Dover Penn ID trial [Archive]

11th October 2005, 07:14 AM

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2><b>Introduction by Luke T.:  </b><i>
The genre: Drama. The setting: a courtroom. The cast: Theologians, scientists, teachers, lawyers, parents, politicians, and a judge. The plot: Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. The prize: A classroom filled with young minds.

If this story begins to sound familiar to you, just remember the time is not 1925. The place is not Tennessee. The image is not black and white. This is 2005 in Dover, Pennsylvania brought to you in full living color.

Link to original topic (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=45694)</i></font></td></tr></table>

This is being discussed in Politics but this link provides transcripts that are certainly worth a read (or at least a skim) particularly those from thursday and friday.

http://aclupa.blogspot.com/

Good it appears I can edit.

The original link was posted by Mojo in Politics. A belated thank you and full credit.

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2><b>Moderation Action by Luke T.:  </b><i>With permission from the American Civil Liberties Union, JREF is now hosting the entire set of the Dover ID trial transcripts here (http://forums.randi.org/index.php?page=dover)</i></font></td></tr></table>

Beth

11th October 2005, 07:32 AM

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=6 bgcolor=#666699 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif" color=#666699 size=2>Moderation Action by Luke T.: Edited to remove remarks which do not contribute in any significant way to the topic and are not in keeping with the aim of the Forum Spotlight.</font></td></tr></table>

andro

11th October 2005, 07:44 AM

11th October 2005, 07:50 AM

LTC8K6

11th October 2005, 07:56 AM

11th October 2005, 08:10 AM

I asked Darat to sticky this so that we can all keep track of the developments in Dover, to which request Darat has thoughtfully acceded.

I may point out to our Euro and Anti-podal buddies that this case is of great interest to you. I personally (and yes, Darat, this is a personal attack) believe that the fundimentalist christian mindset that is pushing for this ID stuff is not discriminably different from fundimentalist Moslems. They know "TRUTH" and they can brook no disagreement. First the US then secular Europe. And, please, no arrogant "it can't happen here" crap. These guys have taken the NRA model and applied it to wackey (:)) beliefs. That is: get a mailing list of "true believers". Make them feel like they are part of a crusade. Have them vote in a block. Focus them on a single issue. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Secular Europe is in their cross hairs (to mix a metaphor or rather to modify a metaphor so that it is punning, not modify, make it a pun contextually...you know what I mean).

Anyhoo, I'd like to keep this thread on Dover/Kansas ID but if anyone cares they can starat a thread on ID outside of the US.

Darat

11th October 2005, 08:27 AM

brodski

11th October 2005, 08:47 AM

Personal attack on me how? :confused:
I think Ed ment that this was an attack, that he was making personaly. the atack seemed to be aimed at fundi X-ians.Your not a secert, part time right wing fundi are you?, when your not being expelled from the labour party for your radical left wing views, that is. ;)

Upchurch

11th October 2005, 09:02 AM

This is being discussed in Politics but this link provides transcripts that are certainly worth a read (or at least a skim) particularly those from thursday and friday.Which ones are thursday and friday? Day 5 and 6?

Flo

11th October 2005, 09:06 AM

I may point out to our Euro and Anti-podal buddies that this case is of great interest to you.

Don't worry, we (as in "we degenerate Euros") are perfectly aware that all things wackey originating in the US will eventually arrive over here. :D

11th October 2005, 09:32 AM

Which ones are thursday and friday? Day 5 and 6?

Yes. The cross of the Lady Professor was not posted yet.

It seems like a lot of pages but it goes quickly. Focus on the cross tho'. The direct is pretty much what we know already.

11th October 2005, 09:38 AM

Don't worry, we (as in "we degenerate Euros") are perfectly aware that all things wackey originating in the US will eventually arrive over here. :D

This dwarfs the enormity of Jerry Lewis by ... by ... oh, Flo, it's you :)

Think that at some point (and I mean this in a non-perjoritive way) baby boomers are going to retire. At some point the social safty net is going to spring a few holes. People are going to be restless. This is the kind of stuff that breeds political oddities. I might also suggest that with your growing moslem population the islamists could find some common ground with the fundies here (much as Orthodox Jews and fundies are of a mind on this issue here).

vbloke

11th October 2005, 11:41 AM

brodski

11th October 2005, 02:33 PM

I take some (although not much) comfort in the fact the the film "What the bleep do we know" made it over to the UK and vanished without trace.
This does not mean that we can be content that ID, or another form of it won't rear it's ugly head, especially as our Minister for Education, Ruth Kelly, is a member of Opus Dei and is in a great position to foist dogma into schools should she so wish.

lets not forget that we already have state funded schools in the UK teaching 6 day young earth creationism. The English have nothing to feel smug about (both schools are in England) our government already pays for some kids to be taught fairie tales along side real science.

Darat

11th October 2005, 02:34 PM

lets not forget that we already have state funded schools in the UK teaching 6 day young earth creationism. The English have nothing to feel smug about (both schools are in England) our government already pays for some kids to be taught fairie tales along side real science.

And the current government is set on encouraging more faith schools.

brodski

11th October 2005, 02:53 PM

And the current government is set on encouraging more faith schools.

yes, but encouraging truly independent, church funded faith schools, isn't nearly the same scandal as the 95% state funded city academies, including Emanuel college in Gateshead. A couple of grand got a Fundy used car salesman a lot of young minds to poison, and there is nothing stopping even more bizarre groups scraping together the very small amount of cash needed to sell their belief system to impressionable minds and get the state to pay for most of it. In some cases the UK has already lost battles the US hasn't even had to fight yet. At least there seems to be organized opposition in the US, over here more people seem to care abbot what is going on in Pennsylvania and Kansas than on our doorstep.

Flo

12th October 2005, 01:02 AM

This dwarfs the enormity of Jerry Lewis by ... by ... oh, Flo, it's you :)

Tell you what: In 50 years, I've never, ever met a fan of Jerry Lewis in France or Switzerland. I only recently discovered he was awarded a medal for culture :eek: (but Madonna and Stallone also got one from our senile president, so ... ), which is rather funny since no single European kid knows who he is and what he's done (thankfully, and I certainly don't intend kids in my family to ever know).

Think that at some point (and I mean this in a non-perjoritive way) baby boomers are going to retire. At some point the social safty net is going to spring a few holes. People are going to be restless. This is the kind of stuff that breeds political oddities. I might also suggest that with your growing moslem population the islamists could find some common ground with the fundies here (much as Orthodox Jews and fundies are of a mind on this issue here).

I'm afraid you're partly right, as has been seen when the Satanic Verses were published: you could suddenly find the all churches (including the fundamentalists, extreme-right and royalists catholics, etc.), together in bed with the most vocal islamists ...

At the same time, I don't think the growing moslem population is so much a problem per se as is their (perceived and/or real) marginalisation in economic and social terms, which make them easy prey to extremists. The problem is exactly the same with those tempted by the religious right extremists.

Soapy Sam

12th October 2005, 05:44 AM

And the current government is set on encouraging more faith schools.

Yes. They're fast learners in parliament.
Think central Scotland. Think Northern Ireland.
It's never to early to start training bigots.

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.

Lets wait for Charlie III to be crowned, then we can chop his head off and start another round of Catholic / Protestant warfare. The Muslims can hold the jackets.

Darat

12th October 2005, 05:49 AM

Some fascinating links on ACLU site:

A "creationist science" text book becomes an "intelligent design" textbook in the course of a year.... http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF

Darat

12th October 2005, 05:51 AM

...snip...

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.

...snip..

You mean there might be soemthing wrong with letting this bloke (http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp) run a school?.

Mercutio

12th October 2005, 06:58 AM

Some fascinating links on ACLU site:

A "creationist science" text book becomes an "intelligent design" textbook in the course of a year.... http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF
Wow...you can see it evolving, with more fit phrases being selected by environmental pressure...and quite obviously, no intelligence behind it at all.

Blue Bubble

12th October 2005, 07:36 AM

You mean there might be something wrong with letting this bloke (http://www.ianpaisley.org/main.asp) run a school?.

That looks like a nice man. Who is he ?

P.s. I concur 100% with Soapy Sam's comments re central Scotland and Northern Ireland. I grew up in the former, and have witnessed the religious bigotry first hand.

Flo

12th October 2005, 07:45 AM

Some fascinating links on ACLU site:

A "creationist science" text book becomes an "intelligent design" textbook in the course of a year.... http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF

They must have learnt the process from the snake-oil salesmen who managed to turn their miracle cancer drugs into miracle aids drugs almost overnight ...

Mercutio

12th October 2005, 08:08 AM

They must have learnt the process from the snake-oil salesmen who managed to turn their miracle cancer drugs into miracle aids drugs almost overnight ...
You mean miracle cancer and aids "dietary supplements".

Mojo

12th October 2005, 08:30 AM

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. Judging from the photo in today's Grauniad Stephen Green is working on the beard aspect of his presentation, but it doesn't look sufficiently waggly yet.

James Anderton (http://ugandandiscussions.co.uk/covers/655_big.jpg) had quite a good one though.

Flo

12th October 2005, 08:42 AM

You mean miracle cancer and aids "dietary supplements".

Over here, cures haven't yet morphed into dietary supplements. I accuse our lack of evolutionnary pressure (through the predatory habits of lawyers).

Pastor Bentonit

12th October 2005, 03:29 PM

Mojo

12th October 2005, 06:11 PM

drkitten

13th October 2005, 08:16 AM

Defendant´s case is up next week and dont you know it, one "expert" witness is...Michael Behe of irreproducible...sorry, "irreducible complexity" fame. This is going to be good, clean family entertainment! :D :D

Oh, it will definitely be interesting. One of the nice things about courts is that the rules are set up that a witness can't change the subject or wriggle out of a line of questioning that itsn't going his way, unlike a debate. Michael Behe is a brilliant debater, but I suspect he's going to get his ass handed to him, on a plate, with a side of chips.

If you read Behe's expert report, he is presenting the same-old, same-old examples of irreducible complexity, including the flagellum and the blood clotting cascade. If you check out Miller's testimony and expert report (same ACLU site), Miller has already presented a pretty damning analysis that those are not, in fact, irreducibly complex, complete with PowerPoint animations and a a few citations to Science, Nature, and Cell -- apparently (something I didn't know already) blood clotting has been known not to be irreducibly complex since 1969!

So I can see the question from the attorney during cross now. "You testified that with a single factor missing, blood clotting cannot occur. You have heard Dr. Miller's testimony that dolphins are missing such a factor, and that their blood still clots. Do you disagree with Dr. Miller? Do you agree that this fact was published over thirty years ago? Are you incompetent not to know this, or were you perjuring yourself?"

Phrost

13th October 2005, 11:13 AM

Is it just me, or do things like this get anyone else all worked up to the point they're all "GRRARRRR... SKEPTIC SMASH!"?

I canceled my membership to the ACLU when I found out about them supporting NAMBLA, but this is a good cause and I'm glad they're fighting for it.

c4ts

13th October 2005, 11:21 AM

The state should not require you to advertise for a specific company's book.

Moose

13th October 2005, 04:13 PM

Sounds like the Day 8 transcript, when available, is going to be epic.

Euromutt

14th October 2005, 04:33 PM

I may point out to our Euro and Anti-podal buddies that this case is of great interest to you. [...] And, please, no arrogant "it can't happen here" crap.Oh, in some ways, it already has. Bear with me for a moment.

In the Netherlands, schools have a fair amount of autonomy in setting their own curriculum, but the bottom line is that every secondary school student--regardless of whether he or she attends a public or a religious school--must pass a final exam, the content of which is set by the state (i.e. the ministry of education). Now, I didn't take biology all the way to the final exam, so I didn't find out about this until recently, but the Dutch state exam curriculum for biology (or any other physical science) omits any mention of evolutionary theory. This is primarily as a result of continued pressure from hardline Calvinist activists who don't want their kids exposed to any idea which contradicts Genesis. As a result, it is possible to pass through the Dutch education system without ever hearing the word "evolution" (the main reason I didn't know this was because my school did teach evolution, but then, I went to a very good school).

What I'm trying to say here is that many of us have no room to be smug about Creationism in America. Just because Creationists are less noisy elsewhere doesn't mean they don't exist, or affect your child's education.

(Note that while I live in the US now, I am in fact a Dutch national.)

Mojo

14th October 2005, 06:19 PM

The original link was posted by Mojo in Politics. I'd just like to point out that I don't post in Politics any more than I have to...

SpaceFluffer

15th October 2005, 05:03 PM

Wow...you can see it evolving, with more fit phrases being selected by environmental pressure...and quite obviously, no intelligence behind it at all.:D

Mojo

17th October 2005, 05:28 AM

I've just noticed that the day 6 afternoon session transcript is now available on the ACLUPA website. It includes the first part of Barbara Forrest's cross-examination.

17th October 2005, 07:33 AM

I've just noticed that the day 6 afternoon session transcript is now available on the ACLUPA website. It includes the first part of Barbara Forrest's cross-examination.

Thank you, I don't check every day.

Any idea when the creationist dudes are testifying?

Pastor Bentonit

17th October 2005, 09:00 AM

I've just noticed that the day 6 afternoon session transcript is now available on the ACLUPA website. It includes the first part of Barbara Forrest's cross-examination.
Interesting audio analysis (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/index.php?path=mp3s/) is also available, e.g. Nick Matzke´s take on the Forrest hearing.

Mojo

17th October 2005, 09:24 AM

Thank you, I don't check every day. Nor do I, or I might have noticed it when it went up on Thursday!

chipmunk stew

17th October 2005, 04:21 PM

Thank you, I don't check every day.

Any idea when the creationist dudes are testifying?Behe testified today. Transcript not available yet, but several good reports are.

Mojo

18th October 2005, 10:09 AM

There's an amusing column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90187/) about Behe's testimony by Mike Argento.

Some more of Argento's columns are linked from the ACLUPA blog.

Mercutio

18th October 2005, 06:47 PM

Argh! I have become a transcript junky! I need my fix!

18th October 2005, 08:47 PM

Argh! I have become a transcript junky! I need my fix!

Wait for the cross, wait for the cross :)

Mojo

19th October 2005, 07:30 AM

Another Mike Argento column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/) about Behe.

ETA: And one from New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178).

Mercutio

19th October 2005, 07:37 AM

Another Mike Argento column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/) about Behe.
Nice.

Mercutio

19th October 2005, 07:38 AM

...but it is mere methadone...I need my transcripts...

Pastor Bentonit

19th October 2005, 07:43 AM

Another Mike Argento column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/) about Behe.
For deeper scientific insights into ID Creationism and the Dover case, try The Panda´s Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/). Granted, the above column is fun to read, and these IDC clowns get all the ridicule they deserve.

Darat

19th October 2005, 07:50 AM

Could someone get a list of all these good links together so I can add them to the box on the forum homepage? - TIA

Upchurch

19th October 2005, 09:13 AM

Witness says God isn't only possible designer (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a1_5beheoct19,0,4307329.story?coll=all-news-hed)
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.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.'':roll: :roll: :roll:

richardm

19th October 2005, 10:03 AM

tsg

19th October 2005, 10:33 AM

...but it is mere methadone...I need my transcripts...
I feel your pain. I've still got a hole in my soul from the missing transcripts of Days 2(am), 3(am) and 4...

KingMerv00

19th October 2005, 02:04 PM

I think the plaintiffs should call Hovind to the stand.

19th October 2005, 02:39 PM

or Jack Chick

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

Mojo

19th October 2005, 04:25 PM

I think the plaintiffs should call Hovind to the stand.Thank you for editing out the apostrophe! ;)

c4ts

20th October 2005, 12:52 AM

or Jack Chick

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1051/1051_01.asp

Classic Chick! It has freaky looking kids, evil Semetic teachers, unsupported nonsense which is basically hate speech... But I liked it better when it was called Big Daddy. I miss the part about atoms being held together by Jesus!

Odin

20th October 2005, 02:03 AM

http://www.chick.com/tractimages57245/1051/1051_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:

chran

20th October 2005, 03:15 AM

http://www.chick.com/tractimages57245/1051/1051_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.I love all the references to precious blood. That's surely something that all the kids will like!

Yahweh

20th October 2005, 03:32 AM

Witness says God isn't only possible designer (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a1_5beheoct19,0,4307329.story?coll=all-news-hed)
Because any other, non-supernatural, designer then has the sticky question of the origins of the designer, doesn't it?
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.

Darat

20th October 2005, 03:32 AM

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.

And is so simple that it didn't need to be designed.

Darat

20th October 2005, 03:34 AM

And is so simple that it didn't need to be designed.

Hold on if it was so simple it didn't need a designer to design it that means that complexity can arise from simplicity.. oops... :boggled:

catbasket

20th October 2005, 03:52 AM

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.

Euromutt

20th October 2005, 05:04 AM

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.

catbasket

20th October 2005, 05:52 AM

Agreed. Personally I read into Mr. Slade's comments that possibly the only thing he admired about Behe was his guts.

Melendwyr

20th October 2005, 06:21 AM

Agreed. Personally I read into Mr. Slade's comments that possibly the only thing he admired about Behe was his guts. He certainly couldn't admire his brains, that's for sure.

Moose

20th October 2005, 07:07 AM

Okay, I think I'm officially in "transcript withdrawl". These short articles aren't doing it for me anymore.

Bronze Dog

20th October 2005, 07:23 AM

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.

CFLarsen

20th October 2005, 07:32 AM

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.

If he had guts, he would state clearly what he wants: A religious tyranny.

catbasket

20th October 2005, 07:52 AM

I'm not sure if I can admire Behe's guts.
On display in a natural history museum as an example of some of the wonderful things evolution has produced? "This, children, is the alimentary canal." ;)

Dr Adequate

20th October 2005, 07:57 AM

"And this is the theory of intelligent design, which emerges from this end."

catbasket

20th October 2005, 08:58 AM

Transcripts for days 7, 8 and 9 are available here (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/).

catbasket

20th October 2005, 09:17 AM

Could someone get a list of all these good links together so I can add them to the box on the forum homepage? - TIA
ACLUPA blog (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/)
A "creationist science" text book becomes an "intelligent design" textbook (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/sixslides.PDF)
Dover trial transcripts (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm) (Not yet updated with days 7, 8 and 9)
Audio analysis (http://www2.ncseweb.org/kvd/index.php?path=mp3s/)
Mike Argento column (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90187/)
Mike Argento column 2 (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90330/)
New Scientist column (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178)
Witness says God isn't only possible designer (http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/state/all-a1_5beheoct19,0,4307329.story?coll=all-news-hed)

How's that?

Darat

20th October 2005, 09:57 AM

Great thanks

Mojo

20th October 2005, 10:07 AM

Transcripts for days 7, 8 and 9 are available here (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/).The first session of Behe is up as well now, but no cross yet.

Moose

20th October 2005, 10:16 AM

Transcripts for days 7, 8 and 9 are available here (http://aclupa.blogspot.com/).
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.

Melendwyr

20th October 2005, 10:28 AM

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.

juryjone

20th October 2005, 10:55 AM

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!

rwguinn

20th October 2005, 01:47 PM

Cleon

20th October 2005, 04:56 PM

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/KS/481_kansas_state_science_standards_10_18_2005.asp

please read the last paragraph carefully...
This is really, really troubling. Frightening, even...
science standing in the way of an education?

Frightening, yes. But also illustrative of the fact that ID is one big hoax--they know it's not science.

rwguinn

20th October 2005, 07:56 PM

Frightening, yes. But also illustrative of the fact that ID is one big hoax--they know it's not science.

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?

chipmunk stew

21st October 2005, 04:18 AM

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?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?

Mojo

21st October 2005, 04:58 AM

The first session of Behe's cross-examination is now available (see Transcript Day 11 PM) (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm)!

:D

richardm

21st October 2005, 08:13 AM

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?

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.

Oops! Credibility failure!

Cleon

21st October 2005, 08:26 AM

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

Oops! Credibility failure!

Mr. Scott! Backpedal now--full warp speed!

Upchurch

21st October 2005, 09:00 AM

The first session of Behe's cross-examination is now available (see Transcript Day 11 PM) (http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/intelligentdesigncase/dovertrialtranscripts.htm)! 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.

drkitten

21st October 2005, 09:24 AM

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.

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?"

Mojo

21st October 2005, 09:30 AM

All good clean fun! :D

Darat

21st October 2005, 09:40 AM

And when is a cause not a cause? When it's an intelligently designed cause (pages 23-24)

Upchurch

21st October 2005, 09:43 AM

All good clean fun! :D
No it isn't! I've got work to do and I'm still reading this stupid thing! Please Ed, I need to get some work done, but I can't hit the X button!

Mojo

21st October 2005, 10:08 AM

Sorry, Upchurch.

Mike Argento again: Of Behe and mammary glands (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90504/). ... Dr. Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemist who is one of the top intelligent design jihadists.

rjh01

21st October 2005, 06:09 PM

To all ID people
Never believe in your own propaganda. Never go to court to get your own way. High risk of embarrassing failure.

Mojo

21st October 2005, 06:58 PM

To all ID people
Never believe in your own propaganda. Never go to court to get your own way. High risk of embarrassing failure.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).

rjh01

21st October 2005, 07:23 PM

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.

Darat

22nd October 2005, 02:17 AM

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

22nd October 2005, 03:21 AM

It's nice to see someone being a bit tougher with Behe than in this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html) recent interview in the Grauniad.

Darat

22nd October 2005, 03:31 AM

It's nice to see someone being a bit tougher with Behe than in this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html) recent interview in the Grauniad.

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.

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.

CFLarsen

22nd October 2005, 03:41 AM

This probably doesn't;t worry Behe since he belies the designer is God and presumably he believes god *has* designed everything.

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 (http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_beliefs.php)

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 (http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_affiliations.php)

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 (http://www.ideacenter.org/about/history.php)

It doesn't get clearer than that.

Dr Adequate

22nd October 2005, 05:03 AM

TalkOrigins have the transcripts (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html) in html format.

Dr Adequate

22nd October 2005, 05:27 AM

KingMerv00 strikes the first blow in round 2 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46305)

It must be annoying, being the judge and knowing that the case will be appealed and a bunch of other judges will retry the case.

Couldn't they just go straight to the appeal court and start there?

I don't see why he bothers getting up in the morning.

Mojo

22nd October 2005, 05:33 AM

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.In his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm762) 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. So while this sort of thing may not worry Behe personally, it's certainly a problem for ID as a coherent theory.

Darat

22nd October 2005, 05:41 AM

In his testimony (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm2.html#day11pm762) 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.

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.

Darat

22nd October 2005, 06:11 AM

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 ;) ) that he believes the intelligent designer is "God". And because he is also Catholic then I can assume he regards everything in the universe to have been designed by God so as far as he would be concerned there is a designer behind the (only apparent) random arrangement of a rock heap.

Dr Adequate

22nd October 2005, 07:11 AM

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. :dl:

Dr Adequate

22nd October 2005, 07:28 AM

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.
Now there's a lawyer who deserves his salary.

CFLarsen

22nd October 2005, 07:30 AM

You know, maybe we should take ID'ers to court, instead of the other way around. It actually seems to be working quite well.... :D

22nd October 2005, 08:00 AM

Dr Adequate

22nd October 2005, 08:08 AM

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. Have you considered the possibility that he might say "no"? Dunno, it just appeared to me that he could have been humiliated. I think the judge can probably tell a snide personal attack from a hole in the ground.

The object is not to humiliate Behe, amusing though it is, but to get the right answers out of him. I think the lawyer's doing a good job.

Darat

22nd October 2005, 09:08 AM

And isn't he being cross-examined as an "expert witness"? If so I would have thought the rules of the court would make it difficult to ask him questions outside his remit as an expert witness.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd October 2005, 09:56 AM

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.
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

CFLarsen

22nd October 2005, 10:02 AM

They used to say that the reduced structure couldn't perform any function. Now that say it can't perform its original function.

Can you find some references? It would be nice to document how they change their claims...

RandFan

22nd October 2005, 10:11 AM

Boy, smack me upside the head. I read the news every day, talk with typically well informed adults and am involved in the Politics and Current events forum and I have NO idea what the hell this is all about. How does this happen? Damn!!!

Ok, I've seen headlines with Dover and ID in them and I guess I didn't bother. So it's my fault. So sue me. I thought Dover was across the pond. Guess I thought wrong.

What's that? Yeah, I have a point, besides the fact that I'm completely clueless. I've checked out the links and so far I can only find current events. Is there anywhere to go for some background on this particular case?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd October 2005, 11:17 AM

Claus, you can find some of the history of the definition of irreducible complexity here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#irred

See section 4.2.

Also, in this paper, Dembski seems to have killed the idea of IC:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Dembski_IrreducibleComplexityRevisited_011404.pdf

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!

~~ Paul

CFLarsen

22nd October 2005, 11:52 AM

Thanks.

delphi_ote

22nd October 2005, 12:00 PM

Not sure how we're going to demonstrate that no simpler system can perform the basic function. Ka-pow!

Actually, Chaitin's "algorithmic information theory" tells us that this is impossible. The question of "What is the smallest representation of an algorithm which computes a given function?" is undecidable in general. If we think of a biological function as some kind of algorithm and DNA (or other organic molecules) as the code for this algorithm, we can't decide if there is a simpler (in the information theory sense of the word) system that performs the same function.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd October 2005, 12:21 PM

Ka-blam! Ka-pow! Ah, my foot, my foot! :toiletpap

~~ Paul

Darat

22nd October 2005, 01:27 PM

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

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.

