• You may find search is unavailable for a little while. Trying to fix a problem.

Dover Penn ID trial

There's an amusing column about Behe's testimony by Mike Argento.

Some more of Argento's columns are linked from the ACLUPA blog.
 
Could someone get a list of all these good links together so I can add them to the box on the forum homepage? - TIA
 
Witness says God isn't only possible designer
Behe testified Tuesday that intelligent design, unlike creationism, does not make references to religion or religious text. Although he said he believes that the intelligent designer is God, he said the intelligent design movement does not identify the designer and that there could be other causes.
Click to expand...
Because any other, non-supernatural, designer then has the sticky question of the origins of the designer, doesn't it?

Anyway, this is really why I linked the article:
But during the cross-examination of Behe, ACLU attorney Eric Rothschild reminded the court that the National Academy of Scientists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and even the biology department at Lehigh University, have denounced the idea of intelligent design.

''So you have not been able to convince your colleagues,'' Rothschild said to Behe after reading a statement from Behe's peers.

The statement, posted on Lehigh's Web site, reads in part:

''While we respect Prof. Behe's right to express his views, they are his alone and are in no way endorsed by the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.''

Behe said the department's statement has no scientific importance. ''Intelligent design is certainly not the dominant view of the scientific community,'' he said, ''but I'm very pleased with the progress we're making.''
Click to expand...
:roll: :roll: :roll:
 
Soapy Sam said:
Perhaps the problem is that the Church of England has lacked extremist, fundamentalist, waggly beard bigots for so long that the folk down south have forgotten what religious bigotry is like.
Click to expand...

I hate religious bigotry. In fact, I despise all forms of inlaid decoration.
 
1051_22.gif

I want to known on which day did God created Suzy, since she appears to be becoming intelligently designed into a hamster.

And if YOU believe in Evolution instead of Jesus (and how in Chickworld could you believe in both?) you'll end up in hell. So thats almost everyone I've ever known, most of whom are Christians, in Hell. What a nice loving religion Chick has, the worship of the appeal to fear. :oldroll:
 
Odin said:
1051_22.gif

And if YOU believe in Evolution instead of Jesus (and how in Chickworld could you believe in both?) you'll end up in hell.
Click to expand...
I love all the references to precious blood. That's surely something that all the kids will like!
 
Yahweh said:
Of course the intelligent designer doesnt have to be God, only someone with the basic skillset and powers to create an entire functioning universe and humans in his image from the ground up.
Click to expand...

And is so simple that it didn't need to be designed.
 
From the New Scientist article (Mojo's link above) -

Talking about Behe's cross examination - "“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class.""


Sorry, Mr. Slade, I just cannot admire Behe.
 
Well, it's a fine line between courage and stupidity, and I think I know which side Behe's on. Still, I think Mr. Slade's incredulity concerning Behe's academic chops is of more import to this case than his admiration of Behe's guts.
 
Agreed. Personally I read into Mr. Slade's comments that possibly the only thing he admired about Behe was his guts.
 
Okay, I think I'm officially in "transcript withdrawl". These short articles aren't doing it for me anymore.
 
I'm not sure if I can admire Behe's guts. If he had them, he'd come up with a testable ID hypothesis and test it.
 
bighairygoat said:
Transcripts for days 7, 8 and 9 are available here.
Click to expand...
W00t! My hero! :D

[edit:] Wait. Where? All I'm seeing are the two transcripts for day 6 on the ACLU:Pennsylvania site.

[edit again:] Never mind, I found em. They hadn't updated the transcript page yet.
 
Arrgah! I can't stand it when people try claiming that science and religious faith are compatible. They're nothing of the sort, which is precisely why it's inappropriate to teach religious doctrines in a science class.
 
I'm not a scientist, but I do look like one.

In glancing through Behe's testimony, nuch is made of the fact that biological structures are referred to as machines, and that this is not a metaphor, but a definition of the structure. Behe then says that because it is a machine, that means it's designed.

If I toss a loose deck of cards into a corner, one or more of the cards may be propped against the wall. That propped card is an inclined plane, a simple machine. Would Behe's "inductive reasoning" lead him to believe that it was designed, or would he concede that a machine can be produced through random processes?

The other point I'd like to make is about the "simple test" that neither side will do: take a bacteria with no flagellum and, over the course of a couple of years, apply selective pressures over 10,000 generations. If the bacteria develop flagella, that would, according to the article, "prove" evolution.

To me, this a very poorly designed test that would prove nothing to either side.

Outcome 1: No flagellum.
ID: See? God/Designer did it.
Evolutionist: What made us think we could apply just the right combination of selective pressures to produce the predetermined outcome? This is stupid! It proves nothing.

Outcome 2: Flagellum.
ID: See? God/Designer did it.
Evolutionist: Wow! I did it! Man, I hope someone else is able to read my notes and replicate this sucker!
 
Cleon said:
Frightening, yes. But also illustrative of the fact that ID is one big hoax--they know it's not science.
Click to expand...

One thing that bothers me about all the legal wrangling is that logic goes out the window.
The "Watchmaker" bit about assuming a designer bothers me. If I see an inanimate mechanism, yes, I assume a designer. A Chevy small block canot reproduce, or we'd all be up to our ears in them.
some things-An arch, for example, I can ascribe to natural processes-the Desert Southwest is full of the bloody things. But the anthropomorphization (Huh?) of watches and such by comparing them to living beings escapes me.
Maybe I'm not logical enough?
 
rwguinn said:
One thing that bothers me about all the legal wrangling is that logic goes out the window.
The "Watchmaker" bit about assuming a designer bothers me. If I see an inanimate mechanism, yes, I assume a designer. A Chevy small block canot reproduce, or we'd all be up to our ears in them.
some things-An arch, for example, I can ascribe to natural processes-the Desert Southwest is full of the bloody things. But the anthropomorphization (Huh?) of watches and such by comparing them to living beings escapes me.
Maybe I'm not logical enough?
Click to expand...
I feel the same way about mousetraps. The most damning aspect of the mousetrap as a useful analogy is the fact that it requires a human (or a clever orangutan, perhaps) to set it and bait it in order for it to have any capability whatsoever for trapping mice. How can this be compared to a living thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom