No, not "presumably". Behe has stated very clearly that he does think God is the designer:
...snip...
Not quite my point, I know (because he's said so under oath
No, not "presumably". Behe has stated very clearly that he does think God is the designer:
...snip...
Q It says there, "Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly." That's the opposite -- that is directly contrasting the claim of gradualism made by Ernst Mayr, correct?
A The -- how shall I phrase this? The sentence there I read as saying that intelligent design can be consistent with; that the fact that the fossil records seems to have forms of life appearing abruptly, while it might cause problems for Darwinism, it does not cause problems for intelligent design, because intelligent design does not speak to how fast or how slow such things happen.
And so I see that as saying essentially an intelligent design proponent can take this data at face value and does not necessarily have to have secondary hypotheses to try to explain it.
Q That s how you read the -- something that starts, "intelligent design means."
A Well, again, as I said in my direct testimony, I don t think this was written very well, but I think the sense of that sentence is not hard to discern.

Now there's a lawyer who deserves his salary.Q So this is back to the claim that you say intelligent design makes, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose."
Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
...
Q Back to my original question. What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A And I wonder, could -- am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q I don t think I got a reply, so I m asking you, you ve made this claim here, "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
Q But it does not propose an actual mechanism?
A Again, the word "mechanism" -- the word "mechanism" can be used broadly, but no, I would not say that there was a mechanism. I would say we have an aspect of the history of the structure.
Q So when you wrote in your report that "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism," you actually meant to say intelligent design says nothing about the mechanism of how complex biological structures arose.
A No, I certainly didn t mean to say that. I meant to say what I said in response to that last question, that while we don t know a step-by-step description of how something arose, nonetheless we can infer some very important facts about what was involved in the process, namely, that intelligence was involved in the process....
So additionally, I might say, that it also focuses on other proposed mechanisms that purport to explain the purposeful arrangement of parts. And so I think it is quite accurate to say that that s exactly where intelligent design focuses.
Q So it actually -- it focuses on other proposed mechanisms, by that you mean natural selection, don t you?
A No, just a natural selection, complexity theory and so on. But certainly the most widely accepted, and then the one that you would have to convince most people -- or explain to most people is not well supported is the one which is the currently accepted explanation of natural selection.
Q Okay. And so in terms of mechanism, it s just a criticism of Darwinian evolution s mechanism and not a positive description of the mechanism?
A No, I disagree. I say that while, again, while it does not give you a step-by-step description of how such things occurred, it does tell you something very important about the cause or the way in which these structures arose, and that was through the actions of an intelligent cause.
Q So, Professor Behe, why don t we go to your deposition and see how you answered the questions then, okay?
A Okay.
Q Could you look at page 179 of your deposition.
A Yes.
Q I asked you, "What is the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose according to intelligent design theory?"
A Yes.
Q And you answered, "Intelligent design does not propose a mechanism, it simply tries to support the conclusion that intelligent activity was involved in producing the structures."
A Yes. And that language, I think, is completely consistent with what I was trying to say here today, that it does not tell you step by step how something was proposed -- or how something was produced, but nonetheless it says something very very important about the origin of the structure, and that is that intelligent activity was involved in producing it.
Q And then further down the page at line 24 I asked you, "In terms of the mechanism, it s just a criticism of Darwinian evolution s mechanism and not a positive description of a mechanism." And what did you answer, Professor Behe?
A I said "that s correct." But again, I think this is completely consistent with what I just said.
Have you considered the possibility that he might say "no"?Don't know about that. It seems to me that this guy could have been filleted but hasn't. I, personally, would have explored whether or not he feels that it is permissible to lie to advance one's religion.
I think the judge can probably tell a snide personal attack from a hole in the ground.Dunno, it just appeared to me that he could have been humiliated.
Ah, but when you remove a rock at the bottom of the pile, you still end up with a pile of rocks. The definition of irreducibly complex has squirmed around over the years to deal with this. They used to say that the reduced structure couldn't perform any function. Now that say it can't perform its original function.Darat said: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.
They used to say that the reduced structure couldn't perform any function. Now that say it can't perform its original function.
Not sure how we're going to demonstrate that no simpler system can perform the basic function. Ka-pow!To determine whether a system is irreducibly complex therefore employs two approaches: (1) An empirical analysis of the system that by removing parts (individually and in groups) and then by rearranging and adapting remaining parts determines whether the basic function can be recovered among those remaining parts. (2) A conceptual analysis of the system, and specifically of those parts whose removal renders the basic function unrecoverable, to demonstrate that no system with (substantially) fewer parts exhibits the basic function.
Not sure how we're going to demonstrate that no simpler system can perform the basic function. Ka-pow!

Ah, but when you remove a rock at the bottom of the pile, you still end up with a pile of rocks. The definition of irreducibly complex has squirmed around over the years to deal with this. They used to say that the reduced structure couldn't perform any function. Now that say it can't perform its original function.
Duh. Who disagrees with that?
~~ Paul
RandFan,Is there anywhere to go for some background on this particular case?
I think they would say that the combination of the bank and heap of rocks was IC. But your example points out the precise stupidity here. The heap of rocks could evolve, then perform as scaffolding for the evolution of the bank of earth, the combination all the while acting as a better and better dam.Darat said:But consider if the heap of rocks was "supporting" a bank of earth, according to ID because we see the bank being supported by the heap it is reasonable to assume that the heap of rocks was designed to support the bank of earth. Yet when I remove the one rock the heap collapses and the earth bank is no longer supported. Therefore, according to ID theory the heap of rocks was irreducibly complex. Apparently only one particular combination of the rocks in a heap could act as if they were designed to support the bank of earth.
Sweet, merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, that man doesn't seem to have full change for a dollar.Despite the addition of intelligent design to the curriculum, Dr. Nilsen denied repeatedly that reading the statement the board approved constituted teaching. However, when asked "Are students learning when they hear that statement?", he responded, "Yes."