Behe takes the stand in Dover

[HairlessSimian]

Evolution is a scientific theory, and as such is not provable. Other theories exist.

Is any part of the above false?
Unless part of the above statement is false, what is the problem in saying so on science textbooks?

Ahem. Read my signature.
'Other theories' does not include ID or divine creation, since they are not scientific theories and so do not belong in Science class.

 

[notto]

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles
by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by
pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Behe was for the defense, right?

 

[Dr.GH]

Behe was for the defense, right?

Heh heh. "With friends like these ..." His testimony has been terrible for the IDCs. I can hardly wait for the last block of his cross-X to be posted.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles
by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by
pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Behe was for the defense, right?

Just talking out loud here, but I just don't understand what the defense strategy is. What exactly is their defense for reading the statement? It can't be that there's a real scientific controversy. It can't be because ID has a healthy body of research in the scientific literature.

The Dover school board is free to implement incompetent policies, but no policy, competent or not, is constitutionally permissible if it either advances a religion or hinders the teaching of genuine science because of religious objections.

The evidence is clear that several members of the board had religious motivations for imposing the policy. That's okay if there is also a valid secular purpose for the policy, such as promoting good science instruction. But the evidence is now also overwhelming that ID is not even science (unless we use Behe's definition, in which case astrology is also science). So what the heck was the defense thinking? What the heck was the school board thinking?

 

[Dr.GH]

Well, there are some confused people here to be sure. Not one person on the Dover School Board is qualified as either a scientist of an educator. There are a majority that are simply fundamentalists. Clearly they believed the professional ID propagandists that ID was True™ science. Really, honest, with math and all that stuff; science. Their "message" seems to have been based on the Georgia science book "sticker" with enough variations that they thought that it could pass. And, finally the notion that "Of Pandas and People" was supportable science seemed to have not been questioned, even by the non-fundy minority on the Board. Still and all, before the vote took place the fundies drove the non-fundies off the Board.

The Defense legal team make the School Board fundies look like moderates. This coupled with the fact that their income depends on high profile religious cases, has produced an approach that the far smarter Discovery Institute lawyers have tried to avoid like the plague.

Then, it has been obvious for years that the intellectual rot has destroyed both Behe and Dembski. They deny that there is any critical problem with their beliefs, and take the attitude that their many critics are merely athiests. Unlike their critics, who carefully read the creationists, the creationists ignor the mainstream scientific refutations of their position. So, Behe has estabilished a routinized presentation for friendly church audiences that he was incompetent to defend under actual questioning. Dembski bailed out early on and is now merely trying to collect his "expert witness" fees.

I won't be surprised if other defense experts 'hit the trail' following the demolishment of Behe under cross examination.

 

[mark kennedy]

Mark, you're missing a few lambdas.

notto, so is Dawinian gradulalism.

 

[notto]

notto, so is Dawinian gradulalism.

But apparenlty not as much as ID. Just ask Behe.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles
by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by
pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

 

[mark kennedy]

Well, there are some confused people here to be sure. Not one person on the Dover School Board is qualified as either a scientist of an educator. There are a majority that are simply fundamentalists. Clearly they believed the professional ID propagandists that ID was True™ science. Really, honest, with math and all that stuff; science. Their "message" seems to have been based on the Georgia science book "sticker" with enough variations that they thought that it could pass. And, finally the notion that "Of Pandas and People" was supportable science seemed to have not been questioned, even by the non-fundy minority on the Board. Still and all, before the vote took place the fundies drove the non-fundies off the Board.

Imagine that, school boards that have only common citizens. ID, if it were be treated fairly would be represented by what it actually does, it criticizes Darwinism. Now since no one on here has the nerve to defend it they don't have to right to attempt to address ID.

The Defense legal team make the School Board fundies look like moderates. This coupled with the fact that their income depends on high profile religious cases, has produced an approach that the far smarter Discovery Institute lawyers have tried to avoid like the plague.

Prove it or give it up.

Then, it has been obvious for years that the intellectual rot has destroyed both Behe and Dembski. They deny that there is any critical problem with their beliefs, and take the attitude that their many critics are merely athiests. Unlike their critics, who carefully read the creationists, the creationists ignor the mainstream scientific refutations of their position. So, Behe has estabilished a routinized presentation for friendly church audiences that he was incompetent to defend under actual questioning. Dembski bailed out early on and is now merely trying to collect his "expert witness" fees.

I won't be surprised if other defense experts 'hit the trail' following the demolishment of Behe under cross examination.

Ok, then show the cross examination on these boards and we can leave it at that.

 

[mark kennedy]

But apparenlty not as much as ID. Just ask Behe.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles
by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by
pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Great! Now show me the context the question was asked in.

 

[KerrMetric]

Great! Now show me the context the question was asked in.

That question needed no context. It was self contained and asked for a simple yes/no.

 

[mark kennedy]

That question needed no context. It was self contained and asked for a simple yes/no.

So what is the question? This is about a logical fallacy so you should know the question, what is it!?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

ID, if it were be treated fairly would be represented by what it actually does, it criticizes Darwinism.

