception, one where a new and surprising function has evolved," he said.
Your knowledge of the rest of the world is mazing.
There is a way to settle this, however, because like Behe's irreducible complexity, the concept of specified complexity can also be tested."If Dembski were right, then a new gene with new information conferring a brand new function on an organism could never come into existence without a designer because a new function requires complex specified information," Miller said.
In 1975, Japanese scientists reported the discovery of bacteria that could break down nylon, the material used to make pantyhose and parachutes. Bacteria are known to ingest all sorts of things, everything from crude oil to sulfur, so the discovery of one that could eat nylon would not have been very remarkable if not for one small detail: nylon is synthetic; it didn't exist anywhere in nature until 1935, when it was invented by an organic chemist at the chemical company Dupont. The discovery of nylon-eating bacteria poses a problem for ID proponents. Where did the CSI for nylonase—the actual protein that the bacteria use to break down the nylon—come from?
Read Behe's book. Will be pretty hard for the plaintiffs' to dispute his testimony.
As someone else already pointed out, this case isn't really about intelligent design versus evolution. Behe's testimony is ultimately irrelevant. This case will be decided on the three prongs of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. If you take the time to look over the pleadings that are posted on the district court website, you'll realize that the "purpose" prong is already lost for the Dover School Board, one of whom went on record making several remarks clearly indicating that the purpose of introducing their "intelligent design policy" was religious in nature.
I'd be willing to place a very large wager on the outcome of this trial going in favor of the plaintiffs.
Behe said, "I'll wait and see."
That's not being skeptical?
He's skeptical of the new discovery (properly so, I might add; I'm very skeptical about anything I haven't seen in black and white in a journal, though Lenski is a good scientist), not of the work itself.
Did you read the answer of the defendants?
One would be the trail of "the guys who whacked Natalee Holloway" - that's an American thing.
If Behe is skeptical of the 'new discovery', it seems to be rather obvious that he is skeptical of the work.
I would say that Behe is an excellent scientist, who also has a firm grasp of the principles of logic.
I thought you were doing a "What I say three times is true" thing
He cited the work as an example of how evolution proceeds by small changes. He's skeptical about it, but he cites it as evidence in support of his position?
I would say that Behe is an excellent scientist, who also has a firm grasp of the principles of logic.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course. Mine is, that if I'd written something as universally derided in the community of scientists as 'Darwin's Black Box', I'd go into selling pharmaceuticals on the internet under an assumed name. :-)
Yes, I read the defendants' Answer, in addition to Order entered by the judge in response to their Motion to Compel deposition testimony from two reporters who apparently recorded and reported on the comments. It appears as though their case will hinge on attempting to claim that everyone who heard the comments lied about what was said.
The Discovery Institute must be livid. This is going to screw up their whole infiltration program in a major way.
Have you actually read Behe's book?
Just a side note on the witness list that you linked to...I do believe that Dembski is no longer going to testify or be a part of the trial in any way, and it may be the same situation for Behe, though I'm just guessing on that one.
Yes, I have. It was painful.
I believe Behe is slated to testify, though not in any way representing DI. As a Pennsylvania IDer, it would be hard for him to explain away a refusal.
Ah, poor man. Catch 22 for him, huh. Still, couldn't have happened to a more well-deserving fellow!
That's the way I feel...God started it all, then things evolved....there's just no way to prove anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.