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.
"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!
Phooey! "get's" should be gets. I'm typing too quickly!
ID is not about religion or God . . .
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.
I bet "Papa Moon" Wells and Philip Johnson would be two of the unhappiest people around.
First, the statute [or state action] must have a secular legislative purpose;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.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."
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.
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.
I'm afraid that if Behe gets his nose in the joint, Johnson will as well.
The chicken no doubt agrees.
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?
Anyway, it doesn't even sound like the idea has been accepted: "A new model is proposed based on two major arguments".
But they teach evolution anyway, don't they?
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.
From the article:
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.
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?
Yeah, I guess that makes us God-fearing men fearing men ;-)
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.
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.