Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Professor [Behe]: Design not creationism [Evolution trial, 18 October]
The York Dispatch ^ | 18 October 2005 | CHRISTINA KAUFFMAN

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: cover; crevolist; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401 next last
To: Ichneumon
The problem for Behe is that all of his hand-waving about biochemical systems is being done in order to try to argue, "gosh, this sure is complex, I personally don't think it could have evolved, therefore it must have been designed." And this is exactly what Miller was (correctly) saying about the "ID" case. Behe and the other IDers keep making the elementary logical fallacy of the False Dichtomy -- they keep making the simplistic and incorrect mistake of thinking that there are only two possible explanations, and that if evolution can be (allegedly) ruled out, then ID "must" be correct by default.

On the surface, it may seem to be a false dichotomy; but is it really? "If evolution is ruled out", ID would the best best explanation absent other alternative explanations. Do you know of alternatives to evolution, besides ID?

As for me, I have never argued that IS must be true simply because evolution is disproved. There are other reasons as well, including the absence of other rational explanations.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. Evidence *against* evolution is not evidence *for* ID (or any other particular alternative explanation). And Behe has never, ever, ever given actual evidence which directly supports ID itself -- he has always attempted to just undermine evolutionary biology.

I don't think Behe ever claimed that he has. The real issue is that if the evidence undermines evolutionary biology, it casts doubt on the truth of evolutionary biology.

Furthermore, even his arguments "against" evolutionary biology are fundamentally flawed, and it shouldn't be hard at all to show that to the court as well.

I don't think it will be nearly as easy as you might think. You ought to keep in mind that only one of the plaintiffs' witnesses claimed that evolution is a 'fact'; and that claim was based only on a perception that it is a fact because it is 'widely accepted'. Miller even admitted that evolution is not a 'fact'.

Not going to say the defendants are going to win, because you never know what a judge will decide, regardless what the evidence says.

The statement of the Dover school board was carefully crafted and I don't think the plaintiffs have shown that it does anything more than state that there are other opinions about 'life' and where one might look for that information if a student is interested.

41 posted on 10/18/2005 10:35:35 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

ID does "explain" origins, so it has to answer that question.


42 posted on 10/18/2005 10:35:52 AM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: newguy357; Allen In So Cal; furball4paws; shuckmaster
I know you think this is a brilliant argument, and it would work if there were no possibility of a supernatural designer, but, by the definition of the word, a supernatural designer is not bound by natural, physical laws, since any such designer is the creator of said laws and therefore must exist outside of them. Your argument precludes the possibility of natural designers "all the way down" (e.g., superintelligent aliens that designed our planet and our species) but does nothing against a supernatural one. If, e.g., the God of the Bible designed our universe, as described, he needs no beginning since he exists outside of time (which is physical).

Does not follow. Even if a "supernatural designer" existed outside of *our* space-time system, you have not demonstrated that it would necessarily be free from causality in its *own* realm, or that that realm would have no time of its own, etc.

For example, if advances in physics one day allow us to create a new Universe ourselves (parallel to our own), that would, by your definition, make us "supernatural designers" with respect to the new Universe, yet that would hardly therefore mean that we "need no beginning", as you incorrectly conclude.

43 posted on 10/18/2005 10:37:05 AM PDT by Ichneumon (Certified pedantic coxcomb)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Comment #44 Removed by Moderator

To: longshadow

We've spent a lot of time on these threads asking what an ID curriculum would look like and have been met with deafening silence.

Now Behe is showing us where his curriculum would begin.


45 posted on 10/18/2005 10:40:15 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

Comment #46 Removed by Moderator

To: Physicist
see my #40.

It appears we've undergone a Vulcan Mind Meld or something!

47 posted on 10/18/2005 10:41:08 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: DoctorMichael
Did you mean '18' in the title instead of '10'?

Right. I've requested the mods to make a correction.

48 posted on 10/18/2005 10:41:55 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (No response to trolls, retards, or lunatics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I think the question is purely rhetorical. If one assumes a designer, then somewhere at sometime at the bottom of the pile of turtles or space aliens has to be a supernatural creator, i.e. God or any of his many manifestations (FSM, Allah or the Hindu variety or some other thing). There is no other explanation.


49 posted on 10/18/2005 10:42:03 AM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
MB: You're right there are redundant components in the blood clotting system...

KM: So it's not irreducibly complex?

MB: In the same sense that a rattrap is not, that's correct.

Ouch.

50 posted on 10/18/2005 10:42:26 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

Thanks for fixing my title.


51 posted on 10/18/2005 10:42:40 AM PDT by PatrickHenry (No response to trolls, retards, or lunatics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster

"Behe testified that intelligent design doesn't require a supernatural creator, but an intelligent designer: it does not name the designer."

So, Mr. Behe, who do you think the designer might be?

Well, I don't know. It could be a spaghetti monster, I suppose, or it could be an invisible pink flamingo. Our science is not concerned with the identity of the designer (wink, wink, nod, nod)


52 posted on 10/18/2005 10:45:36 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

Comment #53 Removed by Moderator

To: MEGoody
Then he has to explain who designed the designer Why? Evolution theory doesn't attempt to explain origins.

Evolution theory isn't on trial here. A charlatan psuedo-science called non religious "intelligent design" is on trial.

54 posted on 10/18/2005 10:46:43 AM PDT by shuckmaster (Bring back SeaLion and ModernMan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
There is no other explanation.

AKA "the Turtle of Special Pleading"

55 posted on 10/18/2005 10:48:18 AM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster
You sure seem to be putting a lot of faith into a psuedo-science charlatan.

Behe is hardly a psuedo-science charlatan. If you are placing your faith in an attorney against a well-prepared and intelligent expert witness, you are exercising faith.

56 posted on 10/18/2005 10:51:10 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
" "the Turtle of Special Pleading""

That'll do.

57 posted on 10/18/2005 10:51:56 AM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: shuckmaster; Joe Republc
"I'm not a scientist myself but, you just happen to have a few pretty good evolution explainers on the thread today. Ask one or two of your "hard questions" from Behe and watch them go...

Yes, please, do so.

58 posted on 10/18/2005 10:52:07 AM PDT by b_sharp (All previous taglines have been sacked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: longshadow

Electrician? Behe's an electrician? No wonder he knows diddly about the subject of evilution.


59 posted on 10/18/2005 10:53:53 AM PDT by b_sharp (All previous taglines have been sacked.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

"Behe is hardly a psuedo-science charlatan"

I suggest you look at the whole of Behe's output since he received tenure. That sum adds up to "Pseudo-science charlatan".


60 posted on 10/18/2005 10:53:56 AM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 401 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson