The defendants' list is pretty impressive.
Read Behe's book. Will be pretty hard for the plaintiffs' to dispute his testimony.
Behe's "irreducible complexity" argument is fatally flawed. Ichneumon's post 35.
Irreducible Complexity Demystified. Major debunking of ID.
The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of "Irreducible Complexity," Kenneth R. Miller. Critique of Behe.
Behe's book has been pretty thoroughly rebutted. In fact, all of his 'irreducibly complex' examples have been shown not to be irreducibly complex by his own definition. Ken Miller, on the plaintiff's list, has done a nice job on this.
Also, based on some things he's written recently, I suspect Behe may be wavering. In a recent interview, he referred to some of Lenski's work on in vitro speciation in microbes as a 'compelling' argument for standard evolution, if it turns out to be true. Lenski's result is embargoed prior to publication, but I understand it's big.
Behe's book has been pretty thoroughly rebutted. In fact, all of his 'irreducibly complex' examples have been shown not to be irreducibly complex by his own definition. Ken Miller, on the plaintiff's list, has done a nice job on this.
Also, based on some things he's written recently, I suspect Behe may be wavering. In a recent interview, he referred to some of Lenski's work on in vitro speciation in microbes as a 'compelling' argument for standard evolution, if it turns out to be true. Lenski's result is embargoed prior to publication, but I understand it's big.
Behe's book has been pretty thoroughly rebutted. In fact, all of his 'irreducibly complex' examples have been shown not to be irreducibly complex by his own definition. Ken Miller, on the plaintiff's list, has done a nice job on this.
Also, based on some things he's written recently, I suspect Behe may be wavering. In a recent interview, he referred to some of Lenski's work on in vitro speciation in microbes as a 'compelling' argument for standard evolution, if it turns out to be true. Lenski's result is embargoed prior to publication, but I understand it's big.
Read Behe's book. Will be pretty hard for the plaintiffs' to dispute his testimony.
As someone else already pointed out, this case isn't really about intelligent design versus evolution. Behe's testimony is ultimately irrelevant. This case will be decided on the three prongs of the Lemon v. Kurtzman test. If you take the time to look over the pleadings that are posted on the district court website, you'll realize that the "purpose" prong is already lost for the Dover School Board, one of whom went on record making several remarks clearly indicating that the purpose of introducing their "intelligent design policy" was religious in nature.
I'd be willing to place a very large wager on the outcome of this trial going in favor of the plaintiffs.