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.
About evolution? Yeah, it is too bad if you don't like it. It's science, well-supported and well-established science. If you have a religious based objection to that, that is your own private concern. You have no right to make the public supplant secular science with your religious faith.
Very well stated, Doc.
When the founders are brought up here at FR, it is made to sound as though they all spoke with one voice and were in complete agreement with one another on every topic, and that they were all mainstream Christians.
Too funny. Learning history from classic comix.
The rate of decay for any given isotope is certainly a product of structure, but the decay of an individual atom is not caused by any prior event. This has been one of the most heavily investigated phenomena in science. There are other quantum phenomena that appear to be inherently random, not just "looks like" random.
Of quantum theory could be wrong. Room for a Nobel Prize here.
The judge allowed this "pounding" because Forrest kept trying to apply a different standard to motivations of those who support ID than to those who support evolution; and she knew it, but was unwilling to admit it.
That the judge allowed the defense attorney to keep 'pounding' the point indicates that he saw it too. If not, he would have cut him off after the second or third time and the the plaintiff would have objected on the basis that the question had been "asked and answered". Neither happened.
One of the things the attorney was pounding on with Forrest was that she claimed that even though evolutionists have religious/philosophical views that are anti-Christian; it does not affect their science. On the other hand, she attempted to claim that IDers could not do the same. She obviously knew she had painted herself into a corner. anyone reading the transcript with an open mind can clearly see it.
Folks like Washington, Jefferson and even Patrich Henry are on record as admiring the ethics of Quakers, particularly regarding slavery.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Key word - CONGRESS!!!! Is a school "Congress"? NO!
My, that's insightful argumentation.
The post you cite doesn't mention the Treaty of Tripoli, a legally binding agreement entered into by the United States within a decade of the ratification of the Constitution. I wonder why not?
Google 'Doctrine of Incorporation', and advance your knowledge of constitututional law a century (into the 19th).
No one has suggested teaching the Bible in science class. Please pay attention to facts!
Some people consider Darwin bad science. But the judge will decide for us all.
technically correct: 'biblically-motivated psuedo-science' != 'the bible'
But not by much...
You anti-Christians are just gonna have to get over the fact we are a nation built on Christian principals and ideals. Our schools were established by Christians to study the Bible. Research the history of education in this country. Congress can't establish a religion. They haven't. Whether or not you like it, people believe in God as the creator and will continue to believe in spite of your trying to cram evolution down students' throats. And to say that not buying evolution hinders our scientific future in the US is bull crap and you know it.
You believe in agnostics, right? I'm real!
_____
Ha! Prove it.
Just make sure your head is not under one of them there rocks.
It may have been a poor analogy, but the essence of the two is the same, we do not need to see each and every instance of a phenomenon to conclude that there is consistancy along the entire spectrum of effects.
Your analogy is better, just a bit more dangerous. Rocks hurt more than birds do.
Yes, I know what you meant but fact is a lot of folks will "misunderstand" what you said and claim they are being persecuted because they are no longer allowed to "pray in public" etc.
I've seen this quite often and I'm pretty sure that many of them do it on purpose (cf. "banning" prayer in schools).
You are correct. There are plenty of Asians in our school system who are more than willing to take up the slack. The country is in no immediate danger.
Actually not. The judge has neither the expertise nor the legal mandate to make such a decision.
He must, however, make a determination as to whether the instruction on ID violates the First Amendment. That may (but need not) require him to examine whether ID is bad science, good science or science at all. But nothing in the issue presented to the court would require him to determine whether "Darwin" is bad science. So even if he were to discuss the matter (which I think is doubtful), it would be dictum, and legally worthless.
And moderates are what allow the world to continue to turn. If the extremists on either side of the equation were to go toe-to-toe, your God's creation would be a heap of smoking ash.
A person much wiser than I suggested, in the weeks following 9/11, that if we are going to go to war against an "ism", let it be fundamentalism.
We do not live in a black and white world.
Oops - did I just out myself as a moderate?
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.