A test nobody wants to take [more ross exam, Dover Evolution trial, 20 October]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 20 October 2005 | MICHELLE STARR

[Doctor Stochastic]

Science is about predicting the future.
Even statics is a prediction about stability of structures.

And statistics is a prediction about the stability of randomly generated events.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Versace is Dead

[Doctor Stochastic]

Newton's Theory enables us to calculate where the stars will be in thousand years.

More or less accurately where. General Relativity allows a more accurate where. (Both the Newton and Einstein version are equally precise; Einstein's is more accurate.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

On first reading, it looks like Rothschild made Behe contradict himself on several occasions, and otherwise look like a complete idiot.

I attended a presentation given by Behe. He accomplished the same thing without a lawyer guiding him.

[connectthedots]

On first reading, it looks like Rothschild made Behe contradict himself on several occasions, and otherwise look like a complete idiot. Devastating.

I read the entire cross examination. the thing that stood out is how many times rothschild tried to twist Behe's words and miscontrued his writings. Behe was right on top of those attempts and did not let Rothschold get away with it.

I thought Behe did remarkably well.

[PatrickHenry]

Versace is Dead

An example of what Behe said may be true of the Intelligent Designer.

[Right Wing Professor]

From the Panda's Thumb, this morning

“Is there a distinction to be made between science and science fiction?” Eric Rothschild asked Michael Behe. “Yes,” responded Behe. “I have no further questions,” said Rothschild. And with those words (or ones quite similar — we’ll get precision with the transcript release), Eric Rothschild laid to rest the remains of Behe’s scientific credibility. Preceding that, there was a day full of cross examination, in which one would learn that Behe wasn’t as familiar with the scientific literature on the immune system as one might hope for someone billed as an “expert”, that rigorous peer review in “intelligent design” can be obtained in a ten-minute telephone interview — without the reviewer even having to see the manuscript, that the blood-clotting system can be reduced to a “core” of four parts — except that when one does so the result is claimed to be lethal, and much more. Why did the cross-examination of Behe sound so much like the lawyers were reading from the TalkDesign web site? Well, at least part of that would be due to the advice that the plaintiffs’ lawyers received from NCSE Public Information Director Nicholas Matzke, aka “Nic Tamzek” from the early TalkDesign days and regular PT contributor. By almost all accounts*, the TalkDesign material on various issues concerning Behe’s “irreducible complexity” was put to good use. Expect a more complete eulogy for Behe’s scientific career — and a post-mortem, as it were, of the terminal handling it received on Tuesday and Wednesday — to be posted here later, after we have the transcripts in hand.

What has to be considered for the future is whether the on-the-stand demolition of Behe will influence the remainder of the slate of TMLC experts. They had a pretty high withdrawal rate pre-trial, and now that the preparation of the plaintiffs’ legal team has been shown, vividly, will all the rest of TMLC’s scheduled experts actually show up for a big helping of what Behe had?

* As one might expect, the DI thinks Behe weathered cross-examination without any trouble whatsoever, but when one’s reports are apparently filed from Cloud Cuckoo Land, I think that we are permitted to “consider the source”.

[PatrickHenry]

Good post. As I read the first part of Behe's cross examination, it was obvious that the plaintiff's lawyer had considerable input from some serious veterans of the crevo debates. Behe wasn't expecting anything like that. He got put through the grinder. He ended up saying that he disagreed with stuff in Pandas, he didn't know diddly about "mechanisms" of ID (although he'd been quoted as saying that ID focuses on mechanisms), etc. It usually takes only one or two significant contradictions to demolish the credibility of a witness, and in this case, with one serious contradiction and Clintonian evasion after another, I don't think there's much left of Behe.

[theDentist]

"This is not the first time creationists have tried to get scientists to do their work for them," Scott said.

Well, if the creationists do it themselves, scientists will say it proves nothing because it wasn't done by scientists under strict guidelines and monitoring. And if it were, they'd say it only proves how that bacteria reacts, but not all of the animal kingdom.

Either way, it seems both sides have doubts about their own positions.

[webstersII]

"Google "ring species." There are multiple observed examples of this."

Lots of info on this. Very interesting.

But this is another example of verification by observation of existing species. I was looking for some verification of this while under observation, i.e., a test which could be repeated and verified multiple times.

[connectthedots]

As one might expect, the DI thinks Behe weathered cross-examination without any trouble whatsoever, but when one’s reports are apparently filed from Cloud Cuckoo Land, I think that we are permitted to “consider the source”.

Panda's thumb is and unbiased source?

Behe did well in the fist day cross examination. Look forward to reading the remainder of it.

[GOPPachyderm]

"What that tells us is that, in all too many cases, it's not ignorance at all. At best, it's willful ignorance, and at worst it's knowingly spreading falsehoods."

Ala Piltdown man, Java man, Nebraska man you mean?

[ConservativeBamaFan]

Don't forget Plaster of Paris man.

[GOPPachyderm]

And Haeckel's drawings!

[AdmSmith]

I repost it here

Behe ... describes intelligent design as a fully testable, falsifiable scientific theory.

OK take these examples. Was it designed by an intelligent designer?

1. The vertebrate eye, with its "complexity" contains a basic flaw: The nerves and blood vessels of vertebrate eyes lie between the photosensitive cells and the light source, a design that no engineer would recommend, as it obscures the passage of photons into the photosensitive cells. Long ago, vertebrate ancestors had simple, cup-shaped eyes that were probably originally used only to detect light, not to resolve fine images. Those simple eyes developed as an out-pocket of the brain, and the position of their tissue layers determined where the nerves and blood vessels lay in relation to the photosesitive cells. If the layers had not maintained their correct positions, relative to one another, then the mechanism that control differentiation, in which an inducing substance produced in one layer diffuses into the neighboring layer, would not work. Once such a developmental mechanism evolved, it could not be changed without destroying sight in the intermediate forms that would have to be passed through on the way to a more "intelligent designed" eye.

2. Another example from the eye: the blind spot.

3. In the adult, cold-blooded ancestors of mammals, and in present-day mammalian embryos, the testicles are located in the body cavity, near the kidneys, like ovaries in adult females. Because mammalian sperm develop better at temperatures lower than those found in the body core, there was a selection, during the evolutionary transition from cold- to warm-bloodedness, to move the testicles out of the high temperature body core into the lower-temperaure periphery and eventually into the scrotum. This evolutionary progression in the adults is replayed in the developmental progression of the testes from the embryo to adult, and as they move from the body cavity towards the scrotum, they wrap the vas deferens around the ureters, like a person watering the lawn and gets the hose caught on a tree. If it was not for the constraints of history ond development, a much shorter vas deferens would have evolved, costing less to produce and probably doing a better job.

So, how many bad designs do we need in order to show that there was no intelligent designer, or did the designer had a bad day?

[PatrickHenry]

So, how many bad designs do we need in order to show that there was no intelligent designer, or did the designer had a bad day?

Bad day? Considering that 90% of all species are now extinct, it's fair to conclude that the designer had a bad billion years.

[AdmSmith]

LOL!

[forsnax5]

I was looking for some verification of this while under observation, i.e., a test which could be repeated and verified multiple times.

Such at test would simply be selective breeding, which has been practiced by humans for thousands of years.

[ConservativeBamaFan]

Read 10 Major Flaws in Evolution here.
(still won't be enough for some people)

[bobdsmith]

All 10 of those points are totally and utterly incorrect. Many of the explainations contain infactual data.