Posted on 08/17/2006 11:04:51 AM PDT by publius1
Posting dense, obtuse and voluminous torts is not an answer to any but judges with too much time on their hands.
Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community. (21:37-38 (Behe); Fuller Dep. at 98-101, June 21, 2005; 28:47 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 89, May 26, 2005). P. 70Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 76 of 13975 By defining irreducible complexity in the way that he has, Professor Behe attempts to exclude the phenomenon of exaptation by definitional fiat, ignoring as he does so abundant evidence which refutes his argument. Notably, the NAS has rejected Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity by using the following cogent reasoning:
[S]tructures and processes that are claimed to be 'irreducibly' complex typically are not on closer inspection. For example, it is incorrect to assume that a complex structure or biochemical process can function only if all its components are present and functioning as we see them today. Complex biochemical systems can be built up from simpler systems through natural selection. Thus, the 'history' of a protein can be traced through simpler organisms . . . The evolution of complex molecular systems can occur in several ways. Natural selection can bring together parts of a system for one function at one time and then, at a later time, recombine those parts with other systems of components to produce a system that has a different function. Genes can be duplicated, altered, and then amplified through natural selection. The complex biochemical cascade resulting in blood clotting has been explained in this fashion. P-192 at 22.As irreducible complexity is only a negative argument against evolution, it is refutable and accordingly testable, unlike ID, by showing that there are intermediate structures with selectable functions that could have evolved into the allegedly irreducibly complex systems. (2:15-16 (Miller)). Importantly, however, the fact that the negative argument of irreducible complexity is testable does not make testable the argument for ID. (2:15 (Miller); 5:39 (Pennock)). Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
And lastly we have the judge's observations of these real gems from Behe's testimony:
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,Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 89 of 139
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
Source: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al..
In view of Behe's stunning performance on the witness stand, one is moved to opine that a wooden dummy couldn't have done any worse.
Formidable intellect, indeed.
What was the point of posting this?
If you have questions about evolution, freepmail a fella with the handle "Patrick Henry" and he will add you to the evolution pinglist.
Or check out his Freep-page. There are lots of helpful links posted there.
Why don't you wait for the persecution before keening over it.
Reread that sentence.
No, it isn't.
The fact of creation is according to the Word of The Creator.
Moses wrote the NT. You believe he was told what to write by God. THAT is religious dogma. That is your faith, not evidence.
Speaking of that, why should he "evolve" man when he knew what the finished product would be like before he ever created a lizard?
Why shouldn't he? You seem to think God wouldn't work that way.
Evolution doesn't mean that God wouldn't know what he would create.
People who usually post on science threads aren't afraid to read.
Dense and obtuse? You have to be kidding.
This is a biologist? Where did you get that?
(I couldn't read the whole screed, it was ridiculous.)
He's an ecologist. Ick.
What is the difference? Anti-evos use the terms interchangeably.
O horrible man! What about the feelings of those who disagree with you? I accuse your theory -- and thus people like you -- of being like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc. You can't be a conservative. Go back to DU! I'm hitting the abuse button. WAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! You will learn the truth, but it will be too late. And I will laugh! As for your feelings, I don't care. Only my feelings are important.
</END LUDDITE RANT>
The article was SPOT ON IMHO.
I hope she's got the sense to realize her error, publicly recants this unfortunate episode of Luddism, and recovers her reputation. She was too valuable to conservatism to go out in a blaze of silliness.
Ann -- I know you're lurking! -- I haven't given up on you. But this latest book is an embarrassment.
Thank you.
Well that clears up everything, now doesn't it? :^)
He does seem pretty exercised about Ann's brief, however. Jeepers, you'd think that the "central paradigm of biology" ought to be fairly bullet-proof, impervious to Ann's little slings and arrows. But I suspect folks like Coyne must have their own doubts about it; otherwise, why get down in the gutter and attack people who make astute objections and draw reasonable associations between neo-Darwinist theory and the devolution of Western culture?
Name calling doth not a reasonable argument make.
Many here seem somewhat exercised by the style of Coyne's writing, and perhaps rightly so.
Reading the review it is absolutely obviously a pastiche of Coulter's own style, and rather well done, in my honest opinion; replete with stylish ad hominem just like La Coulter's work. Great, if you like that kind of thing, and I would have expected the Coulter worshippers to lap it up. ;)
Two wrongs don't make a right however.
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.