Posted on 10/07/2005 7:23:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
To keep this all in one daily thread, here are links to two articles in the York Daily Record (with excerpts from each), which has been doing a great job of reporting on the trial:
Forrest cross-examination a rambling wonder.
About the time that Richard Thompson, head law guy at the Thomas More center and chief defender of the Dover Area School Board, started his third year of cross-examination of philosopher Barbara Forrest, it was easy to imagine that at that moment, everyone in the courtroom, including Forrest, who doesn’t believe in God, was violating the separation of church and court by appealing to God for it to please, Lord, just stop.It wouldn’t have been so bad if there was a point to the ceaseless stream of questions from Thompson designed to elicit Lord knows what. He’d ask her the same question 18 different times, expecting, I guess, a different answer at some point. And he never got it.
Thompson, who said he’s a former prosecutor, should have known better. Forrest, a professor at Southeastern Louisiana University and expert on the history of the intelligent design creationist movement, was a lot smarter than, say, some poor, dumb criminal defendant.
Here is a summation of Forrest’s testimony: She examined the history of the intelligent design movement and concluded that it’s simply another name for creationism. And what led her to that conclusion? The movement leader’s own words. They started out with a religious proposition and sought to clothe it in science. The result was similar to putting a suit on your dog.
[anip]
Thompson was in the midst of asking Forrest whether she had heard a bunch of things that some people had said to indicate, well, to indicate whether she’d heard a bunch of things that some people had said, I guess, when the topic came up.
Thompson asked whether she had ever heard a statement by some guy — frankly, this one caught me off-guard and I didn’t catch the guy’s name — who said that belief in evolution can be used to justify “cross-species sex.”
This came on the same day that Thompson grilled Forrest about her opposition to the so-called Santorum amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that seemed to encourage, sort of, the teaching of intelligent design. Our U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum is a friend of the intelligent design people.
He also has a strange obsession with bestiality, commenting that court decisions that uphold the right to privacy would lead to — naturally, and you know you were thinking it — man-on-dog sex.
Dover science teachers testified that they fought references to intelligent design.
Defense attorney Richard Thompson [he represents the school board] said differing opinions on whether teachers and administration worked in cooperation to create the Dover Area School District’s statement on intelligent design comes down to perspective.
Could you provide a definition of "irreducible complexity" and an example of such that is found in living organisms?
Brain and nervous system, external sensory systems (eyes, ears, nose, touch, taste), waste management, digestive system, circulatory system, temperature regulation, respiratory system, tissue management and repair, musculature system, skeletal system, limiting factors for each cell to prevent detriment to the overall organism (skin, hair, bone, organ, muscles, eyes...growth), genetic programming copy and repair systems...
The most intelligent group of people in history cannot design these inter-working systems in the most modern lab. Time is not magic, especially when nature works against the production of ordered systems. They are without excuse.
It would help if you'd provide a concrete definition of what you consider "irreducibly complex". Otherwise, it's like me saying, "green, red, and whale are all floximodicants". Without a definition of what a "floximodicant" is, how are you to know if the statement is correct?
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
By irreducibly complex I mean a single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. An irreducibly complex system cannot be produced directly (that is, by continuously improving the initial function, which continues to work by the same mechanism) by slight, successive modifications of a precursor system, because any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.
The bible has been saying this for thousands of years.
The bible has been saying that SETI suggests that intelligence is not natural?
Rom 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead;
Invisible things are seen, eh?
SETI demonstrates that the universe does not create intelligence because the Laws of nature do not allow for the creation of intelligence, absent the preexistence of programmed information.
How does SETI demonstrate that "the laws of nature do not allow for the creation of intelligence"?
The Theory of Evolution is like attributing the production of a sandcastle to the ocean because you observed the water creating the mote.
Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.
One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. The small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by that scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone here and there is no need to consider anything else."
The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, obviously that castle was created by another intelligent being with a clear intent of design, we are not alone. The engineering required to create the castle is far to sophisticated to have originated by natural means."
Another story:
There was a bank robbery and the perp drove off in a Blue Malibu. There are many Blue Malibu's, but this Blue Malibu had a dented right front fender. There are some Blue Malibu's with dented right front fenders, but this one had Arizona plates. There are some Blue Malibu's with dented right front fenders, and with Arizona plates, but this one also had no hubcaps. There are fewer Blue Malibu's with dented right front fenders, and with Arizona plates, and no hubcaps, but this one had a broken right front headlight. There may be a couple Blue Malibu's with dented right front fenders, and with Arizona plates, and no hubcaps, and a broken right front headlight, but this one also had a primer hood.
The above described car was found parked in front of a house 2 miles from the bank. Even though a person could explain away a few of the characteristics of the car, with the amount of evidence to the contrary, there is no doubt the car was used in the robbery.
Evolutionists try to explain away the evidence by specifying what they will discuss or debate (the prevailing tactic of TalkOrigins). Narrow the discussion like OJ Simpson's lawyers. When one steps back from the discussion and considers all of the evidence involved, the obvious can be seen (like everyone outside the courtroom did during the OJ trial). Science has relegated itself to a courtroom and has lost it's way.
The Theory of Evolution is like attributing the production of a sandcastle to the ocean because you observed the water creating the mote.
Two men become stranded on a remote island. As they explore the island they come upon a sandcastle with towers, buttresses and a drawbridge. The design of the castle is amazingly intricate.
One man comments, "It is amazing what time and the ocean can create. The small rocks and seashells on the shore must have got caught in eddies and swirled around and chiseled out that castle. There were a few palm leaves floating by that scribed out the little lines that look like bricks. We are alone here and there is no need to consider anything else."
The other man looked at him incredulously and said, "No, obviously that castle was created by another intelligent being with a clear intent of design, we are not alone. The engineering required to create the castle is far to sophisticated to have originated by natural means."
Another story:
There was a bank robbery and the perp drove off in a Blue Malibu. There are many Blue Malibu's, but this Blue Malibu had a dented right front fender. There are some Blue Malibu's with dented right front fenders, but this one had Arizona plates. There are some Blue Malibu's with dented right front fenders, and with Arizona plates, but this one also had no hubcaps. There are fewer Blue Malibu's with dented right front fenders, and with Arizona plates, and no hubcaps, but this one had a broken right front headlight. There may be a couple Blue Malibu's with dented right front fenders, and with Arizona plates, and no hubcaps, and a broken right front headlight, but this one also had a primer hood.
The above described car was found parked in front of a house 2 miles from the bank. Even though a person could explain away a few of the characteristics of the car, with the amount of evidence to the contrary, there is no doubt the car was used in the robbery.
Evolutionists try to explain away the evidence by specifying what they will discuss or debate (the prevailing tactic of TalkOrigins). Narrow the discussion like OJ Simpson's lawyers. When one steps back from the discussion and considers all of the evidence involved, the obvious can be seen (like everyone outside the courtroom did during the OJ trial). Science has relegated itself to a courtroom and has lost it's way.
And you can cite an example of an organic system that can't work with slightly modified parts?
I'm sure you can you can make yourself feel like you've won most any argument, if you insist on keeping things so vaguely general and amorphous that most any conclusion is possible. One thing courtrooms and scientists have in common is a pesky affinity for specific evidence over confidently delivered grand sweeping position statements.
If you follow the link you will encounter a detailed description of Dr. Behe's thesis for his theory that has stirred up the entire scientific community.
1. There are no transitional fossils, when there should be mountains of them.
2. There is no evidence that Darwinian Evolution can produce more complex features in organisms (what we in fact see is extinctions on a mass scale where creatures cannot adapt to changing environments).
3. The catastrophes that we have witnessed in our solar system demonstrate that on a geologic timescale, life would be completely destroyed repeatedly (in our minuscule geologic lifespans we have seen a life ending comet [Shumaker-Levy] hit a planet in our dinky little solar system).
4. Darwin's view of life was so much less sophisticated than our current understanding of life's sophistication, that he had an excuse (examining the workings of a single cell have revealed that it is far more complex than a space shuttle manufacturing plant). Life does things we can't even dream of.
5. As engineers try to come up with better ways of creating nanotechnology, more and more frequently their biggest source of inspiration comes from living organisms (like fiber optic producing sponges, who needs Roswell).
6. Natural Laws do not work in favor of random events progressively producing orderly systems (all evidence within modern labs demonstrate the lengths of intellectual imputation of order that is necessary for the successful production of desired chemicals).
7. The information that is recorded and copied into every cell of an organism requires data transfer rates and accuracy that make modern network Guru's, heads spin.
You get the flavor....
I have Behe's book. I suggest you try "Finding Darwin's God" by Miller before you embarass yourself further.
that has stirred up the entire scientific community.
No, it hasn't. His argument was feeble 200 years ago, when it wasn't easy to reject on specific grounds. He made predictions about stuff that would never be in the journals, due to complexity, that had already been proved false before he even published. Talk about bench-checking your work.
And, by the way, appearances notwithstanding, there is no demonstration in the book of an example of a thing that couldn't still operate with a slightly modified part. Ribosomes would be about the best example of precision machinery in the whole shooting match, and we have at least 1/2 dozen variations on that theme, in the various phyla we know about. Regardless of how precise Behe's engineering drawings look, the fact is that life is kinda flexable about the exact nature of most of it's machine parts. That's why humans have, amongst other things, eyes with differing eye colors.
Do you imagine that pasteur's experiments have any bearing at all on current theory of biogenesis? I suppose when you are in charge of education, all science will be rolled back two hundred years.
All fossils are transitional. The argument for evolution doesn't rest on specific fossils, it rests on the slowly changing, obvious morphologicalu continuity between fossils. In other words, if there's a gap, what is it a gap in?
2. There is no evidence that Darwinian Evolution can produce more complex features in organisms (what we in fact see is extinctions on a mass scale where creatures cannot adapt to changing environments).
See above.
3. The catastrophes that we have witnessed in our solar system demonstrate that on a geologic timescale, life would be completely destroyed repeatedly (in our minuscule geologic lifespans we have seen a life ending comet [Shumaker-Levy] hit a planet in our dinky little solar system).
Sez you. How much of a catastrophe do you think it would take to wipe out earthworms? Jupiter and Saturn vacuum cleaned the most obnoxious space junk long before multi-cellulars showed up. It's not at all beyond reason that life survived space junk.
4. Darwin's view of life was so much less sophisticated than our current understanding of life's sophistication, that he had an excuse (examining the workings of a single cell have revealed that it is far more complex than a space shuttle manufacturing plant). Life does things we can't even dream of.
As far as I can tell, this is just the complexity argument again, with a flavoring of the lightning-in-a-mudpuddle argument. Both arguments are a joke.
5. As engineers try to come up with better ways of creating nanotechnology, more and more frequently their biggest source of inspiration comes from living organisms (like fiber optic producing sponges, who needs Roswell).
I don't detect a relevant argument here.
6. Natural Laws do not work in favor of random events progressively producing orderly systems (all evidence within modern labs demonstrate the lengths of intellectual imputation of order that is necessary for the successful production of desired chemicals).
I guess this is the entropy argument without the use of the word entropy. Stochastic events repeatedly produce orderly systems, such as snowflakes, crystals, whirlpools in draining sinks and predictable heterogenous weather behavior.
7. The information that is recorded and copied into every cell of an organism requires data transfer rates and accuracy that make modern network Guru's, heads spin.
My heart be still.
You get the flavor....
Yea, I get it. The hollywood blockbuster advertising approach to scientific evidence.
Our lawyerly society seems to breed a new brand of tenaciousness. TalkOrigins being the pinnacle of willing ignorance; straining at a gnat while swallowing a camel.
Can I sell you a blue Malibu? There is only a minor flaw to it; a small dent in the right fender. Nothing a little Bondo couldn't fix. The rest of it is cherry!
More importantly, what were Pasteur's conclusions about life? He was able to recognize that by eliminating the information of life, we could prevent life from overtaking our foodstuffs, because without the intelligent information, there is no life.
Your use of the word information adds no information to the word "life". There a word for slinging technical words around as if you understand them, but the word escapes me.
You still haven't responded to the question. Do you imagine that pasteur's experiments have any bearing at all on any current theory of biogenesis?
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.