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.
Yup. You know the part about rendering unto Caesar?
Check Blackstone's Commentaries -- the second most influential work cited by our Founders.
I don't know if this judge has what it takes to grasp what a charlatan Behe truly is. But it's not important. Even if the judge is bamboozled enough to think there's actually some hints of science in Behe's babbling, he can still easily find that presenting ID in school violates the First Amendment. Don't forget, it's all about applying the Lemon test.
To fly under the First Amendment radar, the defendant school board must show that its ID statement passes the three-pronged Lemon test:
First, the statute [or any state action] must have a secular legislative purpose;They've got plenty of evidence from statements made by school board members about item one. I don't think there's much doubt about item two. Or item three. But showing that the ID declaration violates any of the three prongs of the Lemon test is enough for the plaintiffs to prevail. Then it will be up to the Supreme Court to follow or reject Lemon.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 things you leave out when you type fast. Yes, Luke 6:31.
Ridiculous. All that is necessary is to show that man can be traced back to a proto-human primate, which has been done. With that information and the reptile to mammal sequence, evolution is shown to span higher taxa. Your insistence on every little step being shown is disingenuous. Using your logic we would have to observe every number between 1 and 10200 before we could trust that 10200 can actually be relied on. For all we know, integers follow different rules above 10199.
The problem for the plaintiffs [ACLU et al] is going to be in establishing ID as a religion or religious instruction. The only way they can do that is by mischaracterizing ID as religion, 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; or, whether design just apparent in the sense that things only appear to be designed.
Look for the ACLU lawyers to try and get Behe to mention GOD as much as possible.
Blood of Tyrants writes:
The universities are populated and run by liberal professors who hate even the idea of God and who have a vested interest in promoting the idea of godless evolution over God centered intelligent design.
"Using your logic we would have to observe every number between 1 and 10200 before we could trust that 10200 can actually be relied on. For all we know, integers follow different rules above 10199."
Your analogy does not apply.
The basics premise of mathematics is based on definition, not theory. You are confusing definitions and theories.
Something which is defined is ALWAYS constant with no chance of changing. A theory is based on observations, and is only valid as long as no one produces an exception to the data which spawned the theory.
Such as a specific religious belief?
A theory is based on observations, and is only valid as long as no one produces an exception to the data which spawned the theory.
Sounds like science to me. What's the problem?
The Lemon test was the darling of the ACLU and is applauded by all constitutional revisionists, just as Roe is applauded (another inventive product of leftist judicial activism) ever since Harry Blackmun created it out of whole cloth.
The present politicized court and the Lemon test are the results of a judicial crapshoot that favors the left and its 'evolving' Constitution mythology.
I agree with you about Roe. The Lemon test, however, seems to be different. The First Amendment already existed, and it has a long history. Each of the three prongs of the Lemon test is based on earlier cases. The Lemon case seems to be an attempt by the court to summarize several previous First Amendment cases, and to restate their rulings in one tidy package. Maybe the court did its work well, or maybe not. I'm no expert on First Amendment litigation. But this area of the law seems very different from Roe, which appears to have been created out of the thin air.
Which means evolution CAN explain the origin of irreducibly complex systems. Which people have been saying on these threads for years now only to be asked, "Where's the PROOF of that?"
YEC SPOTREP
I have long understood it. However, what I do not understand is how a prayer at a high school football game or teaching that there MIGHT be some other explanation to the origin of man other than the atheist approved one or allowing a menorah or Nativity scene on public land at Christmas time is "establishing a religion".
And your point?
Prayers are allowed at high school football games ...
Beginning with Everson (mainly), the left took activist aim at their goal which resulted in Lemon. Lemon is simply a leftist interpretation of the First Amendment, nothing more.
When I have time I will trace the history of the Lemon test and display its leftist lineage for all to see. This has been done before in many publications and like I said, legal conservatives have always known Lemon to be the culmination of a leftist wish list.
The ACLU, Larry Tribe and all those who agree with judicial activism through an oligarchy, loved the Lemon test, it was their leftist dream come true.
As far as precedent was concerned, Lemon ignored most legal history and relied almost entirely upon very recently created precedent that had itself ignored precedent. The only precedent it relied upon was precedent created by pure leftist activism beginning largely in the 1940s.
On the other hand a Canadian seems to toss same.
"Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features already intact, fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, etc."
In that definition, Mr. Rothschild asked, couldn't the words "intelligent design" be replaced by "creationism" and still make sense? Professor Behe responded that that excerpt from the textbook was "somewhat problematic," and that it was not consistent with his definition of intelligent design.
Mr. Rothschild asked Professor Behe why then he had not objected to the passage since he was among the scientists who was listed as a reviewer of the book. Professor Behe said that although he had reviewed the textbook, he had reviewed only the section he himself had written, on blood clotting. Pressed further, he agreed that it was "not typical" for critical reviewers of scientific textbooks to review their own work.
A scientific rather than math related analogy would be that we would have to observe the behaviour of every rock that has ever been suspended in mid-air, and also every rock that ever will be suspended in mid-air to trust that rocks suspended in mid-air do fall.
I argue on the evolution side in this debate. I'm convinced that evolution occurs and I'm the result of biogenisis and 3 billion or so years of evolution and God does not exist.
However.
I have done some research into the original meaning of the Constitution and I think you are completely right about Lemon. The individuals who wrote the First Amendment and ratified it from at least a few states went home to towns that had legally required tithes to the local state church. By 1790, probably all states allowed denominations other than the official state church, but that did not let non believers get out of the tithing law. Tithes from them went to the official church. Tithes from members of other churches went to those churches, but each of these churches had to be chartered through the state in order to accept the money. This completely wrapped up state government with church business and the practice didn't disappear until around 1820.
The First Amendment was specifically directed at what the National Legislature could, and could not do.
The argument is made that the 14th amendment, which guaranteed that all "Rights and Privileges" granted to citizens under the US constitution changed the scope of the First Amendment, but that is nonsense. The 14th was passed after the Civil War for one reason. A few southern states were claiming that the rights of the US Constitution did not apply in the states (toward blacks in particular). That was a stupid argument, because if the Bill of Rights did not apply in the states, then where did it apply? In Washington DC? So the 14th amendment is completely redundant and did not change the meaning of the First Amendment, and the First did not apply to what state and local governments could do.
The First Amendment does not directly grant any rights unlike the Second, which grants a right of gun ownership. The First is specifically limited by its wording to limiting what the federal government can do.
One mistake many readers make is reading the "Bill of Rights" from start to finish, which makes the clause "The Congress shall make no law" appear to apply to all subsequent amendments. But the "First" Amendment was not the first amendment sent from the Congress to the states (I think it was the third), but was merely the first amendment ratified. So those magic words "Congress shall make no law" are only relevant within that amendment. Other amendments do not contain those words, so the argument that the First grants rights like the other amendments is bogus.
Another proof that this interpretation is correct is that many states subsequently wrote their own Bills of Rights that duplicated items in the First. Why would they need to if the First applied to the actions of the local government?
I don't think there's any way in h@ll that any court today will interpret the First in the way it was intended by its writers and ratifiers. For one thing the press would get awfully nasty about the idea that it does not have an absolute right to print what it wants.
I think we should interpret the Constitution exactly the way it was intended by it's writers and ratifiers, otherwise why did we bother to write it? That includes limiting the First to limiting the Congress only. But I also think we should amend the First Amendment to actually mean what most people today think it means, explicitly including the words "separation of Church and State", in honor of Jefferson who wrote them.
300
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.