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

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

[MineralMan]

"whereas ID proves its point by "...the purposeful arrangement of parts."
"

I don't know about you, but my wife get's very upset when I purposefully arrange my parts in public. Maybe I'll tell her it's all intelligent design in practice. Yeah...that's the ticket!

[MineralMan]

Phooey! "get's" should be gets. I'm typing too quickly!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

ID is not about religion or God . . .

---

"It's not. It's the reaction to it that's about religion."

True. It's about the religious motivations of ID proponents and the necessary supernatural nature of the *designer* in ID. ID is creationism with a dress. It's not fooling anybody.

"So natural selection could not evolve the flagellum."

I said no such thing. Why must you make things up? Oh, that's right, you have no other choice.

Look to post 228 for a good evolutionary explanation of how the flagellum evolved.

[js1138]

Actually, I've almost come to the conclusion we'd be ahead if we just dropped the case and taught what Behe says about common descent and the age of the earth. Perhaps the fundie kids would believe it if they heard it from the discovery institute.

They would at least learn that evolution is a historical fact.

[VadeRetro]

Perhaps the fundie kids would believe it if they heard it from the discovery institute.

I bet "Papa Moon" Wells and Philip Johnson would be two of the unhappiest people around.

[Junior]

You know, I had to look that one up.

[PatrickHenry]

It's easy to get lost in the details. Keep in mind the plaintiff's main purpose in this litigation -- to show that the mandated ID statement violates the First Amendment, according to the three-pronged Lemon test, which I detailed back in post 21. To summarize, a state action will be un-Constitutional unless:

First, the statute [or state action] 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."

As I read the case, failing to pass any one prong of the three-pronged test will be sufficient to cause a state action to flunk the First Amendment. And I think Behe's performance is going to sink his ship.

[js1138]

The Discovery Institute is proclaiming Behe's testimony a success, so we can assume that the Discovery Institute and ID advocates in general are celebrating the confirmation of common descent and the 4.5 billion year old earth as facts taken for granted.

[MineralMan]

Well, as Jesus said:

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Matt. 6:34

I have a chicken to roast for dinner, so I'll take my leave and join tomorrow's thread.

[b_sharp]

I'm afraid that if Behe gets his nose in the joint, Johnson will as well.

[VadeRetro]

"Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof." Matt. 6:34

The chicken no doubt agrees.

[Tribune7]

"It's irrelevant to me, since my culture is one which prohibits religious folks from forcing their beliefs on other folks. . . .That's a religous belief that you are forcing on other folks. . . .What part of what I said is a religious belief? My culture is the United States of America. One of its principle features is freedom of religion.

And where do you think that comes from? The Constitution? Why did our Founders put it in the Constitution? They just pulled it out of the blue one day in Philadelphia?

[Tribune7]

TalkDesign? You want me to post a rubbutal from AIG?

Anyway, it doesn't even sound like the idea has been accepted: "A new model is proposed based on two major arguments".

[P-Marlowe]

I bet it's tough to teach a science when you can't identify its mechanisms...

But they teach evolution anyway, don't they?

[Tribune7]

So natural selection could not evolve the flagellum . . .I said no such thing. Why must you make things up?

What you said was: "So, via the designer of natural selection, how did the bacterial flagellum come about?" . . In ways that Behe could never imagine.

Behe is obviously well aware of natural selection. You either communicated your thought poorly or you believe that natural selection could not evolve the flagellum.

[b_sharp]

From the article:

---

At one point during Rothschild's cross-examination, the lawyer asked the
scientist whether he was co-authoring a book, a follow-up to "Of Pandas and
People," with several other intelligent esign moolahs. He said he wasn't.

The lawyer showed him depositions and reports to the court, quoting two of the
other authors as saying he was a co-author.

Behe said that he wasn't a co-author of the book but that the statements by
those guys weren't false. He said one of the authors was "seeing into the
future."

Rothschild asked, "Is seeing into the future one of the powers of the
intelligent-design movement?"

Behe didn't answer.

He didn't have to.

Seeing into the future is the province of that other science ? you know,
astrology.

---

Read it at http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/90330/

Hahahahahahhaahahahahahah

[js1138]

Behe is obviously well aware of natural selection.

If that were true we would not be having this thread. You are aware, aren't you that he has taken review resopnsibility for the "Pandas" book, and under oath has repudiated its content.

[andysandmikesmom]

On the subject of why people homeschool...Yes, homeschooling is on the rise, but I dont know that I would agree, that it is mostly for religious reasons...as has been pointed out on this thread, others chose homeschooling, to provide a more quality education...I know several families who are homeschooling, and none of them are doing it for religious reasons...again, they feel the education they provide for their children is of higher quality than what is out there in the public schools...

I believe that people homeschool for a variety of reasons, religion being one among many...it may be that the religious reasons top the list, but there are way too many others out there who homeschool, just to provide a more quality education...

My son once had to hire someone for his company, and he interviewed many different applicants...The one he settled on, was homeschooled...for the particular job to be filled, he felt that this applicant was the most qualified...once hired this person lived up to expectation, and was a valuable employee...

One day, a bunch of the employees were just sitting around at lunch, and talking on various subjects...now, my son had assumed that the person he hired, was a Christian, because of being homeschooled(my son assumed he was homeschooled for religious reasons)...to my sons surprise, this person was rather shocked that my son thought such a thing...far from being a Christian, this person had no belief in any God, or Creator...his parents had homeschooled to provide a better quality education...it had nothing at all to do with religion...

As I said, I do know that many parents homeschool for religious reasons....but there are way too many parents out there, who provide homeschooling for many other reasons...

Tho, I could be wrong...could you please post reliable statistics that show that most people homeschool for religious reasons...I am sure for every family you show me that homeschools for religious reasons, I can show you a family who homeschools for purely educational quality reasons, so anecdotal stories really do not count...

I would really like to see some good statistical studies on this...Do you have some that you could post?

[BMCDA]

God doesn't frighten us. What does bother us is the insistence of believers in pushing a superstition as fact.

Yeah, I guess that makes us God-fearing men fearing men ;-)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Behe is obviously well aware of natural selection."

He also doesn't think that it can explain the bacterium flagellum, so what's your point? When I said,

"In ways that Behe could never imagine. You DO realize that the flagellum has been found to not be irreducibly complex don't you?"

I was merely saying that because Behe can't imagine how Natural Selection could have made it, this doesn't mean that nobody else can't or hasn't.

"You either communicated your thought poorly or you believe that natural selection could not evolve the flagellum."

Or you were unable to comprehend what I said. Since I posted to you in post 243,

"Look to post 228 for a good evolutionary explanation of how the flagellum evolved."

And as you are now responding to post 243, another option is available; you not being honest about what I said. You know I didn't say that natural selection couldn't produce the flagellum, and you know I directed you to an evolutionary model for the construction of the flagellum.

Bingo.