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.
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?
If evolution is ruled out (huge "if," but for the sake of argument let's just pretend for the moment that all the evidence supporting evolution magically disappears), then there's still no evidence for ID. As such, ID is still not the "best best explanation".
No explanation totally devoid of supporting evidence could ever seriously be considered the "best best explanation" for describing the natural world. If that's ever the best we have, then we're back at square one.
And that's where the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes in - there's as much evidence for FSM as there is for ID. Taking evolution out of the equation, why should we take ID any more seriously than we take the FSM?
Yes it is. Really.
"If evolution is ruled out", ID would the best best explanation absent other alternative explanations.
No it wouldn't. It would be one of many. In order to be the "best best" (?) explanation, it would have to have some actual positive evidence supporting it. And it doesn't.
Do you know of alternatives to evolution, besides ID?
I can think of dozens, if I'm allowed the same groundrules as ID -- that is, the alternative need be only conceptually possible, but not supported by the evidence at this time.
But even if I couldn't, that *still* wouldn't make ID the "winning' explanation by default. Lacking any positive evidence supporting ID, it would not "win" if evolution were to be found to be fundamentally flawed (and good luck with *that* one), because it would remain on par with the equally good alternative of "we don't know", which explains exactly as much as "ID" does -- nothing.
For a complete analysis of this (more rigorous than it really needs to be, but it doesn't hurt to be thorough), see: The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance
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.
Same argument, different name.
[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.
What, you didn't read the article at the top of this thread?
The real issue is that if the evidence undermines evolutionary biology, it casts doubt on the truth of evolutionary biology.
And yet, that's not that the ID folks claim that they're actually doing. And they have yet to actually come up with anything that "undermines 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.
Since Behe makes elementary errors, it's easy to demonstrate that he is, indeed, in error.
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'.
First, why do you think that that has anything to do with the ease with which Behe's errors can be demonstrated? Second, you're misunderstanding the earlier testimony. Evolutionary biology *is* both a fact *and* a theory. There are "fact" parts and there are "non-fact" parts to it.
Not going to say the defendants are going to win, because you never know what a judge will decide, regardless what the evidence says.
True, I'll agree with you on that one.
The statement of the Dover school board was carefully crafted
...to be misleading...
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.
How disingenuous of you. It doesn't say that there are "other opinions", plural, as if there are many alternative possibilities, the ONLY alternative it mentions is "ID": "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.", and then points students towards a specific ID book.
I am fairly certain that I've explained this to you before, but as tabula rasa appears to have struck again...
ID must stand or fall as a scientific theory on its own merits. Science knows of no such thing as a default explanation to be fallen back on once other explanations have been disproved. Therefore ID must explain the existing data concerning the history of life on earth (all of it that we have, such as the retroviral evidence, not just cherry-picked fragments), make testable predictions about what we are likely to find in the future, and be subject to being falsified by hypothetical observations. No-one has ever explained how ID can do this (to me anyway).
Ah, but the defense admits it is a fact.
My book concentrates entirely on Darwin's mechanism, and simply takes for granted common descent. Behe