Gee. I guess, contrary to all the polling and surveys, this really is as true of the science departments as of social studies, literature and etc. I've found an actual photo that proves it:
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.
First ask yourself, how is paternity or identity established in court with DNA. When you've answered that question, you answered the other question. Except that the word proof doesn't come up much in science, except in creationist writings.
During cross examination Tuesday, plaintiffs’ attorney Eric Rothschild questioned Behe about an article Behe wrote in a journal called “Biology and Philosophy” where he combined his ideas on intelligent design and a belief in God.
Rothschild characterized intelligent design in the writings as a “God-friendly” theory.
But Behe maintained he was writing from a philosophical standpoint.
All of this is aimed at fitting the school board's actions within the Lemon test. Behe isn't helping his cause. [Pat Henry]
________________
Patrick, in my first post on this thread I said that the plaintiffs only real hope of winning was to get Behe and every other defense witness to mention GOD as much as possible, as mischaracterizing ID as biblical creationism, was their only argument.
And by golly, they are going to stick with it;)
Constitutionally, the only real issue here is whether broaching the subject of ID in the Dover school district represents a violation of the First Amendments establishment clause. Even the Lemon Test [that was me, btw that said ‘Law’ instead of Test] is a bit of a sideshow, in as much as, the Lemon Test issue is going to pivot around the same question.
That is: Is ID ‘religion’ in a constitutional sense?
Note that whether ID is good science is constitutionally irrelevant, as the only constitutional issue is whether ID=religion. Constitutionally, the folks of given school districts should have some input in terms of what their kids are going to learn regarding various…hypotheses…pertaining to origins.
Otherwise, their property taxes become instruments of taxation sans representation, no?
What would your namesake have to say about that, Patrick?
Omar.
"Could someone help me out here? What experimental testing has proven evolution? I am aware of experiments with fruit flies, etc. but as I understand it this just yeilds the same old micro/macro debate (round and round we go... when we stop flaming nobody knows). Any additional info? Thanks"
Eric Rothschild, attorney for the plaintiffs, asked Behe about whether astrology was science. And Behe, after hemming and hawing and launching into an abbreviated history of astrology and science, said, under his definition, it is. [snip],/blockquote>
He's making him eat his own words.
As the cross-examination continued, another pattern developed. Rothschild would show Behe, on a big screen in the courtroom, a quote from "Of Pandas and People" and ask him a simple question about it.The quote said, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact — fish with fins and scales, birds with feather, beaks and wings, etc."
Rothschild asked him whether he believed that statement said intelligent design meant life began abruptly on this planet.
It apparently was a trick question because Behe had a hard time answering it.
"I disagree," the scientist said.
And then, he explained what he thought the quotation meant, which wasn't what it said.
This went on for a while. Every time Rothschild would ask Behe about a statement, some he wrote himself, he'd say he'd have to disagree that it said what it said.
Behold, the fraud of ID, revealed in all it's splendor.
"So which side of the 50 percentile do you fall in?"
That's irrelevant to the issue. I'll just let you decide.
"You must not know the history of education in this country. Public schools were started by religious groups as were most colleges. My parents' generation grew up learning the Bible in public schools. Atheists have changed that. The "people" haven't."
I don't give him a pass. Darwin couldn't know anything about DNA, or even anything about genetics, but he recognized the need to find mechanisms, and he knew some of the characteristics of the mechanisms.
In other words, Darwin's lack of knowledge suggested research toward a specific goal -- finding the mechanism responsible for inheritance and variation.
What line of research does Behe propose? What are the characteristics of the designer?
But Behe doesn't have the advantage of that ignorance.
Well of course! The ID movement is not about getting Odin, Zeus, and and Old Man Coyote into the classrooms.
Well, I admit it - you got me.
You might consider putting a "/sarcasm" tag at the end of those posts - there are other posters here who actually believe in an ongoing, worldwide conspiracy of scientists going back centuries to hide all evidence of creation and promote evolution.
I went to elementary school in the 50s and every morning our teachers would read from the Bible and pray. My parents had more school involvement with the Bible. Needless to say, I grew up in the God-fearing South. And I'm sure you remember the hero of all atheists, Madelyn Murray O'Hare (God rest her soul - lol). She led the charge to get God out of schools. Perhaps you've heard of her.
Gee. I guess, contrary to all the polling and surveys, this really is as true of the science departments as of social studies, literature and etc. I've found an actual photo that proves it:
So, Behe back-tracted on some statements, how does that establish ID as religion?
I submit that saying 'astrology is science' is no worse of an abuse-of-term than saying 'ID is religion', merely because one of the possible candidates for 'Designer' is the Christian GOD.
Omar.
Darwin wasn't really flying blind. He observed -- as did everyone else -- that variation existed. This is from Origin of Species (6th ed.), Chapter 2 - Variation Under Nature:
The many slight differences which appear in the offspring from the same parents, or which it may be presumed have thus arisen, from being observed in the individuals of the same species inhabiting the same confined locality, may be called individual differences. No one supposes that all the individuals of the same species are cast in the same actual mould. These individual differences are of the highest importance for us, for they are often inherited, as must be familiar to every one; and they thus afford materials for natural selection to act on and accumulate, in the same manner as man accumulates in any given direction individual differences in his domesticated productions.Variation (cause unknown) and natural selection. That was in fact Darwin's theory. Pretty good, for someone who didn't know about genetics.
It's God-Centric. Now, teaching God-Centric concepts in school may not seem like the establishment of a religion to you, nor even to me, but that's the part we're not entitled to quibble about: the Supreme Court has already ruled explicitly on that, and they say it is. Creationism is banished from the schools.
I myself want ID out of the schools not because it's religion--prayer in school is fine with me--but because it isn't science. But that's just me.
Please accept my apologies for promoting the need for word parcing, and allow me to rephrase. Could you point me towards an article or two on some specific experimentation that supports evolution to the exclusion of a creator? (yeah, I know, it is a limiting question, but I am not intending it to be a loaded one) Other articles I have read point out various theories about genetic similarities across species, but that logic has seemed every bit as good as saying cars and motorcycles evolved from a common ancestor w/ no designer because of common design elements.
What's your point? So the vast majority of Americans don't believe in evolution. So what? The vast majority of Americans most likely don't believe that if you throw a tennis ball against a wall that there's a small probability that it will pass right through instead of bouncing back at you, but we still teach quantum mechanics in physics classes. Science isn't done by majority decision, at least not by majority decision of the uneducated and untrained public.
This is at the heart of Behe's con. He presents in court the full complexity of biology and proclaims it "magic". His technique is to make biology appear too complex for humans to understand, therefore a non-human must have been involved.
Do you REALLY expect anyone to believe that when the primary opponents of ID is the Anti Christian Lawyers Union?
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.