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.
Maybe because of all those who have been put to death in God's name.
Well, this is not entirely correct. People are allowed to pray or erect religious monuments in public.
'In public' however, can also mean on private property but in public view, e.g. your front lawn, the façade of your church etc.
Private religious speech like praying or wearing clothes with religious messages is even allowed on public property. What isn't allowed though is the involvement of persons acting as agents of the state (e.g. teacher during class, policeman handing out a speeding ticket etc).
As I understand it, helium was discovered on the sun. Nobody was there to observe it. The discovery was not the result of some scientist capturing and observing solar helium. It was discovered through inference, one of science's most powerful tools.
Are you saying the ID folks want to put you to death?
We're a Christian country - not a Muslim country - not a communist country. If those who are offended by Christianity are THAT offended, perhaps they would feel more comfortable in another country.
How many alternate viewpoints in how many subjects? What percent of time?
How would you feel about these alternates:
1. Some people should be slaves and serve their betters. Society would be far more productive and order could be kept more easily.
2. Homosexuals are useful to enlarge the earning capacity of the families they come from. The practice should be encouraged as a natural form of birth control.
3 Democracy is ok in peacetime but a strong dictator would be better in wartime.
Ok, maybe I'm out of date here. I thought radioactive decay was a result of the structure of the relevant isotope?
Of course I learned this back when there were all these little planetary systems called hydrogen, helium etc..
In addition, chemistry was almost as opaque to me as calc.
... the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion - Treaty of Tripoli, signed 1796 by George Washington's ambassador, ratified by the Senate in 1797.
Seems to me you are the one who ought to move. While you may have a hard time finding an explicitly Christian state, if you'll broaden your horizons a bit, there are a number of monotheistic theocracies available, many of which explicitly endorse creationism as state policy.
I'm saying theists would put me to death if they thought their god demanded it.
Very well said.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1313016/posts
You are wrong.
If those of us in the sciences did not assume as a basic premise that effects have causes, why would we bother looking for how hurricanes form, critters resemble one another, some folk get Parkinson's and others don't...
Not at all. I find some religious people to be endlessly unsufferable, but I generally find all the various religions and belief systems to be fascinating. I don't think any of them are true, but the subject is very interesting.
Well, guess what? Freedom of religion does mean freedom from relgioin and definitley not extend to give religion haters the power to suppress other religions.
I don't support suppressing any religion. If someone wants to practice their religious beliefs, I'm all for it. Just don't get the government to do it for you or use public funds, and you can perfomr all the religious activity you want.
And no matter how much you hate it, we are STILL a nation of mostly Christians.
I don't hate it. It is merely a demographic fact to me. And yet that fact does not mean that Christianity is, or has a right to be, in a privilidged or superior place in the public and governmental arena over any other religion or non-religion.
Give us the money that OUR taxes are being forced from us to spend on failed public schools where homosexuality is being promoted as good and taht peopel came from monkeys and the vast majority of us will be all too happy to send our children to private schools and we will "leave everybody else alone".
As a citizen, I think that you have a civic obligation to provide education to all the children of the US. You can choose to not send your kids there, that's your prerogative, but you still have the civic duty to contribute to the general education of the next generation of citizens.
And if you have issues with the curriculum regarding homosexuals, then I'd suggest getting involved and trying to find a way to change it to make it more palatable to you. (But since we want educated children, and not ignorant children, we will have to teach them evolution and none of this creationist or ID crap. That you're just going to have to live with.)
I did not intend to suggest that private religious activity on private property which is in public view or speech by private citizens of the type you describe should be precluded. I am basically saying not to use the government or public assets to promote or advance your religious beliefs.
Thanks. I appreciate the support.
We are absolutely NOT a Christian country. We are a country that contains a lot of Christians. But that fact does not place them or their religion in any superior or privileged position or entitle them to rights superior to that enjoyed by their fellow Americans who pray to a different god or to none at all. And if the Christians are offended by THAT reality, then perhaps they would be more comfortable in another country.
We're a country of mostly Christian people, who have wisely created a secular government, not a theocracy. This is from the US Constitution:
Article I, Section. 3The First Amendment is icing on the cake:
Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.Article II, Section. 1
Clause 8: Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."Article VI
Clause 3: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...For those who may not understand the expression "oath or affirmation" it's explained here: Affirmation (from Wikipedia):
In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath, but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath. The Constitution of the United States makes four references to an "oath or affirmation": In Article I, Senators must take a special oath or affirmation for the purpose of sitting as the tribunal for impeachment; in Article II, the president is required to take a specified oath or affirmation before entering office (see oath of office); in Article VI, all state and federal officials must take an oath or affirmation to support the U.S. Constitution; and in Amendment IV, all search warrants must be supported by evidence given under oath or affirmation.
As is expected, your response is basically, "Well, it's just too bad if you don't like it."
I agree with you mlc...teach the living you know what out of the Bible during history and philosophy. Leave it out of science class.
No one is offended by Christianity. Bad science offends. Hiding bad science behind a Christian façade doesn't atone for its badness nor does it enhance Christianity to be associated with such.
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.