Behe takes the stand in Dover

vajradhara · Oct 25, 2005

oh..

i couldn't find why Dembski withdrew from the court, anyone know?

metta,

~v

Smidlee · Oct 25, 2005

vajradhara said:
oh..

i couldn't find why Dembski withdrew from the court, anyone know?

metta,

~v

I believe it had something to do with Dembski's personal lawyer vs the lawyer on the case.

Dr.GH · Oct 25, 2005

As I can recall without looking up the various arguments, Dembski is lead author for the new edition of "Of Pandas and People" which is being renamed to "something I forget." Because the outcome of the Dover Panda Trial will have a major impact on the income from the new creationism, Dembski wanted to be represented by an independent attorney to protect himself and the new book edition. Thompson had allowed Meyer, and Campbell to be represented by a Discovery Institute lawyer, but objected to the idea that Dembski (whom they were paying thousand$$$ to testify) needed to be similarly "protected."

Edx · Oct 25, 2005

Is there a source in this G.H?

Dr.GH · Oct 25, 2005

Edx said:
Is there a source in this G.H?

Ah, some of this is my recollection of various sources, some of which are the transcripts of the expert testimony, and some are the posts by Dembski or Meyer about their partisipation.

The Wikipedia Kitzmiller page has also proven to be very useful. Mike Hopkins is building a TalkOrigins Dover page mostly about the trial which has many links.

HairlessSimian · Oct 26, 2005

BeamMeUpScotty said:
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 As has been pointed out, Behe's books are not peer-reviewed and thus not held to the same rigor as a journal article.

I would add that books tend to be out of date by the time they're released, and so are useful for recapitulations and teaching purposes, as well as providing perspective not available in short journal articles. People look to journals for new stuff. Besides, as someone else said, you can publish anything you want in a book, so long as someone (you, for instance) is willing to pay for it. Just try to get it adopted by libraries.

Dr.GH · Oct 26, 2005

HairlessSimian said:
I would add that books tend to be out of date by the time they're released, and so are useful for recapitulations and teaching purposes, as well as providing perspective not available in short journal articles. People look to journals for new stuff. Besides, as someone else said, you can publish anything you want in a book, so long as someone (you, for instance) is willing to pay for it. Just try to get it adopted by libraries.

Our book about IDC, Why Intelligent Design Fails was submitted in final copy a full year before it was printed. We were able to make minor corrections for the second printing, and somewhat more in antisipation of the paperbach edition (out in Spring 2006). So, yeah in a a real science context books are always out of date. Fortunately for us, IDC has nothing new to offer anyway.

mark kennedy · Oct 26, 2005

Dr.GH said:
Our book about IDC, Why Intelligent Design Fails was submitted in final copy a full year before it was printed. We were able to make minor corrections for the second printing, and somewhat more in antisipation of the paperbach edition (out in Spring 2006). So, yeah in a a real science context books are always out of date. Fortunately for us, IDC has nothing new to offer anyway.

I would agree that ID is nothing new but would add that it predates evolutionary theory by a wide margin. What is more, dispite the fact that that we have experienced the removal of creationism from main stream science we are not going anywhere. It's like punctuated equilibrium, it was part of evolutionary theory the whole time and could not be denied.

Now, getting back to the regulaly scheduled debate...

Split Rock · Oct 26, 2005

mark kennedy said:
I would agree that ID is nothing new but would add that it predates evolutionary theory by a wide margin. What is more, dispite the fact that that we have experienced the removal of creationism from main stream science we are not going anywhere. It's like punctuated equilibrium, it was part of evolutionary theory the whole time and could not be denied.

Now, getting back to the regulaly scheduled debate...

I guess you do not subscribe to Creationist Criticism of Evolution #124, "Evolution changes with flavor of the week."

Darwin knew nothing about the mechanism of heredity. We are learing more and more all the time. We now know that horizontal gene transfer between bacterial species occurs not only today, but was very important in the past.

It was not until the Synthesis that mutation was added to evolutionary theory.

Our understanding of evolutionary relationships continues to improve with the sequencing of more and more genomes.

Our understanding of the history of life on earth improves with each new fossil found and described. For example, we now know that legs developed first for aquatic living, and not for terrestrial living. Feathers developed first for insulation and perhaps signaling, and was only later used for flight.

The list goes on. Evolutionary theory is hardly static.

HairlessSimian · Oct 28, 2005

Dr.GH said:
Our book about IDC, Why Intelligent Design Fails was submitted in final copy a full year before it was printed. We were able to make minor corrections for the second printing, and somewhat more in antisipation of the paperbach edition (out in Spring 2006). So, yeah in a a real science context books are always out of date. Fortunately for us, IDC has nothing new to offer anyway.

I followed the link.

Excellent read! Looks very authoritative and thorough.

Dr.GH · Oct 28, 2005

HairlessSimian said:
I followed the link.

Excellent read! Looks very authoritative and thorough.

Thank you. We did our best.

The Barbarian · Nov 16, 2022

Here's something else Behe admitted during his testimony: (transcript from trial; Behe is "A")

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes.
Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?
A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.
Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?
A That is correct.
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that's correct.

This is part of the reason why ID inventor Philip Johnson called the Dover Trial a "train wreck" for ID.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2022

The Barbarian said:
This is part of the reason why ID inventor Philip Johnson called the Dover Trial a "train wreck" for ID.

ID can take a hike.

The Barbarian · Nov 16, 2022

AV1611VET said:
ID can take a hike.

It's pretty much finished. But a lot of creationists have borrowed the jargon.

AV1611VET · Nov 16, 2022

The Barbarian said:
It's pretty much finished. But a lot of creationists have borrowed the jargon.

Yes, and they got busted with that "cdesign proponentsists" trick they pulled.

Behe takes the stand in Dover

Diamond Thunderbolt of Indestructable Wisdom

Veteran

Doc WinAce fan

Senior Veteran

Doc WinAce fan

Well-Known Member

Doc WinAce fan

Natura non facit saltum

Conflation of Blathers

Well-Known Member

Doc WinAce fan

Crabby Old White Guy

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Crabby Old White Guy

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency