Behe backs off 'mechanisms' [Cross exam in Dover Evolution trial, 19 October]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 19 October 2005 | LAURI LEBO

[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.

[mlc9852]

Just like the existence of God. Some believe, some don't.

[MineralMan]

"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."

---

Some schools do teach classes in comparative religions, but it is not the norm.

The Bible, eh? Which translation would you recommend. I've read the whole thing in the King James Version, Revised Standard Version, and the New International Version. I haven't read any of the other dozens of translations, yet, I'm afraid. Perhaps the Roman Catholic Bible, which includes books not in the Protestant translations?

Which one do you think should be read in public schools? Should students be assigned to read the entire thing, cover to cover? If not, what would be your list of excerpts to be assigned to students for reading?

And how about the Book of Mormon? That's a pretty popular scripture here in the USA, especially in some regions. Should that be assigned, as well? The Christian Science folks have some other books, as well, that they find very important. Shall we assign Science and the Key to the Scriptures to students?

There are lots of Buddhist scriptures, too. The Quran is another widely accepted scripture in this country. Perhaps we should add some of the Hindu scriptures, while we're at it. There are dozens of them.

Or, how about this? Parents can decide which religion they wish to teach their children. They can teach it themselves or allow their congregation to teach it to them in church school.

Just think about it. Your children won't be polluted by reading false translations or scriptures, and their teaching will correspond with your beliefs. You won't have some Roman Catholic teacher telling them that the wafer actually turns into the body of Christ. You won't have to let them listen to strange teachings or prayers.

If you teach your own children in the faith you accept, you teach them correctly, in your belief. If others teach them, then they may learn something different from your doctrine.

Let's make public school a place where religious differences are not an issue. How do we do that? We leave religion out of secular education and leave it up to parents and religious leaders.

[b_sharp]

"So which side of the 50 percentile do you fall in?"

"That's irrelevant to the issue. I'll just let you decide."

My IQ is 87.4653987828763 and I do phine.

[Right Wing Professor]

And your rejection of God indicates the same.

That's like saying I reject the 5 point conversion in football.

[Right Wing Professor]

And your rejection of God indicates the same.

That's like saying I reject the 5 point conversion in football.

[WildHorseCrash]

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.

Well, your analogy fails because the United States is simply not a Christian country, except in the fevered imaginings of some ignorant, small-minded Christians trying to impose theocracy on everyone. (You know, the "domestic" part of "all enemies, foreign and domestic.") The United States is thankfully neutral on the subject.

[Heyworth]

I went to school in the 1950's, and there was never a mention of any religious teachings in my schools.

I attended elementary school in Ohio and can remember my 2nd grade teacher reading us Bible stories--Joseph, Moses, etc.. This would have been 1968 or so.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

This country was founded by Christians whether you like it or not. Knowledge of the Bible should be part of any good curriculum.

As long as we're stuck with government schools, I agree with you. But why eliminate science class? Just add a Bible elective. Or better, add Old Testament and New Testament.

These groups are spending a lot of time and money attacking the sciences when they could be advocating something that 75% of Americans already agree with.

[WildHorseCrash]

Just like the existence of God. Some believe, some don't.

LOL Not at all. The equivalent statement would be "I don't believe in Buddhists." It isn't making some grand pronouncement about whether or not there's an invisible man floating in the sky. You were just being purposefully ignorant or trying to pick a fight.

[webstersII]

"I am not here to teach you graduate level paelontology. The information exists, both in texts and on the web. "

Observations in paleontology are not a verifiable, repeatable test. It is absurd for you to posit that it is.

Which was exactly my point. The standards for testability are different for the ToE.

[b_sharp]

"It's legal for students to learn to think for themselves, isn't it? Or not when it comes to evolution? And our state has no law stating Darwin is the only theory which can be taught. And I wouldn't be surprised if it happens in many high school biology classes across the country. Hurry, call the ACLU!"

Are you saying we should teach a non-science in a science class?

[Right Wing Professor]

Observations in paleontology are not a verifiable, repeatable test.

So if I go find a tract of Devonian limestone, say in a newly dug quarry, and examine the fossils, I will not be able to verify them against previous observations of fossilized organisms in Devonian limestone, or repeat the observation of previously observed species?

[MineralMan]

"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.
"

Yes, this is the US of A. Let's have a look at what we study here. I live in the Minneapolis/Saint Paul area. Looking at the Yellow Pages, under Churches, I find:

Christian Churches of all denominations
Three versions of Buddhism have temples here
Jewish Synagogues
Interdenominational Churches
Nondenominational Churches
A Baha'i Temple
A Swedenborgian Church (I have to visit that one)
A Chinese Taoist center
Three Islamic Mosques
A Hmong Nativism Center
Two Hindu Centers
A Jain Association Center


How's that? Right here in the US of A. Each of these places study the scriptures of their faith. Their members are citizens of this country. There are more, but I didn't look beyond the "church" listings.

They're Americans. They study what they study. Their children are being taught the religion of their parents. Is that not how it should be? Are you truly suggesting that children whose parents are non-Christian should be taught Christianity in the public schools?

I'm sorry, but your limited view of what this country is is blinding you to the variety of religious beliefs in this country. That will not change. It is not the business of the government in this country to recommend or teach religion to children in public school. That is the job of parents and religious leaders.

[mlc9852]

Why do you think science should be eliminated? Science is much more than just evolution.

[b_sharp]

"Well, that's true. Distribution of intelligence, however, pretty much follows a bell curve, so the median and the average are pretty darned close, at least based on the research I've read."

The right tail is much longer than the left, and many of the left tail people are not in open society. They are generally protected and isolated.

[mlc9852]

What exactly is your definition of theocracy? How is reading the Bible in school a theocracy? I think you may be overreacting just a bit. Of course, God does tend to scare atheists, I'm just not sure why.

[webstersII]

Your observations are repeatable, I don't doubt that.

But whether you can without a doubt say that two fossils had a common ancestor cannot be concluded by observation of the fossils. You would be drawing conclusions without sufficient evidence because you weren't there to observe it.

I understand speciation has been observed in the lab and is verifiable on a biological level with bacteria, for example. Based on these concepts, the ToE may or may not be what caused man to develop into what he is today, but my observation is that many conclusions which have been made by people on these threads about lines of ancestry and such are just ideas, IOW, they are best guesses. These can't properly be stated with the authority with which many people state them -- unless they observed them taking place or they can verify them again in a lab.

It's like the origin of the universe -- no one was there to witness it, so no one can say with absolute certainty what happened.

[b_sharp]

"Also noted is the fact you are an atheist.

"So am I. Got a problem with that?"

As am I.

[MineralMan]

"The right tail is much longer than the left, and many of the left tail people are not in open society. They are generally protected and isolated."

---

Hmm...well a guy might say that the folks on the right tail are generally protected and isolated, too. That's what our universities are for, I'm pretty sure. [grin]

[mlc9852]

I seriously don't believe in atheists. I believe all humans have a spiritual component that seeks God. Of course some people are able to block their spiritual drive and curiosity I think. But deep down inside I think everyone believes in a higher power.