I'm all for exposing students to legitimate criticisms of evolution, i.e., criticisms which appear in the scientific literature, not hack textbooks like Pandas or propaganda like Icons.

Besides, ID is being treated fairly. Its coverage in high school science programs is proportional to its support in the science literature, which is to say, zero.

 

[Dr.GH]

Mark, You can download the trial transcripts for yourself here:

http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm

The last posted transcript is from Beje's cross X on Thursday morning posted here:

http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/Day12AM.pdf

The National Center for Science Education has a link list, and commentary here:

http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/

Creationist commentary is here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage

Enjoy!

 

[Tomk80]

So what is the question? This is about a logical fallacy so you should know the question, what is it!?

It is not about a logical fallacy. It's about a question in the trial. Let's state it again:

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles
by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by
pertinent experiments or calculations which provide
detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of
any biological system occurred, is that correct?


It is a completely self-contained question, which Behe answered with 'yes'.

 

[Dr.GH]

Imagine that, school boards that have only common citizens.

Mark the next time your kids ar sick, I trust that you will take them to the local park so that "common citizens" can tell you what to do. I have a bit more concern for education that you seem to have, and a lot more respect for teachers.

ID, if it were be treated fairly would be represented by what it actually does, it criticizes Darwinism.

ID does not merely "criticize Darwinism" and you either are not informed about ID, or you are lying. I'll assume for now that you are uninformed. According to William Dembski, "... the emerging Intelligent Design movement has a four pronged approach to defeating naturalism: (1) A scientific/philosophical critique of naturalism; (2) a positive scientific research program (Intelligent Design) for investigating the effects of intelligent causes; (3) rethinking every field of inquiry infected with naturalism and reconceptualizing it in terms of design; (4) development of a theology of nature by relating the intelligence inferred by intelligent design to the God of Scripture (Dembski 1998 “Introduction” in Mere Creation Dembski (ed). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press). There are comparable statements of goals from Phil Johnson, Jon Wells, and so on down the list of ID "stars." I recommend reading the expert testimony of Barbara Forrest. Or better, you should read "Creationism's Trojan Horse" by Forrest and Paul Gross.

Now since no one on here has the nerve to defend it they don't have to right to attempt to address ID.

BWahahaha. How bold you are! I'll defend my rights as needs be.
Your hypocrisy is showing. First, here are the sorts of demands made by Behe for a "Darwinist" model of evolution,

Proteins change single mutation by single mutation, amino acid by amino acid, so that’s the level of explanation that is needed. What part of "numerous, successive, slight" is so hard to understand?

And not only a list of mutations, but also a detailed account of the selective pressures that would be operating, the difficulties such changes would cause for the organism, the expected time scale over which the changes would be expected to occur, the likely population sizes available in the relevant ancestral species at each step, other potential ways to solve the problem which might interfere, and much more.

Why this is asinine is exposed by Andrea Bottaro in Behe’s meaningless complexity.


Or consider Dembski's retreat from the claim that ID is science,

"You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering."

 

[Dr.GH]

According to the ACLU-PA

The defense abruptly withdrew its expert witness Dick Carpenter II, who was set to testify on Friday. Instead, we were treated to the cross-examination of Dover Area School District Superintendent Richard Nilsen.

In the key of funk, "There's another one down, There's another one down, There's another one bites the dust ..."

Actually, without reading the trial transcript, I am not certain that Carpenter has, like Elvis, "left the building." According to the trial schedule the defense will call Michael Baksa and Steve Fuller on Monday. Are they paying for Carpenter to sit around watching hotel HBO? Fuller had to be flown in from England, so I doubt they will delay his testimony. Baksa is a local boy (Dover Schools District Assistant Superintendent), so they could bump his appearance for a few days. There will be no Court until Thursday, so the meter is running.

 

[HairlessSimian]

I'm all for exposing students to legitimate criticisms of evolution, i.e., criticisms which appear in the scientific literature, not hack textbooks like Pandas or propaganda like Icons.

Besides, ID is being treated fairly. Its coverage in high school science programs is proportional to its support in the science literature, which is to say, zero.

I personally don't think that high school is the place for scientific criticism. It barely begins at the undergraduate university level. High school is about getting the basics. Students simply aren't scientifically savvy enough to criticize until late in their undergraduate careers, or even before graduate school.
If ID proponents were truly interested in presenting criticism of evolution, they'd do it through peer-reviewed journals. They'd be trying to get it into university-level textbooks and trying to get their own textbooks adopted for university-level courses. That doesn't seem to be happening and I seriously doubt they'd have any hope of penetrating the university classroom in a meaningful way. Rather, the cynic that I am says that they know that kids are more vulnerable to indoctrination at the high school level. They know that many high school kids don't continue past high school and those are particularly good targets for indoctrination. In their deepest heart of hearts, as christians are wont to say, they know that they do wrong and lie.

 

[asiakim]

behe is good god man

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

behe is good god man

Not quite sure what that means, but Behe is a catholic and is a professor at a legitimate university (my dad's alma mater). However, he can't publish his id rubish in peer reviewed journals because it's not science. The fact that he equated id with astrology pretty much sums it up for the legitimacy of id.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

behe is good god man

So is Ken Miller. What does this have to do with anything?