Well, if you're going to engage in the childish ad hominem fallacy by pretending that the source is tainted without actually making a case that the material is actually flawed...
Is *that* really the road you want to go down? Do you really want to be that dishonest, petty, and transparently underhanded? Do you really want to try to imply that the ACLU somehow misquoted Miller, without a shred of support for your sleazy implications? Do you really want to try to be so brain-dead as to try to imply that if the ACLU happens to put a transcript on their site, that the material is "ideologically tainted"?
I guess it is OK to post an excerpt from a conservative website:
Only if it knows what it's talking about, which unfortunately is not the case with the twaddle you chose to quote. You know, I'm not surprised that there are people spewing such dishonest propaganda as what you've pasted into your post, but what *does* surprise me is that there are people so incapable of critical thinking, and so hungry to be spoonfed nonsense that tells them what they want to hear, that they'll happily swallow it.
Now let's consider your laughable material, shall we?
…Unfortunately for Rothschild, the testimony of Kenneth Miller–a Roman Catholic biology professor from Brown University who staunchly defends evolution—has already refuted his argument.
Wrong, but that's the creationist/ID "spin", anyway, since they can't win on the actual facts.
Early in his testimony, Rothschild claimed that “intelligent design is not science in its infancy, it's not science at all.”
This is correct.
Yet Miller’s own testimony contradicts this.
No, it doesn't.
In cross-examination, when asked by Robert Muise, the defense attorney, if during a debate between Miller and Michael Behe, an ID proponent, at the American Museum of Natural History, “you [Miller] were presenting your scientific argument against intelligent design, and Dr. Behe was presenting his scientific argument in support of intelligent design?” Miller responded: “Absolutely.”
There is no contradiction here. Manzari is dishonestly trying to claim that having a "scientific argument for" something is equivalent to that something "being a science". Horse manure. If I made a scientific argument for how the bird crap might have ended up on my car window, would that make the bird crap itself into a science? No....
I'd expand on this point more, but the folks over at the Panda's Thumb have done it far better than I could, in response to yet another "ID blogger" who made the exact same stupid "talking point" about how this was some sort of "contradiction", when it's not. Clearly, the ID folks are handing out sheets of talking points to their minions.
Rothschild then asserted that “…there is no controversy in the scientific community about the soundness of evolution.” But once again, he contradicted his own testimony. In another round of Muise’s cross-examination, Miller explained that one of the three “core propositions” of evolution is “united under the term of ‘natural selection.’” Yet only moments later, Miller pointed to “enormous controversy within evolutionary theory on the relative values and weights to give to forces such as natural selection…”
Again, this is no "contradiction", and Manzari is either being dishonest, or as moronic as many other creationists who make this same bone-headed mistake. It's one of the creationists' favorite stupidities.
The comments concerned two different things. It seems that creationists are never too swift at grasping fine distinctions, or even not-so-fine ones, and this is yet another perfect example. It is indeed correct "that there is no controversy in the scientific community about the soundness of evolution". It is also correct that there is disagreement about the exact degrees to which the different processes which drive evolution contribute to the whole. Anyone who thinks that this is a "contradiction" is, frankly, in need of basic classes in how to understand plain English. If you're still baffled over the not-so-fine difference between what the two statements are each addressing, read this And if *that* doesn't clear it up for you, learn to enjoy your confusion.
Rothschild went on to claim that “Intelligent design has arguments … but these arguments are not a positive case for intelligent design, just negative attacks on evolution.” However, when asked about an article he authored, Miller admitted that Dr. Behe's “biochemical argument from design … [states that] the evolution of complex biochemical structures cannot even or ever be explained in principle.” Moreover, this positive argument states that “there is some aspect of this complexity, which means we can say not just, we haven't figured it out yet, but we will never figure it out, and that's where the evidence for design lies.”
More dishonesty/idiocy from Manzari. He needs to read up on what "positive evidence" means, then get back to us. Or, he could try just reading the vast amount of explanations of this point which have already been made in response to the many IDers who keep making this same schoolboy fallacy.
Just once, I'd like to see an IDer who actually knows his hindquarters from a hole in the ground, when it comes to epistemology.
Also, it appears that Manzari has yet again been parroting from the same ID "talking points", because the ID blog which the Panda's Thumb people refuted in the link I included above *also* made the same silly and transparently false claim about there being "positive evidence" for ID -- and the PT folks have also done a great job of rebutting *that* as well (see link).
Later in his testimony, Rothschild stated that ID proponents have not “publish[ed] original data in peer-reviewed scientific journals.” Attorney Witold Walczak asked Miller if there is “a very recent publication, peer-reviewed publication, that bears on this issue of common descent?” To which Miller responded “Well, the answer to that is, there's more than one. And the one that comes to my mind right away is an issue earlier this month of the scientific journal Nature…”…
Perhaps Manzari could learn to read: Rothschild stated, correctly, that IDers have not "publish[ed] original data in peer-reviewed scientific journals." None of the handful of pitiful ID papers which have been published (and mentioned by Miller) contain original data. Again, no "contradiction" at all.
Thanks, Heartlander, for once again demonstrating, by providing a wonderful example of complete ID cluelessness, that the ID proponents are lacking in basic reading comprehension, and lacking in any sort of elementary knowledge of science or epistemology.
Now, what I find interesting, is this confession by Miller: Also, in yesterday’s testimony, Miller called attention to a factual error in Pandas. In today’s questioning, he conceded that the “elephant” edition of his own high school biology textbook contained an error, describing evolution as a “random and undirected process.” Miller said that it wasn’t a scientific statement, and it was removed from subsequent editions. - Witt
What exactly do you fantasize that that's a "confession" of? Has a crime been committed?
Also, I suspect that this is a garbling of two different statements by Miller into one mixed-up claim by Witt, but I'll reserve judgment on that until I can get a transcript of that portion of the testimony. In any case, Miller has previously explained his objection to the phrase "random, undirected forces" here, and Witt's description does not accurately summarize Miller's position. Miller's objection is actually over the misleading inaccuracy of calling evolution "random", as if *only* random processes are at work, when that is not correct. If this was Miller's point in his recent testimony as well, then Witt is misrepreseting it, and there would be no "contradiction" at all with your other link. But even if Witt's description is accurate, your summary of the contents of the other link is *not*:
Yet we have the statement here that claims this “random and undirected process” is scientifically confirmed?
That's not really what it says, learn to read.
And yet again, they're talking about two different things. Are you really that confused over the simple fact that some of the same words appear in both passages? Reading comprehension is your friend.
(engliGh??? you've gotten to the *BLAM!* haven't you?)