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.

[PatrickHenry]

In an earlier post, someone mentioned what they called the "Lemon Law." Actually, it's the "Lemon test," because it comes from this US Supreme Court case from 1971: LEMON v. KURTZMAN, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). A few small excerpts:

In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." [citation omitted]

Every analysis in this area must begin with consideration of the cumulative criteria developed by the Court over many years. Three such tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion [citations omitted], finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

[big snip]

Our prior holdings do not call for total separation between church and state; total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable. [citations omitted]. Fire inspections, building and zoning regulations, and state requirements under compulsory school-attendance laws are examples of necessary and permissible contacts. Indeed, under the statutory exemption before us in Walz, the State had a continuing burden to ascertain that the exempt property was in fact being used for religious worship. Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of separation, far from being a "wall," is a blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.

This is not to suggest, however, that we are to engage in a legalistic minuet in which precise rules and forms must govern. A true minuet is a matter of pure form and style, the observance of which is itself the substantive end. Here we examine the form of the relationship for the light that it casts on the substance.

In order to determine whether the government entanglement with religion is excessive, we must examine the character and purposes of the institutions that are benefited, the nature of the aid that the State provides, and the resulting relationship between the government and the religious authority.

[big snip]

In Walz it was argued that a tax exemption for places of religious worship would prove to be the first step in an inevitable progression leading to the establishment of state churches and state religion. That claim could not stand up against more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded in our colonial experience and continuing into the present.

The progression argument, however, is more persuasive here. We have no long history of state aid to church-related educational institutions comparable to 200 years of tax exemption for churches. Indeed, the state programs before us today represent something of an innovation. We have already noted that modern governmental programs have self-perpetuating and self-expanding propensities. These internal pressures are only enhanced when the schemes involve institutions whose legitimate needs are growing and whose interests have substantial political support. Nor can we fail to see that in constitutional adjudication some steps, which when taken were thought to approach "the verge," have become the platform for yet further steps. A certain momentum develops in constitutional theory and it can be a "downhill thrust" easily set in motion but difficult to retard or stop. Development by momentum is not invariably bad; indeed, it is the way the common law has grown, but it is a force to be recognized and reckoned with. The dangers are increased by the difficulty of perceiving in advance exactly where the "verge" of the precipice lies. As well as constituting an independent evil against which the Religion Clauses were intended to protect, involvement or entanglement between government and religion serves as a warning signal.

Finally, nothing we have said can be construed to disparage the role of church-related elementary and secondary schools in our national life. Their contribution has been and is enormous. Nor do we ignore their economic plight in a period of rising costs and expanding need. Taxpayers generally have been spared vast sums by the maintenance of these educational institutions by religious organizations, largely by the gifts of faithful adherents.

The merit and benefits of these schools, however, are not the issue before us in these cases. The sole question is whether state aid to these schools can be squared with the dictates of the Religion Clauses. Under our system the choice has been made that government is to be entirely excluded from the area of religious instruction and churches excluded from the affairs of government. The Constitution decrees that religion must be a private matter for the individual, the family, and the institutions of private choice, and that while some involvement and entanglement are inevitable, lines must be drawn.

BURGER, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BLACK, DOUGLAS, HARLAN, STEWART, MARSHALL (as to Nos. 569 and 570), and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 625, in which BLACK, J., joined, and in which MARSHALL, J. (as to Nos. 569 and 570), joined, filing a separate statement, post, p. 642. BRENNAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 642. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in No. 89 and dissenting in Nos. 569 and 570, post, p. 661. MARSHALL, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of No. 89.

[Junior]

The CrevoSci Archive Just one of the many services of Darwin Central "The Conspiracy that Cares"

• PatrickHenry's famous List-O-Links

CrevoSci threads for the past week:

