Behe takes the stand in Dover

[USincognito]

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.

In my duplicate thread I alluded to the meger, but extant respect I had Behe, but I didn't explain why. He, unlike Wells, Miller, Dembski and Johnson, has at least come across in his writings as less than a jerk. I have a tape of a Buckley debate on PBS from some years ago, and he seemed like a good guy. He also gets some credit from me for at least not appealing to some distant amorphous "But what about the eye?" God of the Gaps ignorance, and at least offered up some scientifically studiable supposed examples of irreducible complexity with his blood clotting and flagellum arguments.

I can overlook that he's continued to support them, and not spoken against the Creationist/ID parrots who continue to taut them, but I lost all respect when he tried to conflate Astrology with science.

On a related note, my Orthodox Christian buddy sent me a funny link regarding astrology and India. Seems that it's efficacy is still under question.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051020...QBeW7oF;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

[JohnR7]

However, he can't publish his id rubish in peer reviewed journals because it's not science.

He does publish in well received books. Last I checked a book tends to trump a journal. Journals tend to come and go, but books last quite a bit longer.

 

[Grengor]

But are they peer reviewed? And if so, do they explicity talk about ID? Books are less important than peer reviewed journals John, in terms of science. Anyone can publish in a book, not everyone can put any stupid idea in a journal.

 

[Electric Sceptic]

He does publish in well received books. Last I checked a book tends to trump a journal. Journals tend to come and go, but books last quite a bit longer.

Books 'trump' journals in terms of money made for the author and people reached. Journals 'trump' books in terms of being peer-reviewed, scientific, and authoritative.

Bottom line: if you want to write science, you write for journals. If you want to make money and spread your beliefs, you write books.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

He does publish in well received books. Last I checked a book tends to trump a journal. Journals tend to come and go, but books last quite a bit longer.

Not true. Science journals have a far more rigorous review process than any book. Any clown can publish a book, but only top research can get published in Science or Nature.

Case in point. When Behe was cross-examined at Dover regarding the review process for his book Darwin's Black Box, he revealed after being pressed that one person who reviewed his book never actually read it. The reviewer only discussed it on the phone with the editor for about 30 minutes.

That is not peer-review.

 

[USincognito]

Mark Twain and Ann Rice have outsold anything by Dawkins or Mayr, but does that mean Tom Sawyer was a real boy and vampires really exist, or that science should be discussed and dissected in the proper arenas, not in what can, at times, amount to a pulp press?

And will no one defend Behe's defense of Astrology as scientific? I've noticed a lot of tangental diversions on this thread, but how do the ID and "teach the controversy" advocates feel about that?

 

[Edx]

Case in point. When Behe was cross-examined at Dover regarding the review process for his book Darwin's Black Box, he revealed after being pressed that one person who reviewed his book never actually read it. The reviewer only discussed it on the phone with the editor for about 30 minutes.

That is not peer-review.

Do you have the quote for that?

 

[GoSeminoles!]

Do you have the quote for that?

The reviewer, Michael Atchinson, discusses it here. And I stand corrected. The reviewer spent 10 minutes on the phone, not 30, discussing the book with the editor.

Behe sent his completed manuscript to The Free Press publishers for consideration. The editor was not certain that this manuscript was a good risk for publication. There were clearly theological issues at hand, and he was under the impression that these issues would be poorly received by the scientific community. If the tenets of Darwinian evolution were completely accepted by science, who would be interested in buying the book?

The editor shared his concerns with his wife. His wife was a student in my class. She advised her husband to give me a call. So, unaware of all this, I received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately 10 minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.

 

[theFijian]

behe is good god man

Behe is. Good God man!

(now with added punctuation!)

 

[Split Rock]

The reviewer, Michael Atchinson, discusses it here. And I stand corrected. The reviewer spent 10 minutes on the phone, not 30, discussing the book with the editor.

I like this part:

After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript. I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript.

 

[cze_026]

Wasn't Free Press the vanity press division of Simon and Schuster?

Cze

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

He does publish in well received books. Last I checked a book tends to trump a journal. Journals tend to come and go, but books last quite a bit longer.

In academic circles journals are far more prestigious than books (except for maybe an article in an edited book, which is probably about equal with journals). And journals do tend to stay around for quite a while. As has been pointed out, Behe's books are not peer-reviewed and thus not held to the same rigor as a journal article.

 

[USincognito]

I was digging around the Dallas Morning News website and I found this great quote about Evolution/ID that I might add to my sig line.

Consider evolution first. Darwin developed it 150 years ago, before Mendelian genetics, DNA testing and plate tectonics. These involve whole areas of science unknown to Darwin, yet they confirmed and expanded his theory.

ID, in contrast, is an odd science in that it leads nowhere. It has generated no useful experiments. With DNA, we have an amazing creation, supposedly too complex for random mutation to shape. So why is it a mess? What designer came up with all of these redundancies and old, useless bits? ID doesn't just fail to offer answers; it doesn't even provide avenues of research.

- Jerome Weeks in the Dallas Morning News 4 Sep 05 reviewing Michael Ruse's latest book.

 

[vajradhara]

are yesterdays transcripts up yet?

 

[Dr.GH]

are yesterdays transcripts up yet?

I am experiencing savage withdrawl. The Day 12, PM (the final Behe cross-X) has not been released in a clean copy- the PDF is riddled with errors making it nearly unreadable. I don't know what the problem was or when it will be repaired.

 

[Ledifni]

Randy Tomasacci, a school board member from Shickshinny, north of Harrisburg, said his board is debating whether to require teachers to spend a few days on intelligent design. "We're thinking about it," he said. "But we don't want to get sued out of existence."

Jesus. Hey, Mr. "Educator," how about, "We don't want to make our already abysmally inadequate educational system into an anti-education vehicle of political theology?"

You'd think the people who make careers out of education would care at least a little about whether they're actually educating anybody. But no, his primary concern is that he might get sued.

 

[Split Rock]

Jesus. Hey, Mr. "Educator," how about, "We don't want to make our already abysmally inadequate educational system into an anti-education vehicle of political theology?"

You'd think the people who make careers out of education would care at least a little about whether they're actually educating anybody. But no, his primary concern is that he might get sued.

I hate to say this but... if it works....

 

[Dr.GH]

You'd think the people who make careers out of education would care at least a little about whether they're actually educating anybody. But no, his primary concern is that he might get sued.

Hold it down there! The quoted 'gentleman' Mr. Tomasacci was an elected member to the school board, not an educator. For years now, school boards have been targeted by creationists because they have few candidates and one or two fundy church congregations can end up controlling the whole show. This is not just about creationism- they dictate the history, and health curricula as well as science.

The Dover science teachers did everything they could to stop the school board fundies from running into this particular ditch.

 

[Ledifni]

I hate to say this but... if it works....

Oh, for sure, I've got no problem with suing the crap out of any educator unprofessional enough to allow every dogmatic Tom, Dick, and Harry to walk in and tell the kids that they're being lied to and that Tom's, Dick's, or Harry's basement-concocted "theories" are, respectively, the right ones. However, I think it's sad that they can't be responsible educators unless we threaten to take them to court.

 

[vajradhara]

I am experiencing savage withdrawl. The Day 12, PM (the final Behe cross-X) has not been released in a clean copy- the PDF is riddled with errors making it nearly unreadable. I don't know what the problem was or when it will be repaired.

drat!

hopefully, it will read like the previous transcripts...