• 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

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q Professor Behe, right before the break you said
that the findings accumulated over 140 years that support
the contention that Darwinian processes could explain
complex molecular systems total a number of zero, correct?
Click to expand...

His heart must have sunk when Rothschild came back to this.

A I ll -- I think I did, yes.

Q Okay. And that s a proposition you stand by.

A Well, again, you have to look at the papers. And what I meant by that is ones which fully explain how random mutation and natural selection could build a complex system; yes, there are no such explanations.

Q Zero papers.

A I don t think I said zero papers, perhaps I did, but there are zero explanations.

Q And zero is the same number of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that argue for the intelligent design of complex molecular systems?

A The number of peer-reviewed papers in scientific journals which show that life is composed of molecular machinery that exhibits the purposeful arrangement of parts in detail on term, you know, many many many thousands. There are -- I think there are just one or two that mention intelligent design by name.

Q That argue for the intelligent design of complex molecular systems in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

A No, I don t think -- now that you mention it, I think that I was thinking of something else.
Click to expand...

Oops! Credibility failure!
 
Mojo said:
The first session of Behe's cross-examination is now available (see Transcript Day 11 PM)!
Click to expand...
End of page 34 to the beginning of Page 37 has Behe up against a wall doing everything he can to not have to admit that ID isn't a scientific theory as defined by the National Acadamy of Sciences. I almost feel sorry for the guy. Almost.

Eta: Oh, found a better sound byte: Page 39 lines 6-9
6 Q But you are clear, under your definition, the
7 definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is
8 also a scientific theory, correct?
9 A Yes, that s correct.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Upchurch said:
End of page 34 to the beginning of Page 37 has Behe up against a wall doing everything he can to not have to admit that ID isn't a scientific theory as defined by the National Acadamy of Sciences. I almost feel sorry for the guy. Almost.
Click to expand...

I rather liked the bits about the loose definitions of "author" in pages 28-32.

"The way I read that is that he is seeing into the future and seeing when this actually will be published and anticipating that I will participate in the publication of thee book at that point.

Seeing into the future is one of the powers of the intelligent design movement?"
 
rjh01 said:
To all ID people
Never believe in your own propaganda. Never go to court to get your own way. High risk of embarrassing failure.
Click to expand...
Wait for the judgment before declaring victory. Until then, we don't know how much of the argument the judge accepts (or even understands, as I doubt that he or she has any sort of science qualificatiion).
 
I am sure he will understand it. He should have had in previous cases forensic and other evidence. That should have taught him the difference between rubbish and science. The trial would make the judge the world''s leading expert on the validity of ID and evolution. He will be quoted for years to come.
But as you say I am speaking too early. Somebody else may slip up badly.
 
I have been impressed with the quality of the cross-examinations. But then good lawyers are very good at arguing! Truth of course is a different matter... ;)
 
Mojo said:
It's nice to see someone being a bit tougher with Behe than in this recent interview in the Grauniad.
Click to expand...


Interesting comment here:

JS: How is irreducible complexity different from plain old complexity?

MB: Well, think of it this way. If you take away a rock from a pile of rocks you haven't changed much. It's still a heap of rocks - just a rock or two smaller. Take away a component from the mousetrap and it isn't a mousetrap any more.
Click to expand...

The analogy he choose actually shows the weakness in his argument!

Consider taking a rock from the bottom of the heap of rocks, the rock heap will collapse, therefore the original rock heap is in fact an example of something that displays Behe's "irreducible complexity".

In fact the original rock heap shows that something very complex that depends on every component being in the right place for it to exist can occur just by chance. To go a step further using the reasoning he says is behind the idea of "ID" we end up with the conclusion that a rock heap must have been designed to be a rock heap.

This probably doesn't worry Behe since he believes the designer is God and presumably he believes god *has* designed everything.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
This probably doesn't;t worry Behe since he belies the designer is God and presumably he believes god *has* designed everything.
Click to expand...

No, not "presumably". Behe has stated very clearly that he does think God is the designer:

And because of religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, IDEA Center Leadership believes that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Click to expand...

The leadership of the IDEA Center are Christians, who believe that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Click to expand...

Guess who those leaders are?

In the summer of 2001, the new IDEA Center sought out leadership an established an Administration Staff and a Board of Directors. Additionally, the Center formed a distinguished Advisory Board consisting of key members of the intelligent design movement including, John Baumgardner, Michael Behe, William Dembski, Mark Hartwig, Phillip Johnson, Jay Wesley Richards, Dennis Wagner, and Jonathan Wells.
Source: Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center
Click to expand...

It doesn't get clearer than that.
 
Darat said:
Consider taking a rock from the bottom of the heap of rocks, the rock heap will collapse, therefore the original rock heap is in fact an example of something that displays Behe's "irreducible complexity".

In fact the original rock heap shows that something very complex that depends on every component being in the right place for it to exist can occur just by chance. To go a step further using the reasoning he says is behind the idea of "ID" we end up with the conclusion that a rock heap must have been designed to be a rock heap.

This probably doesn't worry Behe since he believes the designer is God and presumably he believes god *has* designed everything.
Click to expand...
In his testimony he's been careful to say that while it is his personal belief that the designer is God, it's not part of the "scientific theory" of ID:
Q Now, before we go in detail into your argument from irreducible complexity, I want to confirm some other aspects of how you understand intelligent design.

It does not identify who the designer is, correct?

A That's correct. Let me just clarify that. I'm talking about the scientific argument for intelligent design based on physical data and logic, yes.

Q You believe it's God, but it's not part of your scientific argument?

A That's correct.
Click to expand...
So while this sort of thing may not worry Behe personally, it's certainly a problem for ID as a coherent theory.
 
Mojo said:
In his testimony he's been careful to say that while it is his personal belief that the designer is God, it's not part of the "scientific theory" of ID: So while this sort of thing may not worry Behe personally, it's certainly a problem for ID as a coherent theory.
Click to expand...

Yep and the cross-examiner did touch on this very matter. He brought up the fact that by saying something was designed for a certain purpose you are in fact making assumptions about the nature of the designer(s), but Behe tried to deny this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom