Posted on 10/19/2005 5:10:52 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
One of intelligent design's leading experts could not identify the driving force behind the concept.
In his writings supporting intelligent design, Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author of "Darwin's Black Box," said that "intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on proposed mechanisms of how complex biological structures arose."
But during cross examination Tuesday, when plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild asked Behe to identify those mechanisms, he couldn't.
When pressed, Behe said intelligent design does not propose a step-by-step mechanism, but one can still infer intelligent cause was involved by the "purposeful arrangement of parts."
Behe is the leading expert in the Dover Area School District's defense of its biology curriculum, which requires students to be made aware of intelligent design.
The First Amendment trial in U.S. Middle District Court is the first legal challenge to the inclusion of intelligent design in science class. At issue is whether it belongs in public school along with evolutionary theory.
In his work, "On the Origin of Species," Charles Darwin identified natural selection as the force driving evolutionary change in living organisms.
But Behe argued that natural selection alone cannot account for the complexity of life.
After Behe could not identify intelligent design's mechanism for change, Rothschild asked him if intelligent design then isn't just a negative argument against natural selection.
Behe disagreed, reiterating his statement that intelligent design is the purposeful arrangement of parts.
The bulk of Behe's testimony Monday and Tuesday had been on his concept of "irreducible complexity," the idea that in order for many organisms to evolve at the cellular level, multiple systems would have had to arise simultaneously. In many cases, he said, this is a mathematical impossibility.
He compared intelligent design to the Big Bang theory, in that when it was first proposed, some scientists dismissed it for its potential implications that God triggered the explosion.
He also said he is aware that the Big Bang theory was eventually accepted and has been peer-reviewed in scientific journals, and that intelligent design has been panned as revamped creationism by almost every mainstream scientific organization.
Rothschild asked Behe if he was aware that the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science both oppose its teaching in public school science classes, and even that Behe's colleagues have taken a position against it.
Behe knew of the academies' positions and said they misunderstand and mischaracterize intelligent design.
Behe also said he was aware that Lehigh University's Department of Biology faculty has posted a statement on its Web site that says, "While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific."
Earlier in the day, Behe had said under direct testimony that a creationist doesn't need any physical evidence to understand life's origins.
So creationism is "vastly 180 degrees different from intelligent design," he said.
Still, Behe said he believes that the intelligent designer is God.
In his article, "A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box," Behe wrote that intelligent design is "less plausible to those for whom God's existence is in question and is much less plausible for those who deny God's existence."
After referring to the article, Rothschild asked, "That's a God-friendly theory, Mr. Behe. Isn't it?"
Behe argued he was speaking from a philosophical view, much as Oxford University scientist Richard Dawkins was when he said Darwin's theory made it possible to be "an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
"Arguing from the scientific data only takes you so far," Behe said.
I hadn't realized it, but the Discovery Institute is blogging the trial. Their site is unresponsive as I post this. That's where you go if you want to see the ID-creationists' side of things.
Wikipedia has an article which grows every day: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
|
Well, you wouldn't want facts or data to stand in the way of one's beliefs.
Wow, his own university disowned his work. I didn't know that.
placemarker
I think the only thing the defense needs to do is to establish the fact that broaching the subject of ID [which is all Dover did] serves a secular purpose via the Lemon Law. Which, insofar as ID representing just an alternative to the received wisdom of Darwin, does. If ID supplanted Darwin, it would be a different issue.
The problem for the plaintiffs [ACLU et al] is going to be in establishing ID as a religion or religious instruction. The only way they can do that is by mischaracterizing ID as religion, when all ID really is, is an attempt to use some garden variety tools of science [probability and information sciences for ex.] to see if design in biology is real, in the sense that it is indicative of a prior intelligence; or, whether design just apparent in the sense that things only appear to be designed.
Look for the ACLU lawyers to try and get Behe to mention GOD as much as possible.
It’s all they have, really. And if the defense can keep ID from being mischaracterized as warmed-over biblical creationism, then ID is going to be immune from ‘the establishment argument’ and the issue will be decided on the local level by local school boards…where such issues should always be decided.
Omar.
I bet it's tough to teach a science when you can't identify its mechanisms...
We can teach students homosexuality is perfectly normal but we can't let them know that maybe Darwin was wrong. Sex education is good - ID is bad. I am so thankful my children are out of school now. For all of those who homeschool, know you are doing the right thing.
No university is gonna go against Darwin just as very few scientists are willing to risk their funding by stating that maybe, just maybe Darwin is wrong. Thank goodness for homeschooling.
And no matter how hard they try to stuff Darwinism down students' throats, the vast majority still won't buy it. I think all this grandstanding on both sides is a great waste of time and money. Most of us know God created the heavens and earth and all that is in them.
Aside from Behe, the only person I see grandstanding in this thread so far is you..
And we are going to run out of oil by 2000 and global warming is going to destroy New Jersey, and the oil fires from Gulf War I are going to cause a global freezing etc.
And gender differences are not significant.
And that all life can be explained by random mutations and natural selection.
All that is good, accepted science-- at least OK for our public schools.
And a pleasant good morning to you, too. Should be a fun day with this.
Look at his publication track record before and after being granted tenure.
I don't know about the grandstanding part, but yes, most of us know Who Created everything.
But that's actually irrelevant since science is not a democratic institution; but rather, one that follows the evidence regardless of where it leads.
At the End of the Day, that's the real issue here.
Omar.
And a very fine morning to you! Now that Tribune7 is here you can grandstand with the best of them. :)
I thought the real issue was to make students believe that Darwin was right. But most students are bright enough to make their own decisions as to what to believe. Learn what will be on the test, then believe as they wish. You can lead a horse to water...
Why are you surprised? The universities are populated and run by liberal professors who hate even the idea of God and who have a vested interest in promoting the idea of godless evolution over God centered intelligent design.
The quintessence of ID. (It lacks the other four, too.)
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.