1. 2005-10-19 Behe backs off 'mechanisms' [Cross exam in Dover Evolution trial, 19 October]
2. 2005-10-18 Alternative Theory to Evolution Sparks Debate
3. 2005-10-18 Evidence of Swimming Dinosaur Found
4. 2005-10-18 Harvard researcher ready to wash her hands of space aliens
5. 2005-10-18 Professor [Behe]: Design not creationism [Evolution trial, 18 October]
6. 2005-10-18 "Rape, Evolution, and ""Right to Life"""
7. 2005-10-18 Scientists Study Gorilla Who Uses Tools
8. 2005-10-17 Cyborg cells sense humidity
9. 2005-10-17 'Hobbit' tools found near remains
10. 2005-10-17 Ichthyosaur bones found off U.K. coast
11. 2005-10-17 Intelligent Design is not Science (Kenneth Miller Speaks at Lehigh)
12. 2005-10-17 Jurassic Bark: Tree Thought Extinct Returned to the World
13. 2005-10-17 New Planetoid Discovery Sets Off Feud
14. 2005-10-17 Prof Speaks at 'Intelligent Design' Trial
15. 2005-10-17 "Scientists Back Dover - [85 scientists request scientists, not Judges, to define ""science""]"
16. 2005-10-17 Spitzer's Stunning Portrait of Andromeda
17. 2005-10-17 Supernova Storm Wiped Out Mammoths?
18. 2005-10-17 Tracks of Swimming Dinosaur Found in Wyoming
19. 2005-10-17 University separates itself from professor in Dover intelligent design suit
20. 2005-10-16 An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science
21. 2005-10-16 Bad Frog Beer to 'intelligent design'
22. 2005-10-16 Evolution debate unchanged over time
23. 2005-10-16 Grown Man in the Stellar Crib: Now What? (Discoveries require rewriting the Astronomy books)
24. 2005-10-16 Museums take up evolution challenge
25. 2005-10-16 "Museums take up evolution challenge (because ""biology classes have faltered"")"
26. 2005-10-16 Pa. professor [Behe] to testify in landmark case [Dover evolution trial, 16 Oct]
27. 2005-10-16 The Separation of the Church of Darwin and State
28. 2005-10-15 God and global warming
29. 2005-10-15 Tracing the whale’s trail [Evolution trial, daily thread for 15 Oct]
30. 2005-10-14 25 Questions to Ponder
31. 2005-10-14 Ancient Anthropoid Origins Discovered In Africa
32. 2005-10-14 Flea's giant leap for mankind
33. 2005-10-14 Flea's giant leap for mankind [New synthetic, super-elastic material]
34. 2005-10-14 Is Homosexuality proof against evolution?
35. 2005-10-14 Science is the basis of public schooling
36. 2005-10-14 Scientists hit back at Dover video [Evolution trial, daily thread for 14 Oct]
37. 2005-10-14 Today's breaking news in the world of EVOLUTION
38. 2005-10-13 Crisis In The Cosmos?
39. 2005-10-13 Dark Matter: Invisible, Mysterious and Perhaps Nonexistent -
40. 2005-10-13 Dover players prepare for Supreme Court [Penna evolution trial]
41. 2005-10-13 Government Urged to Back Science Education
42. 2005-10-13 "INTELLIGENT DESIGN POLL (Gallup, via NRO: ""God Had No Part - 12%"")"
43. 2005-10-13 Mysterious 'half-animal, half-plant' marine microbe discovered by Japanese researchers
44. 2005-10-13 New finds of human ancestor jumble evolutionary puzzle
45. 2005-10-13 PJI Sues UC Berkeley for Using Federal Funding to Distort Religious Beliefs

---

CrevoSci Warrior Freepdays for the month of October:
 

2005-10-12 Alice au Wonderland 2003-10-09 antiRepublicrat 2004-10-10 Antonello 1998-10-18 AZLiberty 1999-10-14 blam 2000-10-19 cogitator 2001-10-21 Coyoteman 2004-10-26 curiosity 1998-10-29 Dataman 2000-10-29 dila813 2005-10-07 Dinobot

2001-10-14 dread78645 2005-10-14 EasyBOven 1998-10-03 Elsie 1998-10-17 f.Christian 2002-10-08 FairOpinion 2001-10-26 Genesis defender 2000-10-09 Gil4 2000-10-08 guitarist 2004-10-10 joeclarke 1998-10-03 js1138 2001-10-24 k2blader

2001-10-22 kanawa 2000-10-08 LibWhacker 2002-10-25 m1-lightning 2001-10-10 Michael_Michaelangelo 2001-10-09 Mother Abigail 2004-10-25 MRMEAN 2004-10-03 Nicholas Conradin 1999-10-28 PatrickHenry 1998-10-01 Physicist 2003-10-19 Pipeline 1998-10-25 plain talk

1998-10-12 Restorer 2005-10-04 ret_medic 2001-10-23 RightWingNilla 2005-10-08 SmoothTalker 2004-10-09 snarks_when_bored 1998-10-04 Southack 2002-10-22 sumocide 2004-10-21 WildHorseCrash 2001-10-23 yankeedame 2002-10-20 Z in Oregon 1998-10-29 zebra 2

---

In Memoriam
Fallen CrevoSci Warriors:

---

ALS Area Freeper Aric2000 Askel5 bluepistolero churchillbuff ConservababeJen DittoJed2 dob Ed Current

f.Christian followerofchrist general_re goodseedhomeschool gopwinsin04 gore3000 Jedigirl JesseShurun Kevin Curry kharaku

Le-Roy Marathon medved metacognative Modernman NoKinToMonkeys Ogmios peg the prophet Phaedrus Phoroneus

pickemuphere ret_medic RickyJ SeaLion Selkie Shubi Tomax tpaine WaveThatFlag xm177e2

Bring back Modernman and SeaLion!

The
official beer
of Darwin Central

[PatrickHenry]

Now that we all know the three-pronged Lemon test:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose;

second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion,

finally, the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion."

is there anyone who imagines that the mandatory ID statement which the Dover school board imposed on the schools can pass that test? (Don't get hung up on the word "statute." The school board's mandate undoubtedly qualifies as "state action" under the 14th Amendment.)

