Behe backs off 'mechanisms' [Cross exam in Dover Evolution trial, 19 October]

York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 19 October 2005 | LAURI LEBO

[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.

[connectthedots]

While Dawkins and Eugenia Scott and Steven Weinberg may be atheists, and they may consider evolution to be something that supports their atheist views, they do not define evolution as a theory of religion or lack thereof. In contrast, most IDers have, at one stage or other, said that ID is in fact a religious idea or a strategy to promote religion.

So it's ok for atheists to say the ToE supports their religious beliefs and to also claim their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their support of evolution?

Although it doesn't surprise me, it is intellectually dishonest for these atheists/evolutionists to claim that IDers can't separate their faith from their science.

[Right Wing Professor]

So it's ok for atheists to say the ToE supports their religious beliefs and to also claim their religious beliefs have nothing to do with their support of evolution?

Neither claim entails that ToE is a religious idea.

Although it doesn't surprise me, it is intellectually dishonest for these atheists/evolutionists to claim that IDers can't separate their faith from their science

It is either intellectually dishoenst or obtuse for you to pretend this is the point at issue, which it is not. The point at issue is whether ID is an inherently religious idea or movement. No evolution supporter that I'm aware of claims that evolution is an inherently atheistic idea - in fact, many go out of their way to deny that evolution is inherently atheistic, even atheists like myself. FReeper and non-FReeper evolutionists alike have assured us all on multiple occasions that ToE is entirely consistent with their religion, and I for one, take them at their word.

[Ichneumon]

You need to learn how to read.

She's reading it just fine. You're the one who can't seem to grasp the simple points that Ms. Forrest explains quite clearly.

Even if you don't agree with what she says, it's bizarre that you can't even *understand* what it is that she's saying.

[Ichneumon]

[The attorney cross-examining Forrest kept pounding on the same idiotic creationist misconceptions, and Forrest kept pointing out the obvious to him.]

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.

You have a very vivid imagination. It's also fascinating that you consider yourself a mindreader now as well.

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.

WOW! You know as little about court proceedings are you are about biology. No, the judge allowed the defense attorney to keep working on that point because courts give wide leeway to attorneys when they're attempting to elicit testimony that *could* help their case, if the attempt is successful. And as long as the attorney keeps exploring different angles, they're welcome to keep at it all day long, no matter how unsuccessful they might be at it. Nor do judges allow or disallow questioning based on whether they think the attorney is going to pull it off or not.

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.

Gosh, I must have missed the part where she actually said that. Perhaps you could quote it for us.

On the other hand, she attempted to claim that IDers could not do the same.

That's not what she said either. Learn to read.

She obviously knew she had painted herself into a corner.

You obviously can't read, *and* think you're a mindreader.

anyone reading the transcript with an open mind can clearly see it.

Only in the sense of being so "open minded" that your brains fall out. Those of us with working reading comprehension know that she said no such thing, she instead spoke about the fact that while everyone, scientists included, have non-scientific personal opinions as well, the evolutionary scientists aren't trying to get their non-scientific opinions taught *as* science, whereas the creationists have repeatedly revealed and admitted that they are.

This isn't rocket science, and she explained her points quite clearly, I'm just baffled that you could still be grossly misunderstanding what she has actually said.

[connectthedots]

No evolution supporter that I'm aware of claims that evolution is an inherently atheistic idea - in fact, many go out of their way to deny that evolution is inherently atheistic, even atheists like myself. FReeper and non-FReeper evolutionists alike have assured us all on multiple occasions that ToE is entirely consistent with their religion, and I for one, take them at their word.

The point is that the exact same thing could be said about IDers.

[Ichneumon]

By the way, Behe says that God might be dead, and that this would be a good thing to teach to schoolchildren:

Rothschild asked if it was true that the intelligent designer might not actually exist any longer.

Behe agreed that was true.

Rothschild paused.

"Is that what you want to teach school students, Mr. Behe?" he asked.

As part of a curriculum making students aware of intelligent design, Behe said, "Yes, I think that's a terrific thing to point out."

[From: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/90481/]

This just keeps getting more and more fun. I can't wait to read the full cross-examination of Behe.

[Right Wing Professor]

By the way, Behe says that God might be dead, and that this would be a good thing to teach to schoolchildren:

Chuckle. Nietsche beat him to it.

[Ichneumon]

[By the way, Behe says that God might be dead, and that this would be a good thing to teach to schoolchildren]

Chuckle. Nietsche beat him to it.

True, but Nietsche isn't a darling of the creationist/ID movement... That's what makes it so funny.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"True, but Nietzsche isn't a darling of the creationist/ID movement... That's what makes it so funny."

If they can twist his words around enough, they will use him too and turn him into a YEC.

[PatrickHenry]

I'm just baffled that you could still be grossly misunderstanding what she has actually said.

It's baffling, yes, but we must accept that when dealing with creationists, this is the way things are. Otherwise, they wouldn't be creationists, would they? It's alarming to imagine allowing such intellects to have input into science education.

[b_sharp]

"Exactly. As long as we have Asians we have nothing to fear. After all, they all believe in evolution and that is the very most important aspect of science. No other discipline really matters if you don't believe in evolution.

You have to ask yourself why the US is dropping in papers published and Asian countries, particularly Korea, are increasing their publishing. Note that publishing is generally an indicator of new science and medical findings. In genetics, Korea is already on the way to becoming the worlds primary innovator.

[b_sharp]

Jeepers creepers, do you have blinders on? Read anything by Phillip Johnson, the leader of the DI DIists. Read the Wedge document. They want to completely change the way science is done. Their methodology will do nothing but make a pseudoscience of all fields. We might as well take Astrology seriously.

[mlc9852]

Americans still make the best hamburgers.

[mlc9852]

I really believe this is a trend in schools across the country and eventually ID will at least be briefly introduced. Time will tell.

[RunningWolf]

Thanks dots, powerful material there.

You heard it here first, Darwinism is going to fall like a house of cards.


Wolf

[donh]

Defining the question is critical.

If "defining the question is critical", you probably aren't dealing with a law of nature, so much as you are with how to wrap your mind around the question.

Getting the flu may be caused by a number of things. The flu itself is a result of the interaction of the relevant virus and the infectee.

That's your viewpoint. A CDC field manager's view is that the flu is caused by chinese livestock.

Too many effects or too many causes usually mean a carelessly phrased question.

Which professional is "carelessly phrasing the question"? The micro-biological virologists or the demographic epidemiologists? Is starlight caused by fusion, stars, coagulating stardust, or the Big Bang?

I am attempting to learn about causeless sub-atomic effects, courtesy of another poster, so on another level you may be right.

Well, sure, you have to pretty much wean yourself of causality to engage in quantum physics, but you don't really need to peer down into the Heisenburg limit to realize that causality is really more of a convention, than a physical law. As my examples should suggest, what you choose to regard as causing a particular event, depends on what fish you wish to fry.

Maybe I should modify my statement to include only the Newtonian world.

Maybe you're just carrying around high-fallutin' metaphysical baggage attached to the idea of causality that isn't needed either in the classical world or the quantum world.

[Zionist Conspirator]

The Theory of Evolution is not an atheistic scientific theory. It simply does not address the origins of the first lifeforms. It further does not deal with the origins of the universe.

It doesn't? It only maintains that offspring are different from their parents and says absolutely nothing about what happened in the remote past?

Then Darwin didn't discover it (the first parent would have). Kinda makes you wonder why people made such a big deal out of Origin of the Species, doesn't it, since everyone who has ever lived has believed in evolution according to this definition.

And Behe and his detractors aren't arguing about what happened millions of years ago but what causes offspring to differ from their parents right now? Wow.

[From many - one.]

"...Maybe you're just carrying around high-fallutin' metaphysical baggage attached to the idea of causality that isn't needed either in the classical world or the quantum world."

More a matter of if I'm trying to design a research project it kind of needs to be watertight.

[From many - one.]

Your question would be relevant if if I had said "had led to" instead of "leads to".

[WildTurkey]

I am comfortable with him promoting ID.

You get what you wish for .... Behe is testifying that he believes that students should also be told that the Intelligent Designer may be dead.

I can't imagine how warped your religion is to side with that philosophy being pushed on school children, especially when they are told it is "science" ...