Dover decision

[Dinsdale]

Surely anyone generous enough to give the gift of life to humans wouldn't be so cruel as to sentence this newfound life to eternal suffering, would they? That wouldn't make much sense.

So, how many mutations of the influenza A and B viruses are there? And since viral mutations are FAR TOO COMPLEX to have happened spontaniously, it must have been the work of the Designer(or his staff, right?).

So, why is the Designer such a fucking sociopathic asshole? Does he/she get off on suffering and death? Is there a scientific theory behind this?

The lengths and lies the bible-thumpers will go to get people to join their cult, by forced indoctrination of unwilling children if neccessary, is astounding. If it was such a great thing to believe in, wouldn't it sell itself without lying about it like a snake-oil salesman?

[Diogenes]

Surely anyone generous enough to give the gift of life to humans wouldn't be so cruel as to sentence this newfound life to eternal suffering, would they? That wouldn't make much sense.

So, how many mutations of the influenza A and B viruses are there? And since viral mutations are FAR TOO COMPLEX to have happened spontaniously, it must have been the work of the Designer(or his staff, right?).

So, why is the Designer such a fucking sociopathic asshole? Does he/she get off on suffering and death? Is there a scientific theory behind this?

The lengths and lies the bible-thumpers will go to get people to join their cult, by forced indoctrination of unwilling children if neccessary, is astounding. If it was such a great thing to believe in, wouldn't it sell itself without lying about it like a snake-oil salesman?

Good and thoughtm provoking questions all (well, not really) for a discussion in philosophy.

Or to create the kind of bias that dismisses ID out of hand, regardless of the data.

Totally irelevant to the discussion at hand, of course.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Been busy reinstalling software & updates - my laptop HD crapped out, so Apple replaced it...necessitating a hell of a lot of reinstalling and download time on dial-up. BTW - iPodRip is a freaking awesome piece of software! My music library has been restored from my iPod!

Same site as the other links so I guess you won't bother reading them.

Actually, I did. Behe's "arguments" are five or more years old and have been rebutted time and again since then.

Not like the actual testimony would matter to you.

Actually, it did. I waded through days 10 through 12 and got to read how Behe was intellectually bitchslapped when he stated that no peer-reviewed articles explaining/discussing the evolution of blood-clotting, immune systems, or bacterial flagella existed...and then the lawyer dumped a pile of books and journal articles in front of him.

It was funny to read him admitting that he hadn't read any of the stuff....and then turning around and somehow dismissing all of them is insufficient.

So far I've missed all the shreading Behe supposed went through

Then you missed Days 10-12.

As far as your 'argument' that ID is invalid if you can't scientificly prove who the designer is, or what came before, you might as well say the Big Bang theory is invalid if you can't prove what existed before.

Apples and oranges. The Big Bang theory states what it was, how it probably occurred, and even attempts to give a time. What existed before is not the "crux of the biscuit" (to quote Zappa).

The "designer" OTOH is a key component in ID - it makes absolutely NO sense to posit as a scientific argument that there is a designer and then, in the same breath, state that its origin & nature are either irrelevant or "beyond" the scope of science. The latter statement is particularly nonsensical if ID proponents keep insisting that ID be considered "science."

Oh wait....that's right...Behe, Dembski, and Johnson have all admitted that ID seeks to rewrite the ground rules of science just to slide their proposal in...sort of a "special dispensation." Maybe they should apply to their mysterious, ineffable "designer" for one.

[Diogenes]

Same site as the other links so I guess you won't bother reading them.

Actually, I did. Behe's "arguments" are five or more years old and have been rebutted time and again since then.

Link? You can start with the response to the critcisms of 'no peer review'.

As far as your 'argument' that ID is invalid if you can't scientificly prove who the designer is, or what came before, you might as well say the Big Bang theory is invalid if you can't prove what existed before.

The Big Bang theory states what it was, how it probably occurred, and even attempts to give a time. What existed before is not the "crux of the biscuit" (to quote Zappa).

The "designer" OTOH is a key component in ID - it makes absolutely NO sense to posit as a scientific argument that there is a designer and then, in the same breath, state that its origin & nature are either irrelevant or "beyond" the scope of science. The latter statement is particularly nonsensical if ID proponents keep insisting that ID be considered "science."

Oh wait....that's right...Behe, Dembski, and Johnson have all admitted that ID seeks to rewrite the ground rules of science just to slide their proposal in...sort of a "special dispensation." Maybe they should apply to their mysterious, ineffable "designer" for one.

I'll respond to your misrepresentations of Behe's testimony later but....

When I mentioned you posting third-party representations, I mipsspoke, it should have been third and fourth party hearsay, neither Johnson or Dembski testified, the court relied on out of context quotes and interpretations provided by an anti-ID author in it's findings.

So it's actually MtLR siad..Judge said...Author said...Johnson said....

I did notice plaintiff's attorney trying to keep Behe from making ID/Big Bang comparisons, no suprise you wouldn't like the analogy.

But it is still valid.

What did cause the Big Bang?

What was there before it?


Obviously a non-scientific, discredited theory there, fit only for 'fundies' and 'thumpers'.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Behe's "arguments" are five or more years old and have been rebutted time and again since then.

Link? You can start with the response to the critcisms of 'no peer review'.

OK - here's an article skewering Behe's claim that his book faced anything close to "peer review." Kinda sucks when one the folks Behe cites (Atchison) outs him as a fibber.

Oh, and the NCSE has an article here.

Miller's explanation of blood-clotting, which Behe, despite his protests, has never actually "debunked"

Here's a link from your favorite site dealing with Behe's LIE about there being no papers/books discussing the mechanisms of the evolution of immune system. Behe restated the claim in court (on Day 12, I think), only to have dozens of books and journal articles on that very topic placed before him. That is a fact

Oh, and here's a non-TalkOrigins site on the evolution of bacterial flagella

One of Behe's M.O.'s is to state something as a fact (like his idiocy on immune system evolution, et al.) whether or not it is true. He's either lazy or intellectually dishonest, since all he does to defend himself is declare contrary evidence "insufficient" (as he did in court with the dozens of immune evolution references....without even being familiar with them) or to redefine the definitions being used to suit his needs (like his twisting of the word "theory").

I'll respond to your misrepresentations of Behe's testimony later but....

]

How? By digging up his own half-assed press releases (most of which I'm betting you don't really understand) in which he just restates the same debunked claims without any proof? Remember - he admitted in court that despite having the last four years in which to do so, he hasn't done a danged thing research-wise to bolster his arguments.

When I mentioned you posting third-party representations, I mipsspoke, it should have been third and fourth party hearsay, neither Johnson or Dembski testified, the court relied on out of context quotes and interpretations provided by an anti-ID author in it's findings

Oh....I see....when Behe and Dembski get cute with punctuation when (mis)quoting other researchers (something Behe has been nailed for - to statements from Coyne, Orr, Miller), it's OK. When, on the other hand, direct quotes from Johnson and Dembski (I defy you to prove they've been misquoted) are used to prove their intention to use ID to get Christianity into the classroom, THAT is "not cricket?!?

Right.

I did notice plaintiff's attorney trying to keep Behe from making ID/Big Bang comparisons, no suprise you wouldn't like the analogy.

But it is still valid.

NOW who's pitching red herrings? The subject here is intelligent design, why it's not science, how it is creationism all "prettified" up and actually religion...

And actually, the main reason I don't go into the Big Bang is that I'm a BIOLOGIST. I haven't much physics beyond the two semesters I took in 1984. Unlike you, I'm not going to pretend I know tons about a topic just because the "experts" I cite happen to agree with me.

Molecular & cellular biology I know. That's my education and training. And unlike Behe, I've taken several graduate classes in evolution. And that's how I can tell, when reading Behe's stuff, that he's a hack. His understanding of cell biology is laughable. He's a biochemist, not a biologist. Toss in his willingness to compromise scientific integrity for the pub that ID has brought him, and he's a joke.

[Diogenes]

Link? You can start with the response to the critcisms of 'no peer review'

OK - here's an article skewering Behe's claim that his book faced anything close to "peer review." Kinda sucks when one the folks Behe cites (Atchison) outs him as a fibber.

Oh, and the NCSE has an article here.

Actually what I was talking about was the refusal of publications to review his work, or even allow his rebutals to criticisms of it....

http://www.trueorigin.org/behe07.asp

When I mentioned you posting third-party representations, I mipsspoke, it should have been third and fourth party hearsay, neither Johnson or Dembski testified, the court relied on out of context quotes and interpretations provided by an anti-ID author in it's findings

When, on the other hand, direct quotes from Johnson and Dembski (I defy you to prove they've been misquoted) are used to prove their intention to use ID to get Christianity into the classroom, THAT is "not cricket?!?

I said out of context, and interpreted to imply some sort of agenda.

And it may be 'cricket' in your eyes, but it's still hearsay in a court of law.

If they wanted to impeach Johnson and Dembski, they should have called them as witnesses, and the testimony about their 'intentions' should have been quashed.

Some highlights from the trial...

Q. Good morning, Professor Behe.

A. Good morning, Mr. Rothschild.

Q. How are you?

A. Fine, thanks.

Q. After the Court adjourned yesterday, did you talk to anybody about your testimony?

A. I did not.

Q. I'm going to see if we can reach an agreement on something here. You agree that this is a case about biology curriculum?

A. Yes, I do.

Q. Not about physics, a physics curriculum?

A. It's not about a physics curriculum, but from my understanding, many issues that are being discussed here are particularly relevant to other issues that have come up in other disciplines of science.

Q. This is a case about what's being taught in biology class not physics class?

A. As I said, I agree that it is, but one more time, I think many things in the history of science are relevant to this, and they've happened in other disciplines as well.

Q. You've already testified you're not an expert in physics or astrophysics?

A. That's correct.

Q. And you might not know this about me, but I'm not either.

A. I'm surprised.

Q. So I'm going to propose an agreement. I won't ask you any questions about the Big Bang, and you won't answer any questions about the Big Bang. Can we agree to that, Professor Behe?

MR. MUISE: Objection, Your Honor. He's trying to limit the testimony of the witness by some sort of agreement. He's obviously testified and explained why the relationship of the Big Bang is so important. He just answered his questions to try to proffer some prior agreement to the witness that he can't reference factors of prior testimony in cross examination. That just seems inappropriate, Your Honor.

THE COURT: What's your answer?

THE WITNESS: No. , I think references to the Big Bang are extremely appropriate to making clear why I think these -- making clear my views on these issues.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q. Fair to say, Professor --

THE COURT: There you go, Mr. Muise.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q. Fair to say, Professor Behe, that over the last two days of testimony, you've told us everything you know about the Big Bang that's relevant to the issue of intelligent design and biology?

A. Well, I'm not sure. I would have to reserve judgment.

Q. You might have some more?

A. Perhaps.

Q. Let the record state, I tried.









Q Well, why don't we go on to page 700. If you could highlight the question that Professor Behe is asking on this page. "Is it plausible that the designer is a natural entity?" in the first full paragraph.

That is the question you ask. "Is it plausible that the designer is a natural entity?"

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And then if, Matt, if you could actually go to the next two full paragraphs and highlight those.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And you say, "The problem is the following. Currently we have knowledge of only one type of natural intelligent designer even remotely capable of conceiving such structures as are found in the cell, and that is a human. Our intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one. . . " -- that's humans, correct?

A Yes, that's right.

Q ". . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture.

"I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity."

You don't absolutely rule it out, but you're not taking it very seriously, are you?

A Well, I've said that quite a number of times. I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. But if you turn back to page 699, there's a section entitled, "Is it possible that the designer is a natural entity?" And I won't quote from it, but I come to the conclusion there that sure it's possible that it is, but I do not -- I myself do not find it plausible.

Let me again liken this to the Big Bang theory. Is it possible that there was some event in nature that caused such a thing? Yes, it's possible. We know of no such event, we don't -- you know, we haven't known of such an event since the Big Bang theory was first proposed something like 75 years ago; but it's certainly possible. It's also possible that it wasn t.

And the distinction that I was trying to make throughout my testimony is that when we use scientific reasoning, and when we constrict ourselves to physical evidence and logical reasoning, we can only go so far. We can say we don't have a natural -- we don't have an explanation for this event right now. We cannot -- and the history of science shows this time and time again, we cannot say that because we don't have a natural or an explanation for a certain event now, that we won't have one in the future. Intelligent design I think is in the same category as the Big Bang on that point.
Q And I know you're fond of the Big Bang, but let's be clear, you're not an expert in physics, correct?

A That is correct.

Q And nor an expert in astrophysics?

A That's right.

Q Okay. And you're making a pretty scientific argument here, physics, chemistry, they pretty much rule out a natural designer; that's what you're trying, right?

A No --

Q Not absolutely, but makes it pretty implausible?

A That's what implausible means. Yes, but again, the conclusion from this evidence does not lead one to an explanation beyond nature.

With this I was also relying on my other -- on considerations other than scientific ones, from philosophical, theological and historical beliefs. So again, arguing from scientific data only takes you so far. It takes you to the point of the fact that we do not have an explanation for this event right now. But to go beyond that requires a reasoning beyond just scientific reasoning.

Q So in Darwin's Black Box you said beyond nature, in this article you said beyond nature, but that's just your theological hat?

A Well, as my discussion of John Maddox s editorial from yesterday Down with the Big Bang which occurred in Nature, and my discussion of Arthur Eddington's writings, and my discussion of Walter Nernst's comments, many people saw in the Big Bang implications for theology and philosophy and things beyond nature.

So I think that -- that nonetheless we would all agree that the Big Bang is a scientific theory in the same way intelligent design, in my view, is a scientific theory, even if somebody like John Maddox sees for this theory that it has implications beyond science.

Q Now, you ve said in your testimony today and yesterday you personally believe the designer is God.

A Yes.

Q And in this article in fact you say for purposes of the discussion I'm going to assume the supernatural entity is God, right?

A Yes.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Matt, if you could turn to page 705 of the article. If you could highlight the top paragraph, until the sixth line.

And you write here, "What if the existence of God is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument 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."

It's a God friendly theory, isn't it, Professor Behe?

A Let me respond in a couple of ways to that. First, let me clarify for context that this is a journal called Biology and Philosophy. So not only am I speaking about scientific matters here, but I'm also talking about nonscientific matters here in an academic forum. Academics embraces more than just science. This is an academic forum which also embraces philosophy, and so I addressed philosophical issues as well.

And again, my statement as written is certainly correct. And it's happened time -- many times in science, and, again, I'll just refer back to John Maddox's article Down With the Big Bang. He didn't like the Big Bang theory. And it wasn t because the data were inconsistent with it, it's because it was philosophically unacceptable. Walter Nernst hated the idea of a beginning to the universe. It was unscientific. So -- and other people have said similar things.

So it's clearly true that people make decisions even about a scientific theory, based not only on the science itself, but what they perceive as other ramifications of the theory.

But I argue, I've argued a number of places, that it's the proper role of a scientist to leave aside those other considerations as much as possible and focus simply on the scientific data.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Actually what I was talking about was the refusal of publications to review his work, or even allow his rebutals to criticisms of it....

Read it. Boo-frigging-hoo for Behe. Getting published is hard. I know - I've co-authored two HIV papers, and it took a hell of a lot of time to make all the reviewers happy, and we ended up re-submitting and re-submitting. Behe's "papers" didn't make the cut. Happens to most of what gets submitted. Just because he feels he's on some crusade doesn't entitle him to lowering the standards just so he can have a soapbox.

As far as controversy - both Science and Nature have published a good chunk of controversial articles: on homeopathic molecular interaction (Benveniste), Duesberg's antiHIV rants, the alleged Thomas Jefferson-Hemings DNA connection, and the most recent South Korean stem cell debacle.

Behe's whining for special treatments and cries of conspiratorial censoring are laughable.

And it may be 'cricket' in your eyes, but it's still hearsay in a court of law.

Apparently not, since it was all admitted in court. Federal court. Where the folks doing the deciding know a hell of a lot more about legal stuff than you do.

Just because you don't like having Johnson's or Dembski's paper trails outted in court does not suddenly make them inadmissible in court.

If they wanted to impeach Johnson and Dembski, they should have called them as witnesses, and the testimony about their 'intentions' should have been quashed.

If you read anything about the case, you'd have known that Dembski and Johnson were supposed to testify and ended up bailing out prior to the start of the court date due to disagreements they had with the pro-ID folks in this specific case.


Some highlights from the trial.. -using the stuff you yourself posted:

Q Well, why don't we go on to page 700. If you could highlight the question that Professor Behe is asking on this page. "Is it plausible that the designer is a natural entity?" in the first full paragraph.

That is the question you ask. "Is it plausible that the designer is a natural entity?"

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And then if, Matt, if you could actually go to the next two full paragraphs and highlight those.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And you say, "The problem is the following. Currently we have knowledge of only one type of natural intelligent designer even remotely capable of conceiving such structures as are found in the cell, and that is a human. Our intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one. . . " -- that's humans, correct?

A Yes, that's right.

Q ". . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture.

"I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity."

You don't absolutely rule it out, but you're not taking it very seriously, are you?

A Well, I've said that quite a number of times. I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. But if you turn back to page 699, there's a section entitled, "Is it possible that the designer is a natural entity?" And I won't quote from it, but I come to the conclusion there that sure it's possible that it is, but I do not -- I myself do not find it plausible.

Oh, but "Intelligent Design" is a purely scientific proposal...my ass

....

Behe: And the distinction that I was trying to make throughout my testimony is that when we use scientific reasoning, and when we constrict ourselves to physical evidence and logical reasoning, we can only go so far. We can say we don't have a natural -- we don't have an explanation for this event right now. We cannot -- and the history of science shows this time and time again, we cannot say that because we don't have a natural or an explanation for a certain event now, that we won't have one in the future. Intelligent design I think is in the same category as the Big Bang on that point.

Bullshit. By positing an other-than-natural cause, Behe et al. have gone outside the boundaries of science.

Q And I know you're fond of the Big Bang, but let's be clear, you're not an expert in physics, correct?

A That is correct.

Q And nor an expert in astrophysics?

A That's right.

Q Okay. And you're making a pretty scientific argument here, physics, chemistry, they pretty much rule out a natural designer; that's what you're trying, right?

A No --

Q Not absolutely, but makes it pretty implausible?

A That's what implausible means. Yes, but again, the conclusion from this evidence does not lead one to an explanation beyond nature.

With this I was also relying on my other -- on considerations other than scientific ones, from philosophical, theological and historical beliefs. So again, arguing from scientific data only takes you so far. It takes you to the point of the fact that we do not have an explanation for this event right now. But to go beyond that requires a reasoning beyond just scientific reasoning.

Q Now, you ve said in your testimony today and yesterday you personally believe the designer is God.

A Yes.

Q And in this article in fact you say for purposes of the discussion I'm going to assume the supernatural entity is God, right?

A Yes.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Matt, if you could turn to page 705 of the article. If you could highlight the top paragraph, until the sixth line.

And you write here, "What if the existence of God is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument 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."

Bingo. Behe has now admitted that the acceptance of his proposals is dependent upon the extent to which one believes in a religious entity - God.

Behe et al. have been arguing that ID is a purely scientific argument and as such belongs in a science curriculum. In court and in previous writings, Behe (above) , Dembski, and Johnson have openly admitted that their proposal necessarily invokes a supernatural designer and that the designer is, quite frankly, in their eyes, God. Toss in theior admission that the groundrules of science would have to be re-written just for their proposal, and their lack of scientific credibility just blazes forth.

[Diogenes]

.

Actually what I was talking about was the refusal of publications to review his work, or even allow his rebutals to criticisms of it...

Read it. Boo-frigging-hoo for Behe. Getting published is hard.

Appearantly not that hard if you wish to put out a hit piece on an issue that the 'scientific' community finds heretical.

Only if you wish to rebut said criticisms.

Peer review frankly doesn't mean shit to me when your 'peers' are to biased to evn let you answer their attacks.

And it may be 'cricket' in your eyes, but it's still hearsay in a court of law.

Apparently not, since it was all admitted in court. Federal court.

No, it still is.
Hearsay.
Admitted into evidence in a court of law.

Of course, if someone who actually knows something about the law (meaning not you- If Physics is something you aren't prepared to discuss, I know you wouldn't want to opine on legal matters) wants to explain why it is acceptable (let me guess, the author in question is an 'expert' based on the experience of having put out a book smearing ID advocates- and therefore entitled to testify to their alleged 'agenda') I'm all years.

If they wanted to impeach Johnson and Dembski, they should have called them as witnesses, and the testimony about their 'intentions' should have been quashed.

If you read anything about the case, you'd have known that Dembski and Johnson were supposed to testify and ended up bailing out prior to the start of the court date due to disagreements they had with the pro-ID folks in this specific case.

Actually the dispute was with TLMC, and Johnson wasn't among those slated to testify....

Meanwhile, preparations by the defense team from the TMLC weren’t going so well. Infighting quickly developed between the TMLC and the Discovery Institute (DI), the main ID group that was providing most of the expert witnesses. The DI was in a bind from the start. Generally concerned with the national ID effort, they knew that this could be the test case that decided once and for all whether ID was just warmed over creationism and that the Dover school board had left behind many clues to the religious intent behind their policy. The TMLC, on the other hand, was gung ho to defend the Dover policy itself, possibly due to their encouragement of the board’s efforts over the preceding years, and not merely the scientific nature of ID or the overall ID public relations movement.

This infighting culminated in the withdrawal of three key DI fellows as defense experts — William Dembski, Stephen Meyer and John Angus Campbell — prior to their depositions. Though there were some conflicting reports on the specifics, both TMLC and the DI agreed that the withdrawal took place because TMLC refused to allow the witnesses to have their own attorney present during depositions. Two other DI fellows, Michael Behe and Scott Minnich, having already been deposed, were unaffected by the dispute and went on to testify at the trial.

But the withdrawal of Dembski, Meyer, and Campbell only deepened the rift between TMLC and the DI. That rift came to a very public head at an American Enterprise Institute forum on ID on October 21st in Washington DC, while the trial was still going on in Pennsylvania. At that forum, TMLC director Richard Thompson publicly accused the DI of “victimizing” the Dover school board and of undermining their case “because we could not present the expert testimony we thought we could present.” He further said that the DI didn’t want Behe or Minnich to testify either, but that they agreed to do so nonetheless. All in all, preparations for the case were going brilliantly for the plaintiffs and very badly for the defense. And things would only get worse for them.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-12-20.html

Not that I know anything about the case.....

Behe: And the distinction that I was trying to make throughout my testimony is that when we use scientific reasoning, and when we constrict ourselves to physical evidence and logical reasoning, we can only go so far. We can say we don't have a natural -- we don't have an explanation for this event right now. We cannot -- and the history of science shows this time and time again, we cannot say that because we don't have a natural or an explanation for a certain event now, that we won't have one in the future. Intelligent design I think is in the same category as the Big Bang on that point.

Bullshit. By positing an other-than-natural cause, Behe et al. have gone outside the boundaries of science.

So the whole Big Bang thing is 'outside the boundries of science'?

Better get cracking on the next lawsuit.

So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument 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."

Bingo. Behe has now admitted that the acceptance of his proposals is dependent upon the extent to which one believes in a religious entity - God.

Absolutely.

If you are openminded, it is reasonable.

If you are hostile to the idea of a deity, it is less plausible.

If you are a fundie atheist- it is heresy.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Appearantly not that hard if you wish to put out a hit piece on an issue that the 'scientific' community finds heretical.

Only if you wish to rebut said criticisms.

Peer review frankly doesn't mean shit to me when your 'peers' are to biased to evn let you answer their attacks.

What you know about scientific publication procedures and peer review wouldn't fill a thimble.

Apparently, the same goes for Behe.

Science is not about giving the same space and time to each and every proposition or kindergarten concepts of "fair." It is a frigging brutal process in which only those ideas with a preponderance of evidence (like natural selection has, with evidence from molecular bio, genetics, morphology, geology, etc.) get funding and publication.

Behe has admitted that he has no research to support his claims. And just being a perpetual nay-sayer (particularly when you keep rehashing the same discredited arguments) doesn't earn you any space.

It's not a conspiracy. It's how it's done. And neither you nor Behe has to like it.

Actually the dispute was with TLMC, and Johnson wasn't among those slated to testify....

My bad on listing Johnson. The rest of my point still stands, since the nutjobs at Thomas More Law Center ARE the pro-ID folks of which I was speaking.

Not that I know anything about the case.....

Actually, you've demonstrated that you don't. That's one of the reasons you somehow believe that posting links to Behe's scientifically discredited arguments proves anything. His explanations of IC are ludicrous and have been thoroughly disproven both scientifically and logically. The fact that you can't understand the molecular biology being discussed helps explain why you don't see that Behe hasn't ever rebutted his detractors at all...he merely restates the same tired, disproven crap over and over and over again...

The fact that you think that the science community somehow "owes" it to Behe to give him the attention and publications he "deserves" shows your ignorance of how science is done.

And anyone who buys Behe's/Dembski's/Johnson's argument that we should redefine "theory" and re-write what is acceptable as a scientific proposa just so they can squeak ID in as "science" is intellectually dishonest, ignorant, or just plain stupid.

So the whole Big Bang thing is 'outside the boundries of science'?

Better get cracking on the next lawsuit.

You sure do love that red herring, don't you?

Remember: the debate here is on the validity of ID as science...and that it has been shown to have none.

So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, the argument 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."

Bingo. Behe has now admitted that the acceptance of his proposals is dependent upon the extent to which one believes in a religious entity - God.

Absolutely.

If you are openminded, it is reasonable.

As a theological or philosophical matter, sure. As a scientific proposition, absolutely not.

If you are hostile to the idea of a deity, it is less plausible.

If you are a fundie atheist- it is heresy.

Discussion of God has no place in a science class. Using God as a form of supernatural spackle to patch up perceived holes in scientific explanations is not science. It's bad theology. I'm a Christian (Trinitarian, Nicene Creed-type), so my hostility to ID has nothing to do with antipathy to the idea of a God.

In drama and literature, resorting to deus ex machina is the hallmark of a bad writer. In science, it's laughable and inexcusable.

[Truman]

Good read, Mike.

You know, I have never really understood why some folks have such difficulty harmonizing the tenets of Intelligent Design and Darwinism. Progressives seek to have any reference to Creationism stricken from the lecture hall, while the Right considers teaching anything less to be blasphemy. As a Christian with a 20-year-old bio degree from a publicly-funded, land-grant university, I say that you can have your cake and eat it too.

Almost every biology professor I ever had gave nod to a Higher Power at work in the universe and acknowledged the fact that some things simply cannot be easily explained by science alone. That stated, however, we went about the business of learning the precepts of species adaptation and micro-evolution.

What is truly amusing – and at times, alarming – is that science is being used by politicos on opposite ends of this debate to push forth their respective agendas.

While scientific history has all but proven that our planet is over 4 billion years old (and possibly closer to 6), Creationists doggedly hold to their literal belief in the Book of Genesis. Well and good, but such decisiveness doesn’t readily explain the phenomena of, say, dinosaurs, (:roll:) and truly has no place in the science lab.

But while the Libs arrogantly claim ‘bode on this debate, they patently ignore scientific history when applied to another: Global Warming. The same folks who would have you driving hybrids and eating soybeans in deference to methane-producing livestock, base their argument on 150 years of documented temperature gradients from select locations. Are Greenland’s glaciers melting? Yes, but Antarctica’s ice cap is thickening as well. While northern Missouri farmers till fertile soil enriched by minerals left from the last ice age, a vigilant stroll through any Ozark streambed will produce a fossil from a time when this area was covered by a tropical sea.

Much as proponents from both sides would argue differently, isn’t it enough to say that we definitively just don’t know? Can’t a science professor attribute such unknowns to phenomena we cannot begin to understand at this time without being branded a fundamentalist?

[Mike the Lab Rat]

When I did research, I had never -in 11 years- run into anyone in the field who was an atheist or even an agnostic. The first person filling that category that I've run into is the earth science/physics teacher in our district, and I'm not quite sure if he's for real or just being contrarian (everyone else in the science dept. is a practicing Christian).

One problem that us "religious evolutionist" folks have is that there are some misguided people with atheist agendas (the most prominent of which is an otherwise-brilliant researcher named Dawkins) who use natural selection to attack any and all religion. These individuals are as misguided as the creationists in that they try to present their false choice between science and religion as a fact. Dawkins is precisely the foe that creationists see when they see pro-evolution people. And that's a shame, because he's misusing science for his own personal "crusade" against all religion.

When I teach evolution, I tell the kids that if/how they reconcile the course material with their personal beliefs is completely up to them.I can't and won't help them with that, even though I know what works for me. I tell them that if they have issues, to talk to their spiritual guidance folks (family, clergy, etc.) and that if those folks want to talk to me about the science, that I'm here for them.

[poptart]

Dinosaurs are easily explained by those taking the Bible at it's Word.

They lived, they died.

What's your beef...?

You know, I have never really understood why some folks have such difficulty harmonizing the tenets of Intelligent Design and Darwinism

If 'ID' is speaking of the God of the Bible then the two are not harmonious.