By the way, in Selman v. Cobb County School District, the Georgia textbook sticker case, the court cited and relied on the Lemon test. But there's a bit of Supreme Court politics involved here. In Tangipahoa Parish Board of Education v. Freiler, a creationism case where the Supreme Court denied certiorari, Rehnquist, Scalia & Thomas indicated that they'd like to re-visit the Lemon test. So it's going to be a long and bumpy ride.

[MHalblaub]

"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;"

Then ID is through the process of verification at university then ID is suitable for teaching pupils in biology. It's the first time I recognize a scientific hypothesis tries to make its way from school to university. It's like teaching astrology in physics.

[Physicist]

"Arguing from the scientific data only takes you so far," Behe said.

He's exactly right. But that happens to be precisely as far as a public school science class is supposed to take its pupils, and that's what this debate is about.

[MineralMan]

"Earlier in the day, Behe had said under direct testimony that a creationist doesn't need any physical evidence to understand life's origins."

---

Exactly. And we see that expressed here in every one of these threads. The "Goddidit" theory is all a believer needs.

Pity that attitude leads to a rejection of science. I suppose we could go back to the dark age of astrology and the "humors" theory of medicine, but I'd not enjoy that at all.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get my flu shot to help protect me against the evolution of the flu virus into new species.

[Physicist]

God centered intelligent design.

Let's all unite in repeating that phrase. Let's make "God-Centered" part of its name: instead of talking about "ID", everyone should talk about "GCID", just as people talk about "White Separatist Randy Weaver", "The Tech-Heavy NASDAQ", or "Rocker Tommy Lee".

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[highball]

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.

Isn't it just a little early in the day for paranoid complexes?

That doesn't even make a lick of sense. Have you any idea what the reward would be, in fame and grants, for any scientist who could find evidence that Darwin was incorrect?

You're trying to have it both ways - insisting that the "vast majority still won't buy it" and then turning around and presenting creationist scientists as so timid, so afraid, that they hide their discoveries out of fear. That's nonsense on its face.

[furball4paws]

I home school, but certainly not because Evolution is wrong. I do it because the math/science education in this country is so deplorable. I decided I couldn't constantly tell my boys that their teachers were wrong without undermining confidence and discipline. So I teach them math and science at home and I teach them cutting edge concepts and I teach the Evolution and the voluminous data in its support.

People who home school for education purposes are trying to avoid reality. I am trying to give my kids a real understanding of science. I don't want them to be illiterate.

[Physicist]

Have you any idea what the reward would be, in fame and grants, for any scientist who could find evidence that Darwin was incorrect?

Behe's doing extremely well for himself just by making the suggestion, without any evidence at all. Maybe he's not getting the grant money, but that's OK: God has found a surer way to provide for him.

[furball4paws]

education = religious

Sigh, it's early.

[highball]

Exactly. Which proves my point - there will always be kooks waiting to financially reward people like Behe, to support their politically correct agenda.

The notion that scientists hide creationist views out of fear that they'll be bankrupted is simply absurd.

[MineralMan]

"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."

I'm sorry, but that just makes no sense at all. And I'm not sure that homeschooling on the university level is a very good idea.

It would sort of be like breast-feeding a 6-year-old. Doable, but pretty wierd.

[MineralMan]

" I am trying to give my kids a real understanding of science. I don't want them to be illiterate."

---

I'm sure you're doing a very good job, too. When I was in elementary school, and from then on, science fascinated me. There wasn't enough of it in school, so, starting at age 8, I started reading on my own. By the time I had graduated from high school, I had read every book in the Dewey Decimal 500 range that was available in my small town library.

Granted, that was a little wierd of me, but I still found time to do all the other stuff kids are supposed to do. I'm a fast reader, and it was a pretty small library.

[PatrickHenry]

Another tidbit from this story: Some call design a step toward balance:

During cross examination Tuesday, plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild questioned Behe about an article Behe wrote in a journal called “Biology and Philosophy” where he combined his ideas on intelligent design and a belief in God.

Rothschild characterized intelligent design in the writings as a “God-friendly” theory.

But Behe maintained he was writing from a philosophical standpoint.

All of this is aimed at fitting the school board's actions within the Lemon test. Behe isn't helping his cause.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Why is it premissible to publicly promote godlessness but not God?

Why is godlessness good but Judeo/Christianity bad?

Historically, which countries were most apt to become despotic crapholes where the people were oppressed and raped and murdered, Christian centered ones or godless ones?

Will the US be better off when the ACLU finally manages to completely eliminate Christianity from public life like they did in the USSR, Cuba, and China?

[adam_az]

"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."

Source? Or did you make that up?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Approval isn't everything. When the Malleus was submitted to the University of Cologne by the authors on May 9th, 1487, it was officially approved by all of the Doctors of the Theological faculty.

[MineralMan]

"Historically, which countries were most apt to become despotic crapholes where the people were oppressed and raped and murdered, Christian centered ones or godless ones? "

Well, actually, the answer appears to be: both.

The reality is that countries where a megalomaniacal despot is in charge tend to do those things. Stalin and Hitler are good examples. Stalin's country was atheistic. Hitler's country was predominantly Roman Catholic and Lutheran.