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.
How does one reject the tooth fairy?
Islam has already made great inroads into public schools. I don't hear a huge outcry against that. I realize we can't go back to the "good old days" where the Bible was permitted in school. We have the ACLU atheists to thank for that. If you deny this country's Christian heritage then why can't I deny evolution? It's all a matter of opinion, isn't it?
Ooooo! Good one!
How about mud puddles? They seem to possess a "purposeful arrangement" -- they are arranged perfectly to fit into the pot holes they occupy; however could that happen without a designer?
And then there are legs.... did you realize everyone has legs that are EXACTLY the right length such that their feet precisely reach the ground - no more, no less! What are the chances of that happening by random chance? Clearly, a "purposeful arrangement" to say the least!
I don't follow your "logic". Are you equating God with the tooth fairy?
"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."
"If you deny this country's Christian heritage then why can't I deny evolution?"
God doesn't frighten us. What does bother us is the insistence of believers in pushing a superstition as fact. To me it is no different than homeopathy.
"Thuderous applause"
Off the top of my head, I'd say, a state or government that purports to exercise based on religious authority; or one which governs with the intent of promoting a religion.
How is reading the Bible in school a theocracy? Because it directly uses the governmental monopoly of force to foster religion.
I think you may be overreacting just a bit.
Not at all. You just can't seem to understand that you have no right to push your bible on people who have different religious faiths anymore than Muslims in the US, for example, have a right to demand that the Qu'ran be read to your kids every day. Not everyone values your bible; some people think that it is nothing but nonsense. You simply have no right to demand that they give fealty to your religious beliefs. None.
Of course, God does tend to scare atheists, I'm just not sure why.
It's not God that's frightening, it's some of the jackasses that profess to believe in him.
Because, like lunatic fanatics throughout history, they think they've been ordained by God to push their religion on everyone, regardless of anyone else's opinion, even to the extent of torture and death for "heretics" and "infidels." They have always have been pure evil, and always will be pure evil.
Those in this country who don't get that the government has no right to dictate religion to anyone are, as I said, domestic enemies and should be treated as such.
So you are claiming that God CREATED everything, and yet He did not DESIGN any of it?
Yes. As do almost all atheists. There may be some weak atheists that disagree with me, but in my experience very few.
This is the conclusion that can't be logically drawn be must be emoitionally maintained by enormous amounts of speculation.
ID does not even threaten evolution per se. It does threaten atheism -- a philosophy which should never be taken seriously, right?
"Are you equating God with the tooth fairy?"
As for me, yes. They're identical. Both are invisible, have powers that believers can't explain, and both have the same sense of goodwill towards humans.
Now, the tooth fairy is a pretty specific sort of deity, with a very narrow range of tasks. She's rather a nice sort of deity, giving money to children in exchange for useless old teeth. Would that there were more like her. I could use a few bucks for each hair that keeps falling out of my head. Now there's a sort of deity that I could support.
On the other hand, the Judeo-Christian deity sort of wraps all the functions of a good deity together. Some religions have specialized deities. Others have fewer of them. The Judeo-Christian model works out pretty well, as does Islam. Having a single deity to deal with sure simplifies a guy's life, even when it's sort of divided up into three avatars, so to speak. No more prayers and offerings to all those pesky specialized deities.
I just believe in one fewer deity than you do. Hindus believe in lots of them...and they believe just as strongly as you do. To each his or her own.
Amen to that brother. (Sorry, I couldn't resist ;))
And what is a good deity?
"ID does not even threaten evolution per se. It does threaten atheism -- a philosophy which should never be taken seriously, right?"
But I thought ID wasn't about religion or God; you're not saying they were lying are you? lol
Do you get dizzy often?
Intelligence can only be inferred from its effects. Design is not attributed by mind-melding with designers, it is inferred from effects in the physical world.
Cordially,
You cannot (literally) know what is "deep down inside" anybody but yourself. You just can't. No one can. So what I see here is you projecting your feelings onto everyone else, and asserting that since you have these feelings, that everyone does. Well, it isn't true.
I can tell you for myself, that deep down inside, even when I professed a belief in Christianity, I though it and all religions were just made-up stories which people believed because they are afraid of death and didn't understand how the world worked. I, obviously, can't say that's what is at the root of everyone's feelings, but that's what I've always thought.
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.