Posted on 10/18/2005 9:31:08 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Harrisburg courtroom was packed yesterday with reporters and members of the public who came to see the second half of Dover's intelligent design trial.
The defense began presenting its case by calling its star witness -- Lehigh University professor, biochemist and top intelligent design scientist Michael Behe.
Thomas More Law Center attorney Robert Muise started the questioning in a simple format, asking, for example, if Behe had an opinion about whether intelligent design is creationism. Then he asked Behe to explain why.
Behe said intelligent design is not creationism, but
a scientific theory that makes scientific claims that can be tested for accuracy.
Behe testified that intelligent designdoesn't require a supernatural creator, but an intelligent designer: it does not name the designer.
He said evolution is not a fact and there are gaps in the theory that can be explained by intelligent design.
There is evidence that some living things were purposefully arranged by a designer, Behe claimed in his testimony.
Gave examples: One example is the bacterial flagellum, the tail of a bacteria that quickly rotates like an outboard motor, he said.
The bacterial flagellum could not have slowly evolved piece by piece as Charles Darwin posited because if even one part of the bacteria is removed, it no longer serves its original function, Behe said.
Biologist and Brown University professor Kenneth Miller testified for the parents about two weeks ago. He showed the courtroom diagrams on a large screen, detailing how the bacterial flagellum could be reduced and still work.
Also showing diagrams, Behe said Miller was mistaken and used much of his testimony in an attempt to debunk Miller's testimony.
Miller was wrong when he said that intelligent design proponents don't have evidence to support intelligent design so they degrade the theory of evolution, Behe said.
But Behe also said evolution fails to answer questions about the transcription on DNA, the "structure and function of ribosomes," new protein interactions and the human immune system, among others.
By late in the afternoon, Behe was supporting his arguments with complex, detailed charts, at one point citing a scientific article titled "The Evolved Galactosidase System as a Model for Studying Acquisitive Evolution in the Laboratory."
Most of the pens in the jury box -- where the media is stationed in the absence of a jury -- stopped moving. Some members of the public had quizzical expressions on their faces.
One of the parents' attorneys made mention of the in-depth subject matter, causing Muise to draw reference to Miller's earlier testimony.
He said the courtroom went from "Biology 101" to "Advanced Biology."
"This is what you get," Muise said.
Board responds: Randy Tomasacci, a schoolboard member with a Luzerne County school district, said he was impressed with Behe's testimony.
Tomasacci represents Northwest Area School District in Shickshinny, a board that is watching the Dover trial and is contemplating adopting an intelligent design policy.
"We're going to see what happens in this case," he said.
Some of his fellow board members are afraid of getting sued, Tomasacci said.
Tomasacci's friend, Lynn Appleman, said he supports Dover's school board.
He said he thought Behe was "doing a good job" during testimony, but "it can get over my head pretty quick."
Former professor Gene Chavez, a Harrisburg resident, said he came to watch part of the proceedings because the case is "monumental."
He said he had doubts about the effectiveness of Behe's testimony.
"I think he's going to have a hard time supporting what he has concluded," Chavez said. "I think he is using his science background to make a religious leap because it's what he believes."
I know that. I was hoping, although, that you had found a new hippo/whale transition.
I have been asking that here for some years. Still, there don't seem to be many takers. If everything is designed then the concept is vacuous.
Imagine Helen Thomas naked in a swimming pool.
You often didact but I cannot recall every seeing you pedant.
js is correct. The trait is a bacterial trait transferred into corn.
Genetic engineering is intelligent designing, but it is not natural. If Creationists want to say we're all not natural, then I would like to hear it. But GM corn is no different than my new Welsh terrier puppy. He's the same species as my golden retriever, but obviously phenotypically different. Man has been altering agro crops and animals for thousands of years, "designing" strains with traits for particular purposes. It is not irreducibly complex since the traits are all natural in some way and just combined in different ways to form a more desirable product. The GM corn is just the next step - mixing traits between species instead of within the same species (like my dogs).
It's a cloned gene inserted into a foreign species.
Very good!
There is no preferred outcome.
In evolution the only "significance" given is that the next generation has some slight advantage (or disadvantage) in producing more or longer lived progeny.
The advantaged will out-populate the disadvantaged within it's niche - and over time the disadvantaged will disappear (AKA go extinct).
It's also that someone who should know better will prostitute his learning to mislead the public. Behe is just a less-talented L. Ron Hubbard.
I'm banned in Kansas, so the loss is theirs.
Good honest comment.
Those that insist that ID's designer is not a consideration haven't really considered the regressions necessitated by their attempted use of negative evidence. Nor have they considered how we recognize design. Part of that recognition is the understanding of the purpose of the artifact (or intent of the designer) as well as the tools and methods available to the manufacturer.
"The evolutionist has a similar problem. Just as some IDers claim they don't know the identity of the 'designer', the evolutionists does not even attempt to explain the origin of life.
There is a difference. Evolution does not need to know how life came about to understand the processes, mechanisms and results of evolution. The IDist needs to be able to not only identify design but to differentiate between designed and non-designed. If you take a close look at how we humans tell our own design from nature you'll note that knowledge of the designer's (not a specific individual) past work, intent, tools and techniques is needed.
"If the evolutionists cannot identify the force behind the origination of life, it is unreasonable to expect the non-Christian IDer to identify the 'designer'.
This isn't true. See above for why.
"The evolutionist who claims the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution is being at least as disingenuous as any IDer who claims that the designer is unknown.
Not at all. The origin question is not part of evolution because of the limitations of the ToE. Evolution needs descent with modification and selection.
"Based on the comments of some of the evolutionists on these threads, some evolutionists concede that the origin of life could have a supernatural cause. Is the belief in the existence of an intelligent designer really any different?
No it isn't all that different. What is different is the motivation of the two groups. Idists desire to replace methodological naturalism with something that can not possibly work as a science. Those evolutionists that believe in a God do not want to change science.
Thus, the bassoon need not always be deemed a blunt instrument.
Although I'm pretty sure there is no such thing as a God, I'd be interested in what you meant by this comment.
The odds are 80,658,175,170,943,878,571,660,636,856,403,766,975,289,505,440,883,277,824,000,000,000,000 to 1. It's a miracle!!
A third what growing out of your forehead? A Farvegnugen?
This would have made a good half hour Twilight Zone. It's probably too subtle for the masses though. (Maybe it has been filmed.)
"Back Through The Future"
There is a lot of good reading material there.
Nice cover!
300
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.