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.
That was the ACLU's argument. It is also their argument that the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance" is somehow the establishment of religion.
You did not respond to my statement so I will make it prefectly clear that there is a question that I want answered. How is 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 "establishing a religion"?
When you get right down to it, this has nothing to do with science. It is ALL about the complete elimination of God from public life.
Is't the Moon just a big rock, suspended above the Earth, by gravity?
Exactly right. ID has nothing to do with science. That is what the whole argument is about.
BTW, how does it feel that your #1 scientist/advocate/testifier believes in evolution, old earth theory, common descent from a squishy organism and that we may all have been created by little green men?
(G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
Just curious.
I really don't care. Now are you going to answer my question or just ignore it because you cannot?
You may be right. I haven't studied the matter. On reading Lemon, it seems to be based on precedent, at least to a far greater extent then Roe. If it relied on relatively new precedents, well, that's not necessarily the worst thing in the world.
As long as legislatures and school boards do things that touch on the sensitive subject of religion, the courts are going to be called on to see if the state action is Constitutional. These cases can be subtle. The court needs some rules for dealing with the First Amendment. The Lemon test doesn't strike me as wildly outrageous. State action should, for example, have a secular purpose. Who would disagree? The principal or primary effect of a state action must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Again, who would disagree?
The third prong of the Lemon test seems a bit ambiguous -- the state action must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion." Lots of room to wiggle around there. Applying it can be tricky. The devil is in the details.
The First Amendment is a good one. It keeps the slimy hands of government out of religious matters. That leaves religion free. Who would disagree with that? I can't imagine how botched up things would be if the government schools, which are entirely incompetent, bloated, corrupt, and generally worthless, started meddling in religious matters.
arh! Although I may be able to weasel my way out of this mess with word lawyering. I can say that the moon isn't surrounded by air so can't be said to be in mid-air.
Does that mean you are ok with these beliefs?
Maybe I ought to put the explanation on my Freepage. I often respond to threads dealing with Israel and as a show of respect to our orthodox Jewish Freepers, I do not use the name of God because they believe that the name should not be spoken, written or posted lightly where it might be defiled. So, instead of changing it often and forgetting to change it, I leave it like it is.
It means that I cannot control his beliefs one way or the other. Unlike some, I am comfortable allowing other points of view to be discussed.
Right but it is held up by an invisible thread attached to the firmament.
That wasn't the issue. I asked if you were comfortable with him representing your side? I would think that y'all would be up in arms against a guy that believes in evolution. But, never mind. If it makes since to you, ok. I just don't see how having your major star a believer in evolution makes the case that evolution is wrong ...
Then your use of "God" in your post was a sign of disrepect?
No problem. We'll have trial transcripts in a couple of days.
So is common descent. So is the fauna of the Devonian.
He was convinced of what he was saying but he agreed that since we couldn't test and verify the hypothesis there was no way he could draw an absolute conclusion.
I'm not going to bat for anonymous Princeton physicists. You can still get your hammer and chisel and go check out Devonian strata for yourself. Or not. I have. But don't give me 'unverifiable, unreproducible' when the only impediment is an unwillingness to go see for yourself.
Yeah, but we don't have Behe yet. No one seems to worry that Barbara Forrest was misrepresented, probably because she was clear and unequivocal. I want weasel Behe's endorsement of astrology as science, and his admission he reviewed his own writing, in his own words.
Note that I replaced "mid-air" by "above the Earth" for exactly that reason.
Of course, I once got a (now banned) creationists to deny that an apple attracts the Earth with the same force with which the Earth attracts said apple.
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.