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.
Relevance?
So am I. Got a problem with that?
"When all of these series of fossils, in many different genera are combined, it's clear that speciation did occur through evolution"
Please point me to the data of where this specific assertion was tested and verified. And please spare me a 1,000-line post of links which were cribbed from somewhere else -- as many people on both sides of this issue are wont to do. I would appreciate an answer to this question, and it would resolve alot of the issues in the current debate.
"Your opinion is noted. Also noted is the fact you are an atheist."
Isn't it maddening when someone applies a political or religious motive to pure fruitcakes simply to back their own views?
Jeffery Dahmer was short, so all short people are serial killers. (Exaggeration to enhance point)
More like a very, very few.
The real issue was that the steady state theory was firmly established and people wanted to see firm observational evidence for the universe's expansion.
Not really. I don't believe in atheists.
If we include study of the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching, some Buddhist Sutras, and some philosophy from atheists on the benefits of secular humanism, etc., in a comparative religion class, that would be appropriate. Or do you just want to carve out a special exception for your bible. (The protestant version, no doubt.)
"Please point me to the data of where this specific assertion was tested and verified. And please spare me a 1,000-line post of links which were cribbed from somewhere else -- as many people on both sides of this issue are wont to do. I would appreciate an answer to this question, and it would resolve alot of the issues in the current debate."
I thought students were already taught about the major world religions. And the Bible stands as what it is - a Bible. I think teaching what other religious texts have to say would be a good idea. Our students aren't just ignorant about science - they are ignorant about a lot of subjects, history being a major one.
That's OK, your rejection of evolution is evidence enough you haven't come to grips with reality.
I'm 99% sure that an argument through appeal to popularity is useless. (Yes I did read your previous post.)
evolution is equal to cosmologists, not science
intelligent design is phyics, microbiology, cellular biology, and total lack of scientific stability in any evolutionary debate.
evolution is simply a series of evolutionary "thinking"
But during cross examination Tuesday, when plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild asked Behe to identify those mechanisms, he couldn't.
There you have it. Under oath, Behe has said that after spending 10's of millions of dollars, the one thing that ID is focused on has yet to deliver ONE SINGLE result. Zilch.
Wonder when the fraud lawsuits start?
I thought students were already taught about the major world religions. And the Bible stands as what it is - a Bible. I think teaching what other religious texts have to say would be a good idea. Our students aren't just ignorant about science - they are ignorant about a lot of subjects, history being a major one.
And your solution is to further deteriorate standards by teaching religion and calling it "science"?
"If we include study of the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, Tao Te Ching, some Buddhist Sutras, and some philosophy from atheists on the benefits of secular humanism, etc., in a comparative religion class, that would be appropriate. Or do you just want to carve out a special exception for your bible. (The protestant version, no doubt.)"
Let's see - those in the Middle East study the Koran, Chinese study Tao Te Ching, India studies Sutras, atheists study nothing. This is the US of A, so we study the Bible.
LMAO!! I didn't realize that the existence of atheism was a matter of opinion...
And your rejection of God indicates the same.
There were a few Deists in there as well, and were a significant driving force behind explicitly wanting a separation of church and state. Christians don't seem to like to remember that.
By Amy Worden
Inquirer Staff Writer
HARRISBURG - An attorney representing parents suing a Pennsylvania school district over the teaching of intelligent design raised contradictions yesterday in the arguments presented by one of the concept's leading advocates.
In his second day of testimony in federal court, Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University, said that intelligent design does not rule out Darwin's theory of common descent, which states that all organisms descend from common biological ancestors.
Behe also said intelligent design does not maintain that life began abruptly, and does not specify God as the unidentified designer.
But plaintiffs' attorney Eric Rothschild produced documents, including Behe's own writings, that suggested otherwise.
Among the documents Rothschild highlighted in a PowerPoint presentation was an article in which Behe wrote that intelligent design is "much less plausible for those that deny God's existence."
Rothschild also showed a section of the intelligent design book Of Pandas and People, in which Behe contributed a chapter and was listed as a "critical reviewer," stating that intelligent design means life forms "began abruptly."
Behe said under questioning that he did not agree with that definition of intelligent design.
Behe, who defines intelligent design as "the purposeful arrangement of parts," defended the concept as a "well-substantiated theory" that seeks to explain gaps in Darwin's theory of evolution.
"The concern of intelligent design is to examine the empirical, physical and natural world," he said. "It is no more religious than the big bang theory [of the origin of the universe] is religious. Both rely on observed evidence."
Behe is testifying in a lawsuit brought by 11 parents in the Dover Area School District last year after a policy approved last year required high school biology teachers to read a statement offering intelligent design as "an alternative" to Darwin's theory of evolution and recommending Of Pandas and People as a textbook.
The parents want to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, saying the concept violates the constitutional separation of church and state because it promotes Bible-based creationism.
Testimony in the trial is expected to continue for two weeks.
During cross-examination, Rothschild, of the law firm Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, produced documents indicating that intelligent design is rejected by the majority of scientific groups - as well as the biology faculty at Behe's own university.
Behe acknowledged that no articles defending intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He accused scientific organizations, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science - the nation's largest scientific group - of being politically motivated in their denouncement of intelligent design.
"It was a political statement," Behe of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's declaration. "They are very hostile to the idea of intelligent design."
Behe repeatedly compared intelligent design to the big bang theory, saying the big bang was rejected by mainstream scientists for decades before being accepted.
"Intelligent design is in the same category as the big bang," which took 30 years to become widely accepted by scientists, he said.
My comment. He's wrong about the Big Bang, which was widely (though not universally) accepted within 7 years of its formulation. And it looks like he's been made to contradict himself. On the stand, that's deadly. The judge can't possibly evaluate the science, but he can usually determine when someone said two directly opposite things.
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.