• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dover Penn ID trial

THE COURT: How much more cross do you have?

MR. ROTHSCHILD: It will be inversely proportional to mentions of the Big Bang, I think.

THE COURT: So you're going to go all day.
Click to expand...
:dl:
 
This is cracking me up.
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.
Click to expand...
 
Q. [...]Your argument is that,
even if the type III secretory system is a pre-cursor to
the bacterial flagellum, is a subset, the bacterial
flagellum is still irreducibly complex because that
subset does not function as a flagellum?
A. That's correct, yes.
Q. And, therefore, the bacterial flagellum must have
been intelligently designed?
A. Well, again, the argument is that, there is --
that when you see a purposeful arrangement of parts,
that bespeaks design, so, yes.
Q. And yesterday, you testified that, that doesn't
mean the bacterial flagellum was necessarily designed,
appeared abruptly in one fell swoop, correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Could have been designed slowly?
A. That's correct.
Q. So under this scenario, at some period of time,
the bacterial flagellum wouldn't have had all of its
parts until the design was completed?
A. Could you say that one more time?
Q. Yeah. Under this scenario of slow design --
which was what I experienced with my kitchen -- at some
period of time, the bacterial flagellum wouldn't have
had all its parts until the design was completed?
A. That's right.
Q. And so without all its parts, it wouldn't be
functional?
A. That's right. Not as a flagellum, yes.
Q. So that is a phenomenon in both intelligent
design and natural selection?
A. I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Q. In slow design, the bacterial flagellum has some
prior existence, it doesn't have all its parts, right?
A. Well, if -- until it has all its parts and it
starts functioning, I guess it's problematic to call it
a flagellum.
Q. It has some subset?
A. I guess things that will eventually be part of
the flagellum would begin to appear, yes.
Q. Just not function like a flagellum?
A. Yes, the system would not yet function as a
flagellum.
Q. Just like has been suggested for natural
selection?
A. I'm sorry.
Q. Just like has been suggested for natural
selection?
A. I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Click to expand...

Bwahahhaha! Talk about being backed up into a corner :D
 
Oh Chran, that's just too precious! Where did this slow intelligent design come in? They can't allow that. That completely blows the argument.

~~ Paul
 
To be fair, if the flagellum is not essential to life, then it can be built bit by bit over many generations. Or not, as you please. This is one of those little areas of biology which ID "doesn't speak to". Darwinism, on the other hand, further requires that each step should be useful or neutral.
 
Who IS this Mr Rothschild!!

I suspect him of having a degree in Biology.

While ID is not an issue in India (our creation myths being quite flexible) I have always been amazed that people would take such things seriously.

By the way, I am happy to see astrology being declared a science! My Grandfather would have been happier. He cast his own Horoscope, predicted he was going to die at 40 and planned his succession. He died at 70+ and continued to cast horoscopes till the end. (did not plan any actions based on them though_)
 
burrahobbit said:
Who IS this Mr Rothschild!!

I suspect him of having a degree in Biology.
Click to expand...
He could just be an intelligent person with a passing familiarity with science.

If the council for the opposing side hadn't volunteered, I'd feel quite sorry for them right now. The inherent wackiness of the stuff they're forced to defend must make their job extremely difficult - PARTICULARLY since they're forced to claim it's actually true.
 
chran said:
I totally agree. I don't think Behe thought this all the way through.

But seriously. I'm getting a man-crush on Mr. Rothschild.
Click to expand...


Sexy "Village of the Damned" like avatar you got there. She has that come hither "make me stupid" look.
 
Melendwyr said:
He could just be an intelligent person with a passing familiarity with science.
Click to expand...

Which is the nubbin of the problem, isn't it? We have so far failed in our education of our citizens as to what science is that IDers are not laughed out of the room the moment that they open their mouth. The sad thing is that he appears to be one of the rare exceptions.
 
Ed said:
Sexy "Village of the Damned" like avatar you got there. She has that come hither "make me stupid" look.
Click to expand...
Yes, as soon as I saw it I thought "avatar!"

Doesn't hurt that the tract it comes from, is particular stupid in its rhetoric.
 
For most interested citizens, this isn't science, it's religion. The fact that the ID muckety-mucks refuse to acknowledge that is of no importance to the average believer.

~~ Paul
 
"Q. You also explained that, why you don't expect
intelligent design at scientific conferences, correct?

A. Yes, that's because I consider it to be a poor
forum for communicating such ideas."
p.33, lines 13-16

Sorta says it, dosen't it?
 
Ed said:
"Q. You also explained that, why you don't expect
intelligent design at scientific conferences, correct?

A. Yes, that's because I consider it to be a poor
forum for communicating such ideas."
p.33, lines 13-16

Sorta says it, dosen't it?
Click to expand...

And yet much was made of the fact in his expert testimony that he had presented his ideas at many prestigious science conferences attended by lots of "mainstream" scientist...

(Edited to add.)

Just read the conference and I now understand the different types of "conferences" they are referring to - good example of why I should go to the source before forming an opinion. :blush:
 
Last edited:
Ed said:
"Q. You also explained that, why you don't expect
intelligent design at scientific conferences, correct?

A. Yes, that's because I consider it to be a poor
forum for communicating such ideas."
p.33, lines 13-16

Sorta says it, dosen't it?
Click to expand...

Could be interesting to know what he thinks would be a good forum.

A pulpit?

Here? :D
 
I wonder has anyone else noticed the " uh-huh"s that seem to appear at shall we say the more troublesome points in Behe's testimony?
 
Awkward questions also tend to be met with a request to repeat the question. It's always handy to have a little extra thinking time. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom