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.
If we are to respect one another's religious sensibilities, we need to respect also others' imperfect attempts.
There are Jews in my family. I thank BloodOf Tyrants for his respect.
And, if anyone cares, there are Lutherans, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox and a bunch of others, including atheist and agnostic. We get along very well.
What respect. He put "God" in his post. That shows where his true heart is. The "G_d" in the tagline is just for show.
You are hung up on proof. What is necessary is the production of confirming or disconfirming evidence.
Now what Behe could do is is say he has a theory that the designer has left a signature in the blood clotting system by making it something that can't be simpler and still work. then if we found a simpler blood clotting system it would demonstrate his theory of the signature to be false.
But that scenario has already happened, so what is next?
I wish I could remember which website I saw that quote on before ...
Yes. Yet science is full of it. (And you can take that any way you like.) Many scientists are full of themselves. In the end, they are all faith-based, whether they recognize it as a religion or not. Reason (math) & science can only fill in some gaps; it cannot be the be-all, end-all, as much as "godless" people would like to delude themselves. They always require suppositions, propositions, to which there is no end.
I think it's probably best if we agree to disagree here.
I wonder if the attorney was surprised by this, since Behe isn't listed as an author.
It puts Behe in the position of recommending a book he stands to gain from financially.
And what would you prefer?
You have a genius for bad analogies. I don't think I have ever seen one more unrelated to the topic. The idea of gradual change came not from the need for such a process, but from the observation of the process in animal breeding. You would know this if you bothered to read.
Every bit of Darwin's reasoning begins with observations of processes that can be seen today. If you had taken geology you would be familiar with the the phrase, "The present is the key to the past."
Darwin would be familiar with the phrase, since it was coined in 1785.
Professor Behe said that although he had reviewed the textbook, he had reviewed only the section he himself had written...I think that's "review" in the sense of "peer-review". Behe peer-reviewed his own work.I wonder if the attorney was surprised by this, since Behe isn't listed as an author.
It puts Behe in the position of recommending a book he stands to gain from financially.
Is this comment original with you, or someone else? You have a link to the site that proposes this speculation?
I would not be so sure the defendants cannot pass the lemon test. I think it does.
Based on the current make-up of the USSC, I think there may be a dtrong inclination to take this case if for no other reason than to kill the Lemon test.
Good, since newspaper accounts tend to reflect the biases of the authors.
LemonDidit placemark
Thanks for the link to the trial transcripts.
The all of the day 6 cross examination of Barbara Forrest. She did not do very well; and the defense wasn't finished with her at the end of the day. Looking forward to the rest of her cross examination. I think this is one witness the plantiff should not have called.
You apparently read the day 6 transcript of her cross examination. She didn't dare so well, did she?
This is hardly an obscure corner of evolutionary science. The recent change at the root of the tree of life, from 3 kingdoms to 5 domains, is a response to the examination of the mutational distance between the ribosomes of unicellulars. Search for the work of Carl Woese, or pick up almost any issue of the Journal of Microbiology in 2001.
This entire problem is created by the disagreement about what should be taught in government Schools. Allow true freedom of education and allow each to pick what their children will be taught. The bad schools will die off soon enough.
This will certainly smoke out those who rely upon the government to enforce their particular views. A decentralized government is much less dangerous in most cases.
Perhaps, but that chutzpah pales in comparison to the arrogance of non-scientists who think they know enough to be lecturing regarding scientific epistemology.
In the end, they are all faith-based, whether they recognize it as a religion or not.
There are few scientists who do not recognize that it requires a certain amount of faith to form any concepts whatsover. Faith is not what distinquishes science from non-science, so much as institutionally formalized skeptical rigor.
Works for me.
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.