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."
It's a type of caviat.
Why?
What significance does the ability to understand complexity have?
Why?
What significance does the ability to understand complexity have?
SOrry to be late to the party, but no ID does not explain origins. WHere did the designer come from? How did the designer evolve? Oopps, ID just assumes there is something that exists without explanation of how it got here or how it designed anything or how it implemented those designs
I noticed that omission and wondered if anyone would bite. So, it was you.....
Anything you're only supposed to have two of.
Combinatorics, as in your example, is not applicable to biology.
No, he doesn't.
Your result was gibberish, not independently specified.
Are you sure it's "gibberish"? How exactly did you determine, for a fact, that the sequence is not in fact a card encryption of a passage of Shakespeare?
Oh, right, you didn't. You just presumed.
So why don't you lay out for us the exact algorithm by which the "specified complexity" can be measured for some sequence? Get back to us when you're ready.
Have someone else attach a significance to each card and then repeat the process.
But there *is* a significance attached to each card already. Jacks are better than fives, and so on. So does that make his results "specified complexity"? Yes? No? How does one tell?
If the new result remains gibberish,
By what measure?
the draw was most likely random;
What if one "assigns a significance" to the cards which results in 75% of all card sequences having a valid "meaning"? For example, each card may be a symbol in a grammar in which most sequences are valid.
if there is an objective message in the draw, the result was likely not random.
See above. I think your thesis needs work. A lot of work.
The same goes for Dembski's. His various oversights, overstatements, unsupported leaps, etc. have been well documented:
A response to Dembski's "Specified Complexity"Dissecting Dembski's "Complex Specified Information"
A Horse Race to Beat Dembski's "Universal Probability Bound"
Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's \Complex Speci¯ed Information"
Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates
Well, ID explains everything, so it does have to tackle origins.
J-Clubs, K-Diamonds, 7-Spades, Q-Hearts
A-Clubs, 2-Hearts, 9-Clubs, 3-Hearts
A-Hearts, 3-Spades, 10-Hearts, K-Spades
3-Diamonds, 2-Diamonds, Q-Spades, 7-Clubs
4-Clubs, J-Hearts, 5-Hearts, 10-Diamonds
8-Spades, 6-Hearts, 9-Diamonds, Q-Clubs
Q-Diamonds, 6-Clubs, 8-Hearts, 2-Spades
9-Spades, 8-Clubs, 4-Hearts, J-Spades
3-Clubs, 5-Spades, J-Diamonds, A-Diamonds
10-Clubs, 7-Hearts, 2-Clubs, 4-Diamonds
6-Diamonds, 6-Spades, K-Clubs, 8-Diamonds
5-Clubs, 9-Hearts, A-Spades, 4-Spades
10-Spades, 5-Diamonds, 7-Diamonds, K-Hearts
Wow! What are the odds of that happening ...
I would say that if you dealt it, the odds of it happening would be .... 100%!
You were expecting someone else? Hah!
It's a Heinlein story.
But I could be wrong ...
Isn't that what I said about Behe the Blowhard?
Yep.
ID may be safer than pseudo-medicine because it's harder to show the bad effects as quickly.
"Fahr-fignewtons" is a generic name for the cookies or snacks you take along on a road trip.
Indeed; but the Aurora Bridge Troll prefers the crunchier "Fahrvergnügen," such as the one in his hand (that's an actual VW Beetle in his hand; not something shaped to look like one!)
Thanks!
Again, I'm reading from a 'hmmm, does evolution really explain this stuff well?' perspective, rather than a 'this absolutely proves a miracle!' perspective.
Best regards,
-- Joe
I would be interested in learning if Behe has used the phrase common descent in his testimony and if he made any distinction between 'common descent' and 'universal common descent'. I would be quite surprised if he means 'universal common descent' since it is virtually the same thing as darwinian evolution.
Not at all. The origin question is not part of evolution because of the limitations of the ToE.
If the ToE or evolutionists cannot propose a reasonable answer to this question, it reflects poorly on the entire theory. To say "we don't know how life began, but we know it couldn't have been via intelligent design" is both speculative and evasive.
ctd: 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.
I appreciate you recognizing that they really aren't all that different. On the other hand, motivation is not relevant. The truth is the truth, regardless of motivation. An intelligent Christian is not afraid to confront the facts and does not try to discount sound science. The reality is the ToE has lots of problems totally unrelated any religious context.
I would be interested in learning if Behe has used the phrase common descent in his testimony and if he made any distinction between 'common descent' and 'universal common descent'. I would be quite surprised if he means 'universal common descent' since it is virtually the same thing as darwinian evolution.
Not at all. The origin question is not part of evolution because of the limitations of the ToE.
If the ToE or evolutionists cannot propose a reasonable answer to this question, it reflects poorly on the entire theory. To say "we don't know how life began, but we know it couldn't have been via intelligent design" is both speculative and evasive.
ctd: 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.
I appreciate you recognizing that they really aren't all that different. On the other hand, motivation is not relevant. The truth is the truth, regardless of motivation. An intelligent Christian is not afraid to confront the facts and does not try to discount sound science. The reality is the ToE has lots of problems totally unrelated any religious context.
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.