In response to my "The second part of the Dover Kitzmiller decision sided with the Plaintiff's position that ID is 'Creationism in a cheap tuxedo', basing it on several of NCSE shills' testimony, by some unfounded IC (irreducible complexity) refutations by Kenneth Miller, and by drivel by Robert Pennock, John Haught, and Brian Alters."
Shills? Drivel? Glad to see you are being objective.
I could give detailed answers as to why I and others have concluded that, but I'll give a brief summation, my prior comments in italics, yours in bold italics.
Miller gave arguments as to why the clotting system and the flagellum were not IC (irreducibly complex), but rather evolveable. Except for one thing; his rationale has been easily refuted. Behe on his Amazon blog posts (I'm not allowed yet to provide the actual links) does just that.
In testimony at trial, Miller noted that a subset of its proteins exist in the Type III Secretory System, concluding that they were a precursor, and that by exaptation (cooption), they later assumed a different function. These args are also give by Miller on several videos taped at various lectures. He was well rehearsed for the Dover fiasco. My arguments below are brief, as this is not the forum for more detailed explanations. Nick Matzke has a detailed paper on pandasthumb, but it also lacks intermediate steps. Statements like, " ... and the archaeal cenancestor was forced to re-evolve a completely new form of flagellum" do nothing to explain how a complex, functional protein structure could simply come about via evolution [page 44 of the pdf].
Have you seen the cartoon, " ... then, a miracle occurs" written on the blackboard, and where the prof says, "I think you should be more explicit here in step two." That could easily be changed to, " ... then, it 'evolved' to a new form of flagellum!" No difference. Nada.
First, there is more evidence that the flagellum came first, since the TTSS would need a means of propulsion to inject other cells. Secondly, he gave no explanation of how the purported secondary role could evolve, since many more proteins and morphologic construts needed to come about to make it into a propulsion system. But Miller lectures college crowds on a regular basis, argues convincingly, and the court bought it. If the defense attorneys had have acted properly, they could have easily punched holes in it, as has been done since. Search "flagellum unspun" and "william dembski" for one such rebuttal.
ID was found to be 'Creationism in a cheap tuxedo' based on all the evidence presented, including evidence that ID was a direct response to court rulings on Scientific Creationism. In other words, ID was used as a means of replacing Scientific Creationism with something that might be do a better job in selling religion as science. ID is 'Creationism in a cheap tuxedo.
"The board's actions were shown to be religiouly motivated, and yes, they coopted the ID term for their own use. This was
their action, and never the motive of ID proper. The 'tuxedo' metaphore might apply here, but not in its proper defined paradigm. Judge Jones was out of line to make that false judgement."
"Defense witnesses were sparse, and the defense team was lax in objecting to 'leading the witness' during Michael Behe's testimony (several key instances), and objecting to theatrics, (a stack of literature placed where Behe had to crane his neck to peer around it. The literature was not proof of anything conclusive [no actual citations], but merely a Comedy Central type put-on. It elicited giggles from the audience, and a smile from the judge)."
Most of the Defense witnesses from Discovery Insitute ran off like rats from a sinking ship. In the process they abandoned the flock in the School Board who had foolishly counted on their support.
Correct, since they were against the school board's actions and didn't want to be involved in defending them. But the defense council erred in not soliciting additional witnesses to defend ID per se, although not necessarily the school board itself. (shakey case; tough plaintiff group, ACLU & NCSE). Furthermore, they erred in agreeing to have the judge ajudicate regarding IDs validity. In essence however, neither a non scientist (Judge Jones), nor
any courtroom for that matter, is qualified to make that kind of ruling. Courtrooms do not rule on scientific theories or hypotheses.
What you call "theatrics" I call evidence. Can you explain why Behe had not read any of those books or papers before concluding that NO research was being done on the molecular mechanisms of evolution?
Certainly. There are thousands of published scientific papers, books, experiment journals, etc. Why is it logical that he had read those per se? He didn't state that
"NO research was being done", just that it had
not been established as fact.
But he
did state that he was familiar with enough published works regarding clotting mechanisms (Russell Doolittle et al), in addition to his own, that he knew of no works that definitively verified an evolutionary pathway for the complete clotting process. Miller's citing of the puffer fish only showed that it lacked three particular factors compared to vertebrates. He also misquotted from Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box' regarding the necessity of the Intrinsic Pathway for all clotting systems (where those three factors reside), to substantiate his arguments. His misquotes are covered here: Search "evolutionnews" and "misquotes michael behe"
He in no way refuted Behe's designer arguments, nor did he make the case for the evolution of the clotting system. But again, Miller is a showman, and can appear convincing. In the 1800's he could have made a fortune selling quack remedies off the back of a wagon.
That just shows [Jones] was not a partisan of either side. It is a judicial precedent, which will be applied to other cases.
"Perhaps, but the decision itself only applies to the Dover District.
"And yet, many (you included) give that decision credence as valid, authorative and universally applicable!? Au contraire mon ami, rather, it is an ipso facto argument from authority, with no substance whatsoever."
No substance whatsoever? What fantasy world do you live in? It is, as I said, judicial precedent.
But it's not to be classified as a 'binding' judicial precedent (from a high court), so except in a lower court, it would not apply. It is therefore not a problem in a strict sense, but it is a problem since it has influenced courts of districts not affected by it to abide by it. And it
can be overturned. Due to
stare decisis, (the premise that 'it stands'), it may be difficult and require a legal challege. But I predict that it will be overturned, probably by the Supreme Court.
"The science and academic community has indeed instituted a fascist campaign to stifle criticism of the naturalistic paradigm of natural selection. This is the true 'science stopper', rather than the hypothesis that evolutionary processes were intervened with (data added), by the directed action of one or more intelligences over vast time."
You have shown NO evience of this at all. Just anecdotal stories of individuals and their opinions. I am interested in the actions of departments, colleges, research funding organizations, etc. and their wholesale stifling of the investigation into whether or not intelligence can be scientifically accessed in design. Where is that?
The Bergman book cites institutions by name, including job degeneration at the Smithsonian (Richard Sternberg ), tenure denied at Iowa State (Guillermo Gonzalez), at Baylor (Francis J. Beckwith, who has subsequently distanced himself from ID as a result), and others covered in the book. But consider this; no college, employer or funding institution will admit to such. In the case of Gonzalez, it was stated that he was not active in bringing in research grants. His ID advocacy wasn't admitted to by the university, but is likely the prime reason for denial.
I won't respond to your critiques of the reviewer's quotes from the book that I cited, since they're out of context and not by me. But they
are from the book, and are documented and foot noted as legimate. I believe that in all cases, institutional names are provided.
"I'm curious as to which 'side' you side with?"
Side? My side is that science should be taught in science classes.
Mine too. And ID (based on observatiion and analysis
only) IS science.