The Bible clearly tells us that death and 'corruption' entered the world after Satan deceived man and man sinned. (Rom 5:12, ICor 15:21)

4-6 billion years of death and corruption before Satan made his mark on the world ...... ?

How do YOU 're-organize' scripture to fit what you see science as telling you...?



For what it's worth, I do NOT believe the ID should be taught in a science class.

Nor do I think ANY segment on the 'orign of man' ought to be taught in a science class.

Both ought to be offered as electives.

[Mister Bushice]

Dinosaurs are easily explained by those taking the Bible at it's Word.

They lived, they died.

What's your beef...?

The biblical timeline. Noahs worldwide flood for starters.

Almost every biology professor I ever had gave nod to a Higher Power at work in the universe and acknowledged the fact that some things simply cannot be easily explained by science alone. That stated, however, we went about the business of learning the precepts of species adaptation and micro-evolution.

Personal belief and Classroom curriculum are not interwoven for a reason.

Much as proponents from both sides would argue differently, isn’t it enough to say that we definitively just don’t know? Can’t a science professor attribute such unknowns to phenomena we cannot begin to understand at this time without being branded a fundamentalist?

As long as that "Unknown" isn't a "God" Or Supreme Being", I see no problem with saying " There is no known cause for this".

but it's ignorant and self serving to lump everything we don't understand about science into the category of being a creation by a superior being.

[Diogenes]

First of all, not all Christians (or Jews) take Genesis as being Literal in the creation story.

And even if you do accept it as fact, a young universe does not nessecarily mean a young earth, due to Relativity and space/time dilation.

Speaking of ID and global warming, has anyone else read this yet....



...been meaning to check it out.(Author on CSPAN right now.)

And for those who haven't veen following (or only following a certain 'scientist's interpretation of a certain judge's interpretation of a certain 'ID expert's interpretation...) ID supporters as a whole, unlike creationists, do not posit a young earth {or say anything about the age of the earth at all) or dispute natural selection (descent with modification is another matter) or the existance of dinosaurs.

Mearly the materialist interpretation stuffed down the throats of high school students.




Interesting link from the Spectator on Thermodynamics and evolution.

[BSmack]

Talk about a bunch of half truths and strawmen.

[Diogenes]

Talk about a bunch of half truths and strawmen.

So you read it... and disaprove?

Definitly on the must read list.

[BSmack]

Talk about a bunch of half truths and strawmen.

So you read it... and disaprove?

Definitly on the must read list.

I tend to avoid paying my hard earned cash for that kind of drivel. Maybe if I find it at a garage sale in the 25 cent book bin...

[Diogenes]

Talk about a bunch of half truths and strawmen.

So you read it?

No, I just felt like chiming in about something I know squat about.

Shocking.


Not really.

As far as the 'scientific study' on the young earth theory, it probably has something to do with Barry Setterfield's theories on C decay.

And as far as...

Nothing, as long as you can prove there is a creator and who created said creator.

So what did cause the Big Bang and where exactly did they prove it occured?



Or are you in favor of shitcanning that also?

Link on the relationship of science and religion.

[RadioFan]

I'm pretty sure MtLR has seen this. Not sure if Dins has. I transcribed this out, a couple of years ago and saved it.


An excerpt from "A World of Ideas," a PBS series aired several years ago, transcribed into a book I own. The series included interviews with economists, scientists, historians, sociologists and others. Sorry there's no link. I transcribed this from Bill Moyers' interview with Issac Asimov. It was published in 1989. Sorry if there are any typos. Moyers, btw, is a Baptist.

MOYERS: In 1980 you were afraid that the fundamentalists who were coming into power with President Reagan were going to turn this country even further against science, especially with their demands that biblical creationism be given an equal footing in the classroom with science. Have they made those inroads that you feared?

ASIMOV: Fortunately, the currents have been against them. But they still put pressure on school boards and parents, and it's become a little more difficult in many parts of the nation to teach evolution.

MOYERS: The fundamentalists see you as the very incarnation of the enemy, the epitome of the secular humanist who opposes God's plan for the universe. In 1984, the American Humanist Society gave you their Humanist of the Year Award, and now you're president of that organization. Are you an enemy of religion?

ASIMOV: No, I'm not. What I'm against is the attempt to place a person's belief system onto the nation or the world generally. We object to the Soviet Union trying to dominate the world, to communize the world. The United States, I hope, is trying to democratize the world. But I certainly would be very much against trying to Christianize the world or to Islamize it or to Judaize it or anything of the sort. My objection to fundamentalism is not that they are fundamentalists but that essentially they want me to be a fundamentalist, too. Now, they may say that I believe evolution is true and I want everyone to believe that evolution is true. But I don't want everyone to believe that evolution is true, I want them to study what we say about evolution and to decide for themselves. Fundamentalists say they want to treat creationism on an equal basis. But they can't. It's not science. You can teach creationism in churches and in courses in religion. They would be horrified if I were to suggest that in the churches they teach secular humanism as an alternative way of looking at the universe or evolution as an alternative way of considering how life may have started. In the church they teach only what they believe, and rightly so, I suppose. But on the other hand, in schools, in science courses, we've got to teach what scientists think is the way the universe works.

MOYERS: But this is what frightens many believers. They see science as uncertain, always tentative, always subject to revisionism. They see science as presenting a complex, chilling, and enormous universe ruled by chance and impersonal laws. They see science as dangerous.

ASIMOV: That is really the glory of science – that science is tentative, that it is not certain, that it is subject to change. What is really disgraceful is to have a set of beliefs that you think is absolute and has been so from the start and can't change, where you simply won't listen to evidence. You say, "If the evidence agrees with me, it's not necessary, and if it doesn't agree with me, it's false." This is the legendary remark of Omar when they captured Alexandria and asked him what to do with the library. He said, "If the books agree with the Koran, they are not necessary and may be burned. If they disagree with the Koran, they are pernicious and must be burned." Well, there are still Omar-like thinkers who think all of knowledge will fit into one book called the Bible, and who refuse to allow it is possible to ever conceive of an error there. To my way of thinking, that is much more dangerous than a system of knowledge that is tentative and uncertain.

MOYERS: Do you see any room for reconciling the religious view in which the universe is God's drama, constantly interrupted and rewritten by divine intervention, and the view of the universe as scientists hold it?

ASIMOV: There is if people are reasonable. There are many scientists who are honestly religious. Millikan was a truly religious man. Morley of the Michelson-Morley experiment was truly religious. There were hundreds of others who did great scientific work, good scientific work, and at the same time were religious. But they don't mix their religion and science. In other words, if something they didn't understand took place in science, they didn't dismiss it by saying, "Well, that's what God wants," or "At this point a miracle took place." No, they knew that science is strictly a construct of the human mind working according to the laws of nature, and that religion is something that lies outside and may embrace science. You know, if there were suddenly to arise scientific, confirmable evidence that God exists, then scientists would have no choice but to accept that fact. On the other hand, the fundamentalists don't admit the possibility of evidence that would show, for example, that evolution exists. Any evidence you present they will deny if it conflicts with the word of God as they think it to be. So the chances of compromise are only on one side, and therefore, I doubt that it will take place.

[Diogenes]

ASIMOV: That is really the glory of science – that science is tentative, that it is not certain, that it is subject to change. What is really disgraceful is to have a set of beliefs that you think is absolute and has been so from the start and can't change, where you simply won't listen to evidence. You say, "If the evidence agrees with me, it's not necessary, and if it doesn't agree with me, it's false." This is the legendary remark of Omar when they captured Alexandria and asked him what to do with the library. He said, "If the books agree with Darwin, they are not necessary and may be burned. If they disagree with Darwin, they are pernicious and must be burned." Well, there are still Omar-like thinkers who think all of knowledge will fit into one book called Origin of species, and who refuse to allow it is possible to ever conceive of an error there. To my way of thinking, that is much more dangerous than a system of knowledge that is tentative and uncertain.

[Mister Bushice]

Even better:

ASIMOV: There were hundreds of others who did great scientific work, good scientific work, and at the same time were religious. But they don't mix their religion and science. In other words, if something they didn't understand took place in science, they didn't dismiss it by saying, "Well, that's what God wants," or "At this point a miracle took place." No, they knew that science is strictly a construct of the human mind working according to the laws of nature, and that religion is something that lies outside and may embrace science. You know, if there were suddenly to arise scientific, confirmable evidence that God exists, then scientists would have no choice but to accept that fact. On the other hand, the fundamentalists don't admit the possibility of evidence that would show, for example, that evolution exists. Any evidence you present they will deny if it conflicts with the word of God as they think it to be. So the chances of compromise are only on one side, and therefore, I doubt that it will take place.

Very telling how much that interview from 25 years back reflects much of what is going on today, in terms of the fundamentalists attempting to place their belief system onto the backs of the general public.

I also read where the New Dover school board formally struck down the whole ID law.

Now Dover has to figure out how to pay the expected 1 million plus in legal fees.

If that's not a deterrent to Christians tyring to force their religious beliefs into the school system, I don't know what is. :)

[Diogenes]

Even better:

ASIMOV: There were hundreds of others who did great scientific work, good scientific work, and at the same time are atheist. But they can't help but mix their irreligion and science. In other words, if something they didn't understand took place in science, they did dismiss it by saying, "Well, that's what the creationists want you to believe," or "At this point let's attack the apostate." No, we know that science is strictly a construct of the human mind working according to the laws of nature, and that religion is something that lies outside and must bow before Darwin. You know, if there were suddenly to arise scientific, confirmable evidence that God exists, then Darwinists would have no choice but to attack the evidence. On the other hand, the ID proponents don't even deny, for example, that evolution exists. Any evidence you present we will deny if it conflicts with the word of Darwin as we think it to be. So the chances of compromise are only on one side, and therefore, I doubt that it will take place.

Very telling how much that interview from 25 years back reflects much of what is going on today, in terms of the fundamentalists attempting to place their belief system onto the backs of the general public.

The fundies currently have their belief system foisted onto the general public.

With no questions allowed.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A couple of quick questions, Dio.

Why are you deliberately misquoting Asimov in some sort of, I guess, effort to "prove" creationism? What's next? Are you going to take transcripts from the Scopes Monkey trial, and change Darrow's wording to "prove" creationism as well?

If that's the best you can do, why not sack up and admit that, unlike the scientists, you have no proof on your side? Trust me, you'd save yourself a lot of grief that way.

[Diogenes]

A couple of quick questions, Dio.

Why are you deliberately misquoting Asimov in some sort of, I guess, effort to "prove" creationism? What's next? Are you going to take transcripts from the Scopes Monkey trial, and change Darrow's wording to "prove" creationism as well?

If that's the best you can do, why not sack up and admit that, unlike the scientists, you have no proof on your side? Trust me, you'd save yourself a lot of grief that way.

There's another thread up here about Creationism, I'm discussing intelligent Design. I amended Asimov's quotes, because they are much more applicapable to the Fundie Darwinists than the ID movement, and I'm not nessecarily trying to 'prove' ID, just correcting distortions about it.

[Mister Bushice]

You changed someones quotes, then posted them?

That's pathetic.

[Diogenes]

You changed someones quotes, then posted them?

That's pathetic.

It went over your head?

That's shocking.







Not really.

[Mister Bushice]

I didn't back track the source from 16 years ago. I didn't figure even you would stoop that low.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I didn't figure even you would stoop that low.

You're new here?
Welcome to T1B, Mister Bushice. Remember, smack can be brutal...
...and try to stay out of The Bath House.

[Diogenes]

I didn't back track the source from 16 years ago.

That wouldn't have been nessecary.

Being able to read the fucking quote would have been enough.

Yes, it was a good analogy.

And no, it wasn't intended to 'fool' anyone, only a fool wouldn't have got it.

[Mister Bushice]

Forgot to mention - I rarely read all of your posts. The boldface text and the circular arguments are tedious.

[Diogenes]

the circular arguments are tedious.

I agree, but I felt like debunking them anyway.

[Dr_Phibes]

Forgot to mention - I rarely read all of your posts. The boldface text and the circular arguments are tedious.

I'll wager that after posting all this 'science is nonsense' crap, he'll open a running microwaves door to see if his dinner is done.

[Terry in Crapchester]

A couple of quick questions, Dio.

Why are you deliberately misquoting Asimov in some sort of, I guess, effort to "prove" creationism? What's next? Are you going to take transcripts from the Scopes Monkey trial, and change Darrow's wording to "prove" creationism as well?

If that's the best you can do, why not sack up and admit that, unlike the scientists, you have no proof on your side? Trust me, you'd save yourself a lot of grief that way.

There's another thread up here about Creationism, I'm discussing intelligent Design.

ID IS creationism. I prefer to call a spade a spade.

I amended Asimov's quotes, because they are much more applicapable to the Fundie Darwinists than the ID movement,

Hardly. See above.

[Diogenes]

A couple of quick questions, Dio.

Why are you deliberately misquoting Asimov in some sort of, I guess, effort to "prove" creationism? What's next? Are you going to take transcripts from the Scopes Monkey trial, and change Darrow's wording to "prove" creationism as well?

If that's the best you can do, why not sack up and admit that, unlike the scientists, you have no proof on your side? Trust me, you'd save yourself a lot of grief that way.

There's another thread up here about Creationism, I'm discussing intelligent design.

ID IS creationism.

Saying that there are problems with descent with modification and spontaneous biogenesis is the same as claiming that the entier universe was created in 6 24 hour days?

Bullshit.

[RadioFan]

Saying that there are problems with descent with modification and spontaneous biogenesis ...

Dio, maybe MtLR can correct me here, but it seems to me scientists of all stripes may have problems with "spontaneous biogenesis," whatever that means.

[Diogenes]

Honest scientists of all stripes would, just not materialist/atheist fundies.

Abiogenesis-the hypothetical process where life spontaneously formed from organic material that had arisen from inorganic material.

spontaneous adj 1: happening or arising without apparent external cause



And descent with modification is the part of Darwins theory ID proponents take exception to, which is why neodarwinsts invariably like to talk about natural selection, which nobody in the ID movement takes issue with.

[Terry in Crapchester]

There's another thread up here about Creationism, I'm discussing intelligent design.

ID IS creationism.

Saying that there are problems with descent with modification and spontaneous biogenesis is the same as claiming that the entier universe was created in 6 24 hour days?

Bullshit.

Evolution has nothing to do with spontaneous biogenesis. And ID/creationism is about much more than poking holes in evolution (although that's what they hold out as "proof" of their theory).

It's painfully obvious to anyone who functions intellectually at the level of a 6th grader or higher that the "intelligent designer" referenced in ID/creationism is the Judeo-Christian God.

[Diogenes]

ID IS creationism.

Saying that there are problems with descent with modification and spontaneous biogenesis is the same as claiming that the entier universe was created in 6 24 hour days?

Bullshit.

Evolution has nothing to do with spontaneous biogenesis.

Then they should eliminate biogenesis from the curriculum in public schools, since it is clearly not science.

And ID/creationism is about much more than poking holes in evolution (although that's what they hold out as "proof" of their theory).

So the neodarwinist/atheist fundies like to claim.

Again, the bottom line is that this is less about science per se that public education. Should the government be forcing a materialist worldview down the throats of school children to begin with?

School choice (and not just for the economicly well to do, hypocrites) is the solution.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

Criminy....I can't believe this thread is still kickin'

"Descent with modification" just means that all species have descended, with changes, from earlier one.

The mechanism by which Darwin proposed descent with modification HE HIMSELF called "natural selection."

For Dio or anyone else to parse those phrases in a way that remotely suggests that the phrase "natural selection" was EVER at ANY TIME a concept not originating from Darwin's original proposals is deliberately disingenuous.

Also disingenuous is Dio's attempt to cast evolutionists as "fundies." Fundamentalism as a term implies a literalist, originalist reading of either Scripture, or in Dio's poorly-conceived mind, "Origin of Species." The problem is that, NO scientist or science teacher espouses Darwin's original ideas as the current, complete understanding of evolution.

Darwin's proposals in general are correct, but due to the limitations imposed on him by his time's limited understanding of genetics, population dynamics, developmental biology, etc., some of his proposals (including gradualism) have had to be modified as our knowledge in these areas increased. Modern scientists and science educators use what is known as the "modern synthesis," which incorporates the understandings of genetics, population genetics, epigenetics, developmental biology, molecular biology, Hox genes, etc. Science, including evolutionary science, weighs the evidence in various fields and modifies or discards previously held ideas as the preponderance of evidence would dictate. That is why punctuated equilibrium is currently given more credence than gradualism.

For Dio et al. to imply that evolutionists take a literalist and unchanged view of Darwin's late-19th century proposals is a deliberate deception on their part.

Then again, since ID proponents have been caught repeatedly and deliberately lying about Darwin's proposals, misrepresenting scientific research methodology (including peer review), deliberately misquoting scientists (Dio's doing so with Asimov follow that tradition nicely...), and attempting special pleading to re-write the rules of science to get their cryptocreationist drivel accepted, one more deception on their part is just par for the course.

ID folk have no integrity or honesty. They are inveterate and unrepentant liars.

Period.

[Diogenes]

For Dio or anyone else to parse those phrases in a way that remotely suggests that the phrase "natural selection" was EVER at ANY TIME a concept not originating from Darwin's original proposals is deliberately disingenuous.


Talk about disingenuous...

He may or may not have originated the phrase but the concept goes back to Maupertuis, William Charles Wells and his Grandfather Erasmus Darwin.

And again, is not in dispute from ID, unlike descent with modification.