I provided evidence in my post, where I stated that “I defend this assertion by saying that the universe is too complex to simply be by itself. It needs support, and that support can be found on the back of a turtle.”
Sound weak? It should be.
Yes, I have read the transcripts of Dr. Behe’s testimony. I have previously linked to them, most recently in my post 127.
It’s informally called the Dover case. I’ve consistently referred to it as Kitzmiller. But, these are minor points.
I read most of Behe’s testimony, and I was very impressed by it. Evolutionists talk a lot about “quote mining” and taking things out of context, but that is precisely what they did to Behe here. Apparently evolutionists couldn’t address Behe’s main points directly, so instead they distorted his testimony and diverted attention to secondary points such as who reviewed his book.
A wonderful example of “each to his own.” I read Dr. Michael Behe’s testimony, and I was very impressed by the skillful questioning of Mr. Rothschild. (In fact, very as an adverb does not do justice to how impressed I was.)
Although you view it as a secondary point, the reviewing of Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, sheds further light on how Behe’s understanding of scientific words and phrases differ markedly from the accepted definitions.
Behe claims that Darwin’s Black Box was rigorously peer-reviewed by five reviewers. Yet, one of those five, Dr. Michael Atchinson, stated that his “review” consisted of a ten-minute over-the-phone gloss of the book’s material. He never saw the text. That would not constitute a “peer-review” in a scholarly journal. Behe should not have included Atchinson as one of the five.
In addition, Judge Jones wrote in his opinion that “We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.” Behe’s major points were, in fact, addressed.
What Behe said is that the word “theory” can have different shades of meaning in everyday life depending on the context. That is absolutely true. People who use that word do not always have the rigorous scientific definition in mind.
He is absolutely correct. Everything you have said is correct. I ask only that you remember the ruling, namely, “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.”
As for astrology being a “scientific theory,” evolutionists have really distorted that one. What Behe said, if I recall correctly, is that, in a loose sense of the word, astrology could have been considered a scientific theory in its time, and indeed it was. Behe certainly did not say that it was a *correct* theory or that he thought it had any merit. You see, a “theory” can be dead wrong and still be a “theory.”
You’ve mostly remembered correctly, but you have made one minor but very important mistake. It was not a “loose sense of the word.” It was Behe’s own definition.
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. There’s no question that it happens. The question is, “How does it happen?” A theory attempts to answer that question.
Hey, I agree with you that Behe looked bad on the business of the reviews of his book. I’m not sure what to make of it, but I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it was just carelessness on his part. He may have left the review process in the hands of the publisher and assumed that they did a better job than they actually did.
What you need to understand is that the peer review process is not always absolutely rigorous. In engineering, research papers usually get three reviews, and sometimes the reviewers are not intimately familiar with the exact micro-topic addressed in the paper. Also, sometimes the mathematics is too difficult for some of the reviewers to follow in detail. Think you know mathematics? Try reading a few papers in the IEEE Transactions and see if you can follow the mathematics in detail.
The other thing that sometimes happens is that a particular journal has a group of “insiders” who scratch each other’s backs. So you give me a favorable review, and I’ll return the favor. Yes, reviews are supposed to be anonymous, but the reviewer can always violate the anonymity by simply telling the author.
And the most important thing to understand is that certain taboo topics are often simply prohibited by the review process. ID is one, for example. The powers that be in much of the scientific community has simply decided that ID is off limits, and it cannot get past the review process. If a particular reviewer signs off on it, the editor rejects it. And there is a strong feedback effect: if reviewers know they will be “punished” for accepting claims of ID, most will refuse to do so. Ditto for editors. How could a reviewer be punished? By making it harder to get his own papers published.
The bottom line is that peer review, while it may be the only alternative, is far from foolproof.
But this should hardly be surprising here on FR. After all, imagine trying to get a paper advocating school vouchers published in some Leftist sociology, education, or political science journal. It won’t happen.
quote:
Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. There’s no question that it happens. The question is, “How does it happen?” A theory attempts to answer that question.
My reply:
Although perhaps unintentionally, you are engaging in classic equivocation. Yes, evolution is a theory. And yes, evolution is a fact too — but not with the same definition of the word “evolution.”
On the one hand, the word “evolution” can simply mean change over time, which absolutely *nobody* denies. On the other hand, the word “evolution” can be used to refer to purely naturalistic, unguided evolution from inanimate matter (or alternatively, from the first living cell) to human beings. If you think that is an established “fact,” you are extremely confused.
By the way, these truths have been pointed out many, many times in many ways right here on FR, but evolutionists never seem to remember.
Another mole whacked. How long before it pops up again? And bets?
quote:
I provided evidence in my post, where I stated that “I defend this assertion by saying that the universe is too complex to simply be by itself. It needs support, and that support can be found on the back of a turtle.”
my reply:
And what does complexity have to do with the back of a turtle? Please explain that to me.
I think what you are demonstrating here is your own lack of understanding of the concept of “evidence.” Check back when you learn what it means.
By the way, forensic *scientists* routinely check for evidence to determine, for example, whether a death was “intelligently designed” or was an accident. And what is their field of study called? Forensic *science*. Get it?
And trust me: it has nothing with turtles. Well, maybe in some bizzare case ...