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

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:
 
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. ;)
 
Mojo said:
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. ;)
Click to expand...

Hasn't he prepared his answers at all? Hasn't he anticipated the questions?

He just waltzed in there, thinking he could persuade the court just like that?

That's arrogance we could only suspect from a bible-thumper.

..........waaaaaaaait........
 
CFLarsen said:
Hasn't he prepared his answers at all? Hasn't he anticipated the questions?

He just waltzed in there, thinking he could persuade the court just like that?
Click to expand...
I guess he's not used to this sort of thing. You know, actually answering difficult questions. Why do you think he's never offered any of this stuff for peer review? Beyond, apparently, short phone conversations between his editor and his editor's wife's tutors:
From here

Q. And one of the peer reviewers you mentioned yesterday was a gentleman named Michael Atchison?

A. Yes, I think that's correct.

Q. I think you described him as a biochemist at the Veterinary School at the University of Pennsylvania?

A. I believe so, yes.

Q. He was not one of the names you suggested, correct?

A. That is correct.

Q. In fact, he was selected because he was an instructor of your editor's wife?

A. That's correct. My editor knew one biochemistry professor, so he asked, through his wife, and so he asked him to take a look at it as well.

... [snip] ...

[Professor Atchison wrote:] "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 ten minutes on the phone. 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. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later."

And then in the next session titled A Blessing Years Later, Dr. Atchison writes, "After some time, Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box, the Free Press, 1996, was published. It became an instant best seller and was widely acclaimed in the news media.

It is currently in its 15th printing and over 40,000 copies have been sold. I heard about it, but could not remember if this was the same book that I received the call about from the publisher. Could it be?

In November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn for a faculty outreach talk. He told me that, yes, indeed, it was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he said my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book. Interesting, I thought."
Click to expand...
And, of course, the eminent biochemist who reviwed the portions of Of Pandas and People that had been written by Dr. Behe:
from here

Q But you actually were a critical reviewer of Pandas, correct; that's what it says in the acknowledgments page of the book?

A That's what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.

Q What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?

A I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.

Q So you were reviewing your own work?

A I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.

Q Which was your own contribution?

A That's -- yes, that's correct.
Click to expand...

:dl:
 
Assuming, of course, that evolution will actually win out in this trial, I wonder how the opposing side will complain justice was violated? Will it acknowledge the very embarassing blows it was dealt, or just ignore the entire episode?
 
Melendwyr said:
Assuming, of course, that evolution will actually win out in this trial, I wonder how the opposing side will complain justice was violated? Will it acknowledge the very embarassing blows it was dealt, or just ignore the entire episode?
Click to expand...

<sigh>

"Legislating from the bench."

</sigh>
 
Actually, the article by Dr. Atchison that was read in court appears to contradict Dr. Behe's testimony at one point:

Behe:
Q. And you found out his name later, correct?

A. That's right, yes.

Q. From your editor?

A. No. I think actually Professor Atchison himself contacted me later after the book came out.
Click to expand...

Atchison:
In November 1998, I finally met Michael Behe when he visited Penn for a faculty outreach talk. He told me that, yes, indeed, it was his book that the publisher called me about. In fact, he said my comments were the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book. Interesting, I thought.
Click to expand...
If Behe already knew that Atchison's comments were "the deciding factor in convincing the publisher to go ahead with the book," he must have been told about Atchison before they met. Probably just a failure of recollection on somebody's part, but at least one of these doctors is wrong about this point.
 
The judge's and defender's asides about the Big Bang had me laughing out loud. Something I don't expect when I'm reading a court transcript, I've also become a junkie for this stuff - has TV beaten hands-down for entertainment value.

Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial?
 
Darat said:
The judge's and defender's asides about the Big Bang had me laughing out loud. Something I don't expect when I'm reading a court transcript, I've also become a junkie for this stuff - has TV beaten hands-down for entertainment value.
Click to expand...

Any kind of entertainment.

Darat said:
Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial?
Click to expand...

So far, a proponent of ID being scientific has evaded a crucial question for quite some time now.
 
Mojo said:
I think you must have the parties the wrong way round. The defendants in this case are the IDers.
Click to expand...
Whoops a most minor and trivial mistake, hardly worth correcting.... :blush:

Obviously what I was referring to was that the prosecutors are defending the truth and therefore are defenders ->>insert smilie for digging hole<<<
 
It looks as if some of these guys have got them bang to rights: Students evaluate evolution case:
Balzotti and other students disagreed with the way Dover presented the concept — reading a brief statement about it and not allowing discussion afterward.

“It’s kind of like they know that they shouldn’t be doing it, but they’re trying to get away with it,” Sarah Lemanski said.
Click to expand...
Maybe there is hope after all! :)
 
And here's Mike Argento again.

Some amusing stuff about the FSM, but also a very succinct assessment of the weakness of Behe's argument:
It became clear this week, during Behe’s testimony. His scientific ideas were, well, hard to follow. But the gist of it was, there are things scientists haven’t figured out so the cause must be they were designed by some intelligent designer.

He claims, like other intelligent design leaders, that Darwin’s theory of evolution, the idea that natural selection and mutation are responsible for the development of life as we know it on the planet, contains “gaps and problems.”

Scientists are the first to admit this. They’re the first to admit that there are a lot of things they don’t know. If they knew everything, as one said, they’d be able to retire.

Yet, Behe spends a lot of time pointing that out and very little pointing out any scientifically confirmed evidence of intelligent design.

Turning the tables, intelligent design isn’t just plagued by gaps and problems. It’s all gaps and problems. Behe claims natural selection can’t account for the development of complex biological structures. Yet it has, again and again. And when asked about that, he says, well, natural selection worked for some things, but not others.

One of his favorite biological systems is the immune system. He says scientists haven’t developed a case that the immune system arose through evolution. Under cross examination this week, he was shown 58 peer-reviewed articles from scientific journals describing aspects of the evolution of the immune system. He was shown eight books. He was shown immunology texts that include chapters describing the evolution of the immune system.

His response?

They’re not good enough.

So how many peer-reviewed papers has he produced on the topic?

None.
Click to expand...
 
His response?

They’re not good enough.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's the gist of his argument. He simply can't imagine that science has a pretty darn good answer, but since he doesn't understand it, others are simply....well, wrong!

Repeat that a few times:

He doesn't understand it, so everyone else has to be wrong.

He doesn't understand it, so everyone else has to be wrong.

He doesn't understand it, so everyone else has to be wrong.

Who's the ignorant here?
 
Mojo said:
Can we have one of these please? I can think of many times when it would have been entirely appropriate!
Click to expand...

I think given the thread is discussing one of the major proponents of ID this is an appropriate thread to introduce the new smilie :dig:
 
Melendwyr said:
He could just be an intelligent person with a passing familiarity with science.
Click to expand...

Or someone who reads the expert reports very carefully, and discusses in detail with the experts on his own side exactly what the mistakes are and how best to bring them out.

I suspect both.

But I also remember a quote from a relative's case (he was retained as an expert in one of these "dueling expert" cases), where his attorney asked for a recess for consultation with his own expert right after direct examination was finished, quote, "on the grounds that any lawyer who asks a question to which he does not already know the answer is incompetent," close quote.

The recess, of course, was granted. The judge was apparently no fool either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom