Replies

Ooops. My mistake; I forgot to include the EMPHASIS in my earlier quote, so that the clueless can see that ID is a complete joke as far as its proponents attempt to promote it as science. Let's see, I think I can fix that:

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"(22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum. Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science. Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 90 of 139

[emphasis added for those whose heads are stuck in the sand.]

That's much better

And lastly for those few who aren't willing to believe the court's characterization of the Dover plaintiffs' expert witness testimony, we just have to get it from the horse's mouth:

Behe Cross-X Day 12 http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf
p22 line 25 Q. "And in fact there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?"
A. [Plaintiff's expert witness, Prof. Behe]: "That is correct, yes."

[emphasis added to aid the few who are still too addled to understand that one of ID's greatest promoters just admitted under oath that ID advocates haven't produced a single article in peer-reviewed journal supporting their claims that any biological system was intelligently design.]

Yup, it sure looks like it's ID, and not Darwin's theory, which is head for the dump.