Crazy reasoning but hey I didn't invent creationism ID. ;)

RandFan

22nd October 2005, 01:32 PM

Is there anywhere to go for some background on this particular case? RandFan,

Try Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District) at Wikipedia.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

22nd October 2005, 02:09 PM

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. 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.

~~ Paul

Melendwyr

22nd October 2005, 09:37 PM

Good; I'd hate to think you necessarily thought that.

And now for something completely different:
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." Sweet, merciful Buddha on a pogo stick, that man doesn't seem to have full change for a dollar.

Dr Adequate

23rd October 2005, 02:26 AM

Day 12 --- morning (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html)

The Behe cross-examination continues.

Mojo

23rd October 2005, 03:06 AM

Good heavens, we're back on-topic.

Dr Adequate

23rd October 2005, 04:19 AM

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.
:dl:

Dr Adequate

23rd October 2005, 04:22 AM

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.

chran

23rd October 2005, 05:00 AM

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.

Bwahahhaha! Talk about being backed up into a corner :D

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd October 2005, 05:53 AM

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

chran

23rd October 2005, 06:06 AM

Where did this slow intelligent design come in? They can't allow that. That completely blows the argument. 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.

Dr Adequate

23rd October 2005, 06:19 AM

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.

burrahobbit

23rd October 2005, 07:05 AM

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_)

Melendwyr

23rd October 2005, 07:17 AM

Who IS this Mr Rothschild!!

I suspect him of having a degree in Biology. 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.

23rd October 2005, 07:36 AM

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.

Sexy "Village of the Damned" like avatar you got there. She has that come hither "make me stupid" look.

23rd October 2005, 07:42 AM

He could just be an intelligent person with a passing familiarity with science.

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.

chran

23rd October 2005, 07:54 AM

Sexy "Village of the Damned" like avatar you got there. She has that come hither "make me stupid" look. 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.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

23rd October 2005, 08:21 AM

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

23rd October 2005, 08:42 AM

CFLarsen

23rd October 2005, 10:20 AM

I totally agree. I don't think Behe thought this all the way through.

Well spotted.

"Slow design". I like that.

23rd October 2005, 10:36 AM

Well spotted.

"Slow design". I like that.

Hmmmm....."slow design" and Not Young Earth...sounds to me like where we are now.

Darat

23rd October 2005, 01:08 PM

Posts split from this thread can be found here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=46380).

Darat

23rd October 2005, 01:16 PM

"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?

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:

CFLarsen

23rd October 2005, 01:19 PM

Darat

23rd October 2005, 01:51 PM

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?

Mojo

23rd October 2005, 02:00 PM

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. ;)

CFLarsen

23rd October 2005, 02:00 PM

That's...the way...uh-huh, uh-huh, I like it...

CFLarsen

23rd October 2005, 02:02 PM

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. ;)

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........

delphi_ote

23rd October 2005, 03:55 PM

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

Obviously the court room, in front of the T.V. camera, in unreviewed books...

Sounds like science to me!

Mojo

23rd October 2005, 04:02 PM

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?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 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am233)

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." And, of course, the eminent biochemist who reviwed the portions of Of Pandas and People that had been written by Dr. Behe: from here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm189)

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.

:dl:

Melendwyr

23rd October 2005, 08:31 PM

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?

23rd October 2005, 08:54 PM

CFLarsen

24th October 2005, 01:10 AM

I don't know how much more I can take.

This is killing me.

:dl:

Darat

24th October 2005, 01:38 AM

<sigh>

"Legislating from the bench."

</sigh>

But they brought the action... oh I see what you mean. :)

Mojo

24th October 2005, 01:38 AM

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

Behe (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am241): 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.

Atchison (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12am.html#day12am274): 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. 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.

Darat

24th October 2005, 01:51 AM

CFLarsen

24th October 2005, 03:42 AM

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.

Any kind of entertainment.

Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial?

So far, a proponent of ID being scientific (http://www.skepticforum.com/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=472) has evaded a crucial question (http://www.skepticforum.com/viewtopic.php?p=20229&highlight=#20229) for quite some time now.

Mojo

24th October 2005, 04:15 AM

The judge's and defender's asides about the Big Bang had me laughing out loud. I think you must have the parties the wrong way round. The defendants in this case are the IDers.

Darat

24th October 2005, 04:20 AM

I think you must have the parties the wrong way round. The defendants in this case are the IDers. 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<<<

Mojo

24th October 2005, 07:24 AM

It looks as if some of these guys have got them bang to rights: Students evaluate evolution case (http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2005/10/22/news/news05.txt): 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.Maybe there is hope after all! :)

Mojo

24th October 2005, 07:25 AM

->>insert smilie for digging hole<<<Can we have one of these please? I can think of many times when it would have been entirely appropriate!

Mojo

24th October 2005, 07:29 AM

And here's Mike Argento (http://ydr.com/story/mike/90750/) 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.

CFLarsen

24th October 2005, 10:33 AM

His response?

They’re not good enough.

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?

Darat

24th October 2005, 10:40 AM

Can we have one of these please? I can think of many times when it would have been entirely appropriate!

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:

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

24th October 2005, 11:07 AM

Now that's a friggin' smiley!

:dig::dig: :dig: :dig:

~~ Paul

:dig:

Any chance you could give it the synonym :behe: ?

drkitten

24th October 2005, 02:45 PM

He could just be an intelligent person with a passing familiarity with science.

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.

chipmunk stew

24th October 2005, 03:11 PM

Out of curiosity does anyone have links to how the "other side" are commenting on the trial? Here's the Discovery Institute's site (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage) about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as:
While Discovery Institute does not support efforts to require the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, it also strongly opposes the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design.
And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture (http://www.evolutionnews.org/). A sampling of their cattle doo-doo:
The ACLU has gone from defending teachers to prosecuting them. In a federal courtroom this week, the ACLU argued that science teachers in the school district of Dover, Pennyslvania, are not free under the Constitution to question evolutionary theory.

chipmunk stew

24th October 2005, 03:28 PM

Here's the Discovery Institute's site (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2879&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage) about the trial. Such baldly dishonest quotes as:

And one from the ironically-named Center for Science and Culture (http://www.evolutionnews.org/). A sampling of their cattle doo-doo:I found another. A blog called ID the Future (http://www.idthefuture.com/) :rolleyes: with contributions by several big hitters. They also have a list of contributor websites on the right side of the page.

chipmunk stew

24th October 2005, 03:33 PM

I've noticed it's been difficult to retrieve some of the pages above, particularly those hosted by Discovery Institute. Makes me think they get a lot of traffic. :(

I haven't found a good "other side" site with high traffic forums we can troll. Anyone else know of any?

Mojo

24th October 2005, 06:12 PM

chipmunk stew

24th October 2005, 06:26 PM

Mojo

24th October 2005, 07:07 PM

OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being). But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma.

I really think they need to do more than that.

24th October 2005, 07:22 PM

OK, they've trashed ID as good science (and Behe as a sentient being). But saying that it's therefore religion is a false dilemma.

I really think they need to do more than that.

I think that they have shown that ID=Creationism (thru really slimey subterfuge) and it has been found that Creationism=Religion. They have also shown that everyone and everybody in the least bit associated with ID has a religious political bias. I think that they demonstrated the link and it between the concept (very important) and religion.

Mojo

24th October 2005, 07:26 PM

I'd love to think that. But I'm waiting for the verdict (and the appeals...).

Dr Adequate

25th October 2005, 01:53 AM

I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2005, 04:42 AM

I think that all they have to do is show that the case falls under the ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard; and I think this has been adequately demonstrated. The rest of the trial is an amusing sideshow.This seems to be the strategy. The held opinion (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard.html#Held) in Edwards v. Aguillard states:
1. The Act is facially invalid as violative of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it lacks a clear secular purpose. Pp. 585-594.
(a) The Act does not further its stated secular purpose of "protecting academic freedom." ....
(b) The Act impermissibly endorses religion by advancing the religious belief that a supernatural being created humankind. ....The Behe bashing covers 1(a).
I have a feeling we'll see the focus of the case and the plaintiff's conclusionary statement crescendo on 1(b).

tsg

25th October 2005, 07:32 AM

OK. The plaintiffs in this case have demonstrated abundantly that ID is not good science (at least as far as most of us here are concerned). But I don't think that this is what they need to do in order to win the case. Is there anything in the US constitution that says that kids can't be taught nonsense?

I think, in fact, that what the plaintiifs need to demonstrate is that that ID is a religious idea. Have they done this?

Am I right in what I've said in this post?

I think we need a proper American lawyer here.

Brown, where are you?

IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard.

But, knowing this case will be appealed no matter which side wins, the plaintiffs are going beyond that to show that the Dover Board of Ed's actions violate the Lemon Test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_test) all on its own without relying Edwards v. Aguillard so they don't have to rely on a similarity to creationism in the appellate court. If the plaintiffs win on just the similarity to creationism, they could lose the appeal if the defendants can successfully argue that ID is not creationism.

The reason for showing that it is not science is two-fold: first, if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion (it has already been established that ID is a philosophical/theological argument as well as a "scientific" one, so there is no false dilemma); second, if there is no science, there is no loss by not teaching it in a science class. The ID'ers have been trying to hint at their persecution in the scientific community simply for suggesting that evolution might be wrong, when, in fact, their rejection is due to their lack of science.

Mojo

25th October 2005, 07:49 AM

drkitten

25th October 2005, 08:00 AM

New announcement on the ACLUPA Blog: Judge Jones has struck out (http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/OrderstrikeDIamicusbriefs.pdf) the Discovery Institute's amicus briefs on the grounds that they were an attempt to introduce Meyer and Dembski's evidence without their being cross-examined.

Minor correction. The DI introduced two briefs, one in its own name, and one in the name of the eight or so "scientists" whom the DI could scrape up to sign a statement supporting ID. Only the first brief was struck -- stricken -- strucken -- striked -- thrown out.

Still, it's not a good sign for the defendants....

drkitten

25th October 2005, 08:13 AM

IANAL, but in order to win, the plaintiffs have to show that teaching ID does constitute teaching religion. The plaintiff's strategy thus far is to show that ID is fundamentally the same as creationism which has already been determined is a violation of the First Amendment in Edwards v. Aguillard.

Which, of course, is why the ID proponents are trying very hard to discredit Dr. Forrest; she's basically the only expert that can "connect the dots" in her testimony. She's the only expert to which the defense was unwilling to stipulate her qualifications. They worked very hard during the voir dire to undercut her credibiliity by connecting her with political groups such as the Council for Secular Humanism (to the point where the judge had to slam the attorney rather hard). They raised a completely inappropriate hearsay objection to her entire expert report and testimony (again, drawing a red card from the judge), and are now bending if not breaking the rules regarding amici briefs in order to get their rebuttal to Forrest into the record without risking having their own theologians undergo a searching cross-examination as Behe did.

And the reason can be summed up in a single question and answer:

Q. Dr. Forrest, is it your view, your opinion, that intelligent design is at its core a philosophical and theological claim?

A. It is my view that at its core intelligent design is a religious belief.

She currently stands in the possibly unenviable position of being the only qualified "expert" on "methdological naturalism and the history and nature of the intelligent design movement." As such, the statement that "intelligent design is a religious belief" stands essentially unopposed and unrefuted in expert testimony.

ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record....

tsg

25th October 2005, 09:02 AM

ETA: If this case is decided for the plaintiffs, and then is appealed, the situation gets even worse for the defendants, because expert testimony tends to be even more believable when you're just reading the transcripts and not seeing the expert testify on the stand. So you can understand exactly how panic-stricken the DI folks are about being unable to get their counter-arguments to Forrest into the record....
This is one of the things that makes reading the transcripts so enjoyable. Real scientists are used to having their ideas challenged and are very experienced in defending them (that pesky peer review process). Watching them very calmly and cooly endure the cross without being flustered and then watching Behe almost come apart at the seams makes it readily apparent he's never really had to defend his ideas in a scientific setting. The judge, at the very least, has to have the impression that Behe hasn't really thought this through. It also sheds some light on why Meyer and Dembski may not have wanted to go through cross examination.

Mojo

25th October 2005, 09:19 AM

I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th October 2005, 09:20 AM

GOD, I love this stuff.

~~ Paul

Melendwyr

25th October 2005, 09:23 AM

Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions.

Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes.

Let's just hope the judge can see that.

drkitten

25th October 2005, 09:25 AM

I think Behe has published peer-reviewed papers, just not any about ID.

He has, at least as recently as 2004. (His CV is on-line if you want to look at what he's done.)

On the other hand, despite what you might thing, peer review is usually a fairly friendly process if you're doing straightforward, non-controversial work. There's not much you will get criticized for in a paper entitled "Poly[dA]@poly[dT] forms very stable mucleosomes at higher temperatures," as long as your lab technique is acceptable.

I think what this really shows is that he's never tried to discuss his work at the "scientific meetings" he's been studiously avoiding. Because you know that if he opened his mouth and this kind of bilge came out of it, some top-flight microbiologist would pwn him like the n00b he is during the question period.

drkitten

25th October 2005, 09:32 AM

Showing that ID isn't good science - or even science at all - effectively demonstrates that there's no real secular reason to mention it in science classes.

But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights.

Fortunately, I think I disagree with your statement:

Determining whether something is religious is quite difficult, as anything could potentially be taken on faith and made the centerpiece of one's religious convictions.

What you describe is essentially the definition of religion (as proposed by the Georgetown theologian whose name escapes me). If I can show that a substantial number of people have, in fact, taken "ID" on faith and made it the centerpiece of one's religious convictions" -- as Dr. Forrest testified, for example, in demonstrating how some of the ID proponents use John 1:1 as the starting poing for their "investigations" of evolution and the origins of life -- if I can show that, then I've basically demonstrated that it's a religion.

hammegk

25th October 2005, 09:35 AM

if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religion
Indeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion. :boxedin:

hammegk

25th October 2005, 10:15 AM

Hmm, reading comprehension difficulties and context difficulties, all in ten short words.

Your ability to combine fallacious thought, factual inaccuracy, and pig-ignorance into the smallest possible expression continues to astound me. Have you considered writing Haiku?
Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.

Mojo

25th October 2005, 10:34 AM

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Nope. It's American Constitution vs. religion.

25th October 2005, 11:14 AM

Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.

Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th October 2005, 11:21 AM

Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor. It analyzes one Dembski essay to show how fair and accurate IDers try to be when quoting biologists---not.

~~ Paul

tsg

25th October 2005, 11:23 AM

But that's insufficient reason to ban a practice under US law. It's necessary to show that teaching ID "advances religion" in order for it to violate the Bill of Rights.
Actually, it's not (to my limited understanding, at least). The first prong of the Lemon Test is that the government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose. Violating any one of the three prongs makes it unconstitutional under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Showing that it violates more than one prong certainly strengthens the case, though, so if they can also show that it advances religion it would violate the second prong as well.

chipmunk stew

25th October 2005, 11:26 AM

Are you suggesting that the ID arguments are reasonable in the slightest?No, he didn't say that. He said the ID guys lack the "ability to ignore things because they are not by [drkitten's] standards logical & scientific". This could mean two things:

1. They have no ability to filter out things that appear illogical and unscientific.

or

2. They have no ability to make their argument without introducing their own standards for what is logical and scientific. (such that astrology makes the cut :D )

chipmunk stew

25th October 2005, 11:28 AM

Hey all, don't miss the article "Why Scientists Get So Angry When Dealing with ID Proponents" in the latest Skeptical Inquisitor.link?

tsg

25th October 2005, 11:37 AM

if there is no science, then there is nothing left but religionIndeed, cards face up on the table: Science vs. Religion. :boxedin:

Way, way, way out of context, but whatever...

I suggest the dichotomy I highlighted is where this case has always been headed. Dream otherwise if such pleases you.
There is no dichotomy: science does not address the supernatural, philosophical or theological. The people who constantly try to make it a dichotomy are those who can't reconcile their religious beliefs with known facts.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

25th October 2005, 11:49 AM

Chipmunk, I was about to tell you it was in a magazine, but it is online!

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/designers.html

~~ Paul

m0nngis

25th October 2005, 12:05 PM

GOD, I love this stuff. Heh, me too!

I think productivity at work has halved since I started to read the transcripts. :)

drkitten

25th October 2005, 12:55 PM

Your ability to ignore things because they are not by your standards logical & scientific is, unfortunately for evolutionists, not shared by your adversaries.

By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?

I'm not unreasonable. If the problem is that I'm using the wrong standards to evaluate an argument, convince me. I fear the problem is that I have standards at all, and that I'm not willing to uncritically accept whatever drivel drips from your keyboard.

25th October 2005, 02:12 PM

Melendwyr

25th October 2005, 02:24 PM

tsg

25th October 2005, 02:26 PM

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
I would revise it thusly: "ID states that whether or not something can be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural."

hammegk

25th October 2005, 02:26 PM

Querry:

If I were to give a Dewey the Dunce thumbnail of ID (in order to present the basic principles) to someone would this be far off :

ID states that if something cannot be explained by rational means the cause is, ipso facto, supernatural.
If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course.

Well, well! Look who arrived late to the party, looking smashing as always.

Originally Posted by hammegk (I'm paraphrasing, of course) :
I'm no creationist, but I sure do like their arguments!
You are as wrong as you are irrelevant. :)

Nope. It's American Constitution vs. religion.
Other see it differently. BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight?

By what standard is ID "logical and scientific"?
Unknown. I've never suggested it is or was.

For that matter, by what standard are any of your contributions in this thread "logical and scientific"?
That depends on one's understanding, or lack thereof. :)

25th October 2005, 02:34 PM

No. "If there is currently no known rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural."

You need to remove the verbal ambiguity. "Something that cannot be explained by rational means" implies that no such explanation is possible, rather than that no such explanation is known at present, which I think is what you meant.

I thought that is what I wrote. Perhaps taking out the "known" which is implied:

"If there is currently no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

I could say

"If there is no rational explanation for something, the cause is supernatural"

Which implies that we do not, nor is it possible, to have a rational explination. It seems that what they are arguing is that where we are now, from a scientific standpoint, is the pinnicle of understanding and that answers to things that Behe cited will never be forthcoming so we might as well not look.

so I go with... actually, I am not sure now. What is the guiding principle of ID? Once something is deemed to be "created" do they consider it blasphamy to investigate further?

tsg

25th October 2005, 02:38 PM

If you are a materialist -- whether you recognize it or not -- yes, of course.
No. That it is, as of yet, unexplained does not make it unexplainable.

Mojo

25th October 2005, 03:08 PM

BTW, are you even a US citizen? If not, what dog do you have in this fight? We have creationist loons over here as well. Consider me as a sort of amicus curiae, if you will.

Anyway, do you claim to be a US citizen? If so, can you prove it to the sort of standard that you expect of others? ;)

Mojo

25th October 2005, 03:44 PM

Yes, although I choose not to do so, here.
Do you mean you choose not to claim to be a US citizen, or you choose not to prove it?

25th October 2005, 04:43 PM

Mojo

25th October 2005, 04:55 PM

n.b. This thread probably has more reads than any other I have ever posted. Sad really, since I stole the link from Mojo and got Darat to stickey it. Ah well....And it was going so well until recently. ;)

Perhaps there will be some more developments in the trial to discuss soon, and we'll be able to forget the recent irrelevancies.

25th October 2005, 04:59 PM

And it was going so well until recently. ;)

Perhaps there will be some more developments in the trial to discuss soon, and we'll be able to forget the recent irrelevancies.

Yes it was and my question is a real one. Cutting thru the crap, what are these guys saying? Mojo, you have been close to this, what do you think?

RandFan

26th October 2005, 12:17 AM

Ok,

I've read through most of the transcripts a couple of times now. I'm curious about this exchange:

Q.
Now you, in fact, have stated that intelligent
design can never be ruled out, correct?
A.
Yes, that's right.

Q.
Now let's turn to your test here of whether
bacterial flagellum could evolve through random
mutation and natural selection. 10,000 generations, that's
your proposal, correct?
A.
Right.

Q.
And it sounds like a lot, but you actually
testified that, that would just take a couple of years,
right?
A.
Right.

Q.
And, you know, based on your understanding of
normal laboratory procedures, even the best
laboratories, how much bacteria would be made a part of
that test?
A.
Oh, probably at the best, 10 to the 10th, 10 to
the 12th, at the outside.

Q.
Now you haven't tested intelligent design
yourself this way, have you?
A.
No, I have not.
Q.
And nobody in the intelligent design movement
has?
A.
That's correct.

Q.
And nobody else has?
A.
I'm sorry?

Q.
And nobody else has, outside the intelligent
design movement?
A.
Well, I'm not sure -- I don't think I would agree
with that. I think the experiments described by Barry
Hall were actually in an attempt to do exactly that. He
wanted to see if he could, in his laboratory, re-evolve
a lac operon. His first step in that process in the mid
1970's were the experiments that I discussed here
yesterday, knocking out the beta galactosidase gene.
His intention was, from things he has written
later, was to see how that would evolve and then knock
out two steps at a time, and eventually see how he could
get really the whole functioning system. But he had
such trouble with just getting that one step to go, and
since he could not knock out anything else, and get it
to re-evolve, he gave up.
And so I would count his efforts as a test of
that, and say that the test, you know, that it was, it
did not falsify intelligent design thinking.

Q.
And I had actually made a blood pact with my
co-counsel not to ask you about the lac operon, but now
I had to violate it.
A.
Too late.

Q.
How many years has he done this experiment?
A.
I think he was working on it for 20 years or so.

Q.
In any event, that's the lac operon. But for
bacterial flagellum, you're not aware of that test being
done?
A. No.

Q.
Certainly not by anybody in the intelligent
design movement?
A.
No.

Q.
Okay. So you can't claim that the proposition
that the bacterial flagellum was intelligently designed
is a well-tested proposition?
A.
Yes, you can, I'm afraid. It's well-tested from
the inductive argument. We can, from our inductive
understanding of whenever we see something that has a
large number of parts, which interacts to fulfill some
function, when we see a purposeful arrangement of parts,
we have always found that to be design.
And so, an inductive argument relies on the
validity of the previous instances of what you're
inducing. So I would say that, that is tested.

Q.
Professor Behe, you say right here, here is the
test, here is the test that science should do, grow the
bacterial flagellum in the laboratory. And that hasn't
been done, correct?
A.
That has not been done. I was advising people
who are skeptical of the induction that, if they want to
essentially come up with persuasive evidence that, in
fact, an alternative process to an intelligent one could
produce the flagellum, then that's what they should do.

Q. So all those other scientists should do that, but
you're not going to?
A.
Well, I think I'm persuaded by the evidence that
I cite in my book, that this is a good explanation and
that spending a lot of effort in trying to show how
random mutation and natural selection could produce
complex systems, like Barry Hall tried to do, is likely
to result -- is not real likely to be fruitful, as his
results were not fruitful. So, no, I don't do that in
order to spend my time on other things.

Q.
Waste of time for Barry Hall?
A.
I'm sorry?

Q.
Waste of time for Barrie Hall?
A.
No, certainly not a waste of time. It was very
interesting. He thought that he would learn things.
And he did learn things. But they weren't the things
that he started out to learn. He thought that he would
be able to see the evolution of a complex system. And
he learned how difficult that was.

Q.
In any event, you have not undertaken the kind of
test you describe here for any of the irreducibly
complex systems you have identified?
A.
I have not.

Q.
And neither has anybody else in the intelligent
design movement?

FWIW, I'm agnostic and a former ID proponent.

1.) I'm confused at Rothschild's direction here. Why should ID proponents attempt to conduct experiments to prove a negative?

2.) I think the questioning is a bit unfair. Behe isn't saying that it is a waste of time only a waste of time for those who don't believe in evolution.

3.) How many generations would likely produce such a mutation.

Note to self: Don't simply cut and paste from the transcripts {whew}

aerosolben

26th October 2005, 12:45 AM

Ok,

I've read through most of the transcripts a couple of times now. I'm curious about this exchange:

FWIW, I'm agnostic and a former ID proponent.

1.) I'm confused at Rothschild's direction here. Why should ID proponents attempt to conduct experiments to prove a negative?

2.) I think the questioning is a bit unfair. Behe isn't saying that it is a waste of time only a waste of time for those who don't believe in evolution.

It appears to me (I've only seen parts of the transcripts, though) that Rothschild is attempting to demonstrate the unscientific nature of ID; namely, that they have no interest in pursuing scientific test on the validity of the theory, but instead are attempting to "logically" assert its truth.

However, he's walking a fine line. On the one hand, Behe is half-admitting that he has no real scientific evidence for ID, just "inductive reasoning". On the other hand, the whole test itself is flawed, because it is assuming ID is true unless disproving evidence is discovered. A real test should be searching for positive evidence, not negative.

So, maybe good legally, even if not in the scientific community.

hammegk

26th October 2005, 06:36 AM

Reposting some comments that were split, but that belong in this thread:

Ed:
I do not see whether or not I am a materialist has any bearing on the definition. I am looking for the underlying principle of ID.

hammegk: "You are correct that what you are has no bearing on the definition. It does have a bearing on the implications of the definition.

The word "supernatural" has no meaning except to a dualist, or a materialist."

Edited in line with the split.

...snip...

tsg:
... as of yet, unexplained does not make it unexplainable.

Er, yes, we agree. Do you suggest I said otherwise?

26th October 2005, 07:01 AM

God explains nothing.

drkitten

26th October 2005, 08:38 AM

FWIW, I'm agnostic and a former ID proponent.

1.) I'm confused at Rothschild's direction here. Why should ID proponents attempt to conduct experiments to prove a negative?

To establish evidence in favor of their position, of course. There's nothing wrong with running an experiment in which the expected result is a failure-to-find, as long as the experiment itself is well-designed and well-run. This happens all the time in medicine, for example, especially in the various studies of "quack" practices.

More generally, a showing that a bacterial flagellum did not evolve in X generations in a pool of Y bacteria also gives microbiologists some hard numbers about the upper bound of the probability of evolution. Again, this is useful and scientifically valid, especially considering the number of times argument-from-probability is thrown around in the ID community.

2.) I think the questioning is a bit unfair. Behe isn't saying that it is a waste of time only a waste of time for those who don't believe in evolution.

But this is part of the problem. He's saying "look, here's my theory, a theory that is almost entirely unsupported by experimental data, and here's a proposed experiment to test my theory, and I think it's a waste of time to run my experiment."

I'm sorry, Dr. Behe, but it's your (rule 8) theory, a theory that flies in the face of accepted science, and it's not worth your time to support your theory?

Of course, as Rothschild pointed out elsewhere in his cross-examination, the difference between 10,000 generations of 10^12 bacteria and the postulated trillions of generations of 10^40 or so bacteria that nature is presumed to have at her disposal suggests that the power of Behe's proposed test is, in fact, close to zero -- the expected failure-to-find wouldn't mean much. So in that case, it would be a waste of time to run this particular experiment because it's not as well-designed as Behe would believe.

3.) How many generations would likely produce such a mutation.

We (scientists generally) don't know. It's never been important enough to determine experimentall, and large enough that a Behe-style experiment would be very difficult and expensive to run properly..

CurtC

26th October 2005, 09:57 AM

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th October 2005, 10:02 AM

Darat

26th October 2005, 10:33 AM

Even if someone did run a giant experiment to produce a flagellum, that would be considered as proof, by the ID proponents, that it took intelligence to create it. In this case, it would be the scientist.

This is another of the reasons ID against ID being considered science. All science can be claimed to be "designed" therefore ID states that science can never falsify ID.

chipmunk stew

26th October 2005, 10:47 AM

More commentary by Mike Argento (http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/91282/) from yesterday, about witness Steve William Fuller.

I love this quote:
Anyway, Fuller said intelligent design "needed to be mainstreamed," which I guess is a polite way of saying that in its current embryological state, it rides the short bus of science.

:dl:

Melendwyr

26th October 2005, 10:58 AM

CurtC is correct. A primary objection to Schneider's Ev program, which evolves binding sites on a chromosome, is that the model is embodied in a computer program that a human being wrote. Which is an utterly ridiculous claim. Either the scientist cheated, and fudged the program so that the "right" mutation would show up at the proper time and be propagated - or evolution is inherent to populations in which the traits of members are statistically associated with their remaining in the population, which is one way to state the basics of evolutionary theory.

If there was cheating involved, it should be relatively easy to check. Examine the code, and if no fudging is found, run it several times. Allowing for the uncertainties of stochastic results, the results of the earlier experiments should be repeatable. If they're repeatable, and no cheats are found... well, it's a demonstration of evolution though natural selection.

(I thought there were already dozens of examples of A-life spontaneously evolving. Am I mistaken in that belief?)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th October 2005, 11:14 AM

Actually, Dembski looked at the code for Ev and claimed he had found the trapdoor that let information in. Schneider modified the program to allow three options for the particular feature that Dembski objected to:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/dembski/claimtest.html (http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/%7Etoms/paper/ev/dembski/claimtest.html)

There are plenty of examples of A-life evolving. I think Ev rankles the IDers because it is a model of actual life, and also because Schneider is fairly good at advertising it.

~~ Paul

tsg

26th October 2005, 12:18 PM

It appears to me (I've only seen parts of the transcripts, though) that Rothschild is attempting to demonstrate the unscientific nature of ID; namely, that they have no interest in pursuing scientific test on the validity of the theory, but instead are attempting to "logically" assert its truth.

However, he's walking a fine line. On the one hand, Behe is half-admitting that he has no real scientific evidence for ID, just "inductive reasoning". On the other hand, the whole test itself is flawed, because it is assuming ID is true unless disproving evidence is discovered. A real test should be searching for positive evidence, not negative.

So, maybe good legally, even if not in the scientific community.

The problem with Behe's test is that it's simply shifting the burden of proof. It's little more than "I say it's true, prove me wrong". The fact is that ID has no experimental evidence to support the notion of irreducible complexity and, despite Behe's claims of it being quantifiable, whether a system is irreducibly complex comes down to a "god of the gaps" argument: "I don't see how it could have evolved, therefore it must be the result of intelligence". Rothschild's venture into this area is simply showing the court that they have not actually done any real research. They just aren't interested.

drkitten

26th October 2005, 01:56 PM

The problem with Behe's test is that it's simply shifting the burden of proof.

Well, to be fair, the "burden of proof" is irrelevant here.

From a legal standpoint -- it's a civil trial, so the relevant term is "preponderance of the evidence."

From a scientific and epistemological standpoint -- nothing can be proven empirically. But we can show a hell of a lot of evidence for one side or another. And I think that's what Rothschild is getting at. There are all these evolutionists out there, amassing this huge collection of evidence, including at least fifty peer-reviewed articles that he was waving in court (to which Behe's response, and I quote, was "not good enough.") On the other side, there's little or nothing.

Behe is asking to be disproven.

But he doesn't have to be disproven. He just has to be shown to be less credible. Offhand, I'd say that fifty peer-reviewed articles, eight or so research monographs, a half-dozen well-regarded textbooks to zero is a pretty good definition of "less credible," at least as measured by "thud" factor. And the experiment he proposes could be run by anyone -- evolutionists have no reason to run it, but the creationists who would want to run it haven't. More damningly, they don't even see interested in running it (what was Behe's term? "A waste of time"), because they're not interest in getting evidence.

And this is true both for scientists and legal scholars. The whole point of this discussion is to weigh all the evidence that anyone can bring to the table, whether creationist/IDer, evolutionist, IPU devotee, Pastafarian, or Cthulhu worshipper (aka a snack). The problem is that the evolutionists brought an entire catering staff who they have been working with for years, while creationists are rummaging in their pockets for a spare throat sweet. (And the Pastafarians point out that they have throat sweets, too, so there's nothing special there.)

tsg

26th October 2005, 02:26 PM

Well, to be fair, the "burden of proof" is irrelevant here.

From a legal standpoint -- it's a civil trial, so the relevant term is "preponderance of the evidence."

From a scientific and epistemological standpoint -- nothing can be proven empirically. But we can show a hell of a lot of evidence for one side or another. And I think that's what Rothschild is getting at. There are all these evolutionists out there, amassing this huge collection of evidence, including at least fifty peer-reviewed articles that he was waving in court (to which Behe's response, and I quote, was "not good enough.") On the other side, there's little or nothing.
From a scientific standpoint, Behe is shifting the burden of proof* by requiring others to disprove his claim (and providing no evidence to support it). From a legal standpoint, the fact that he is shifting the burden of proof is evidence that what he's doing is not science. Not that there's anything wrong with your statement, I just wanted to clarify mine.

*"Proof" is used loosely here and only because it is a form of logical fallacy (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#shifting).

Euromutt

26th October 2005, 02:30 PM

1.) I'm confused at Rothschild's direction here. Why should ID proponents attempt to conduct experiments to prove a negative?Because that's how science works; based on empirical observation, you come up with a falsifiable hypothesis and subject it to testing. One way to test your hypothesis is to see whether what you predict should not happen does, in fact, not happen. That's not trying to prove a negative, it's trying to prove the absence of a negative. This is important, because a huge chunk of science is eliminating that which is demonstrably false.

Behe cum suis claim that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and cannot be developed by a process of evolution. The obvious way to make sure that this hypothesis is not incorrect is to go into the lab and try to get a strain of bacteria to grow a flagellum. If the strain fails to do so, that doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis is correct, but at least it shows that it's not incorrect. What Rothschild managed to do is illustrate the Behe et al. and aren't actually interested in trying to find out whether their hypothesis stands up to falsification; in other words, they are not practicing science. QED.

SezMe

26th October 2005, 02:31 PM

Seems to me the test is inherently inconclusive. Suppose a flagellum did appear. What is to stop an IDer from saying, "See god did it AGAIN!"

Bronze Dog

26th October 2005, 03:20 PM

Seems to me the test is inherently inconclusive. Suppose a flagellum did appear. What is to stop an IDer from saying, "See god did it AGAIN!"
Non-falsifiablity must be nice for these people.

Mojo

26th October 2005, 04:37 PM

There are all these evolutionists out there, amassing this huge collection of evidence, including at least fifty peer-reviewed articles that he was waving in court (to which Behe's response, and I quote, was "not good enough.") I hesitate to mention this, but this sounds awfully like Hammy's approach to any evidence supporting evolution that's put in front of him.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th October 2005, 05:51 PM

Seems to me the test is inherently inconclusive. Suppose a flagellum did appear. What is to stop an IDer from saying, "See god did it AGAIN!"
Especially if the IDer thought that God had front-loaded evolution.

~~ Paul

RandFan

26th October 2005, 05:58 PM

Because that's how science works; based on empirical observation, you come up with a falsifiable hypothesis and subject it to testing. One way to test your hypothesis is to see whether what you predict should not happen does, in fact, not happen. That's not trying to prove a negative, it's trying to prove the absence of a negative. This is important, because a huge chunk of science is eliminating that which is demonstrably false. I don't see how you can prove the absence of a negative. Could you give me some examples of scientists proving that something wont happen? I'm kind of confused, if science doesn't hold something to be true then how much resources should be expended to prove that that something isn't true? How many experiments should the ID folks conduct? At what point do you conclude that they are interested in science?

Behe cum suis claim that a bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and cannot be developed by a process of evolution. The obvious way to make sure that this hypothesis is not incorrect is to go into the lab and try to get a strain of bacteria to grow a flagellum. If the strain fails to do so, that doesn't necessarily prove your hypothesis is correct, but at least it shows that it's not incorrect. What Rothschild managed to do is illustrate the Behe et al. and aren't actually interested in trying to find out whether their hypothesis stands up to falsification; in other words, they are not practicing science. QED. I agree that they are not practicing science but I'm not sure this really proves anything. If it is so simple and scientists hold the opposite then does it not stand to reason that scientists would also perform the experiment and prove that the ID crowd wrong? What does it say about science that they won't conduct these experiments and falsify the ID argument?

RandFan

26th October 2005, 06:04 PM

But this is part of the problem. He's saying "look, here's my theory, a theory that is almost entirely unsupported by experimental data, and here's a proposed experiment to test my theory, and I think it's a waste of time to run my experiment." But that is not his position as I understand it. The position is that if evolution were true science has a simple way to demonstrate it but they haven't. (I don't buy the expriment for the reasons you state)

I'm sorry, Dr. Behe, but it's your (rule 8) theory, a theory that flies in the face of accepted science, and it's not worth your time to support your theory? But it won't support his theory, that is the problem. No matter how many times he runs it you will say it is not enough. So the experiment is flawed from the start if we accept your premise. Rothschilds argument IMO is wrong.

Of course, as Rothschild pointed out elsewhere in his cross-examination, the difference between 10,000 generations of 10^12 bacteria and the postulated trillions of generations of 10^40 or so bacteria that nature is presumed to have at her disposal suggests that the power of Behe's proposed test is, in fact, close to zero -- the expected failure-to-find wouldn't mean much. So in that case, it would be a waste of time to run this particular experiment because it's not as well-designed as Behe would believe. Agreed and this is the point that I think is appropriate.

We (scientists generally) don't know. It's never been important enough to determine experimentall, and large enough that a Behe-style experiment would be very difficult and expensive to run properly..Yes, so what is the point of demanding that the ID crowd conduct the experiment an experiment that will not prove anything to anyone?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th October 2005, 06:05 PM

What does it say about science that they won't conduct these experiments and falsify the ID argument?
An experiment to evolve a flagellum? Under what environmental conditions? With which competing organisms in the soup? With what kind of food?

Evolution is primarily an historical science, at least now. If IDers want to use that as "evidence" against it, fine. Heck, ID is an historical pseudoscience, too.

~~ Paul

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th October 2005, 06:09 PM

I just want to remind everyone that Behe, Dembski et al haven't even provided a logical/probabilistic proof that the flagellum is irreducible. There is nothing that has been shown to be irreducible. Why should science run around trying to demonstrate that irreducible complexity can be overcome? They might as well worry about showing that New Jersey mud slime can be overcome.

Anyway, Schneider has demonstrated the evolution of an irreducibly complex structure. It's been done.

~~ Paul

hammegk

26th October 2005, 06:52 PM

.

Anyway, Schneider has demonstrated the evolution of an irreducibly complex structure. It's been done.

~~ Paul

Sure he did. BTW, would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale? It's near Brooklyn.

RandFan

26th October 2005, 07:18 PM

An experiment to evolve a flagellum? Under what environmental conditions? With which competing organisms in the soup? With what kind of food? Which is my point. It isn't going to work. You know that. I know that and Behe believes that but for very different reasons, ok, so what is the point? It won't work so they carry out these experiments that verify results that you, I and Behe all agree will happen, then what?

Sure it will prove that they are trying to falsify their theory but it won't satisfy them, you or I for anything.

I think the argument is a dead end. That's just my opinion.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

26th October 2005, 07:21 PM

Sure he did. BTW, would you like to buy a bridge I have for sale? It's near Brooklyn. What are the aspects of the Ev simulation model that you think prevent it from demonstrating the evolution of information and an irreducibly complex structure?

~~ Paul

fishbob

26th October 2005, 07:48 PM

Which is my point. It isn't going to work. You know that. I know that and Behe believes that but for very different reasons, ok, so what is the point? It won't work so they carry out these experiments that verify results that you, I and Behe all agree will happen, then what?

Sure it will prove that they are trying to falsify their theory but it won't satisfy them, you or I for anything.

I think the argument is a dead end. That's just my opinion.

My take is that Behe's proposed experiment is a smoke screen. He can hold it up for the general public and proclaim that the non-ID science establishment failed to even attempt to falsify IC, that there is a conspiracy to keep ID down, that he is the victim of the status quo.

Sells a lot of books (I think I saw in the trial transcripts that he has sold more than 400,000 copies of his book already). ID been very very good for Behe.

hammegk

26th October 2005, 08:08 PM

What are the aspects of the Ev simulation model that you think prevent it from demonstrating the evolution of information and an irreducibly complex structure?

~~ Paul
The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.

Pastor Bentonit

26th October 2005, 11:13 PM

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.
Interesting. Do you also claim that life at some (or many) level(s) is designed, and tuned, to evolve irreducibly complex features?

Dr Adequate

26th October 2005, 11:35 PM

Look, it works like this. Behe maintains that his "theory" is testable and falsifiable. He says that what would test it would be if you managed to evolve a flagellum in two years by providing immobile bacteria with a selective pressure for motion.

So the question is, if he believes that this would test his "theory", why doesn't he do so?

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory".

He ducks out of this by asking why other people don't test his "theory" by doing this experiment.

The answer is that of course it would not test his "theory", and that no-one else is going around pretending that it would.

To summarize his argument:

"My theory that pigs have wings would be falsified if someone could spend two years standing on one leg and whistling the Star-Spangled Banner. So if I'm wrong, why don't my opponents prove me wrong by devoting two years to unipedal whistling?"

delphi_ote

27th October 2005, 12:06 AM

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.

I don't recommend basing your arguments on computing theory or evolutionary computation, Hammy. It's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about.

a) Self coding Turing machines are a reality. Any type of finite state machine has configurations that produce a representation of the state machine itself (or other state machines, for that matter.)

b) Self coding Turing machines have nothing to do with this subject. The algorithm evolves solutions based on the problem (enviornment, landscape, etc.) it faces, just like life. If it was necessary to start with a solution before designing an evolutionary computation algorithm, obviously nobody would use them.

c) Evolutionary computation algorithms exist that design Turing machines. There is a whole field called "Genetic Programming" dedicated to the subject.

Dr Adequate

27th October 2005, 12:32 AM

Fuller told the court that one of the problems of science is with the very definition of "scientific theory," which is the idea of well substantiated explanations that unify a broad range of observations... "Does a theory have to be well established to be scientific?" he said. "That means the dominant theory would always be."YES.
:dl:
I can't wait to see the transcripts of this one.

Mojo

27th October 2005, 01:47 AM

Look, it works like this. Behe maintains that his "theory" is testable and falsifiable. He says that what would test it would be if you managed to evolve a flagellum in two years by providing immobile bacteria with a selective pressure for motion.

So the question is, if he believes that this would test his "theory", why doesn't he do so? And here we come to one of the recommendations that are repeatedly made to potential challenge applicants: before you apply (or in this case before you announce your "theory") make sure that you have done proper tests yourself; this may prevent you looking rather silly in the long run.

As another example, no decent lawyer would dream of going into court relying on a particular case without making sure that the case hadn't been overruled.

CFLarsen

27th October 2005, 01:53 AM

Dr Adequate

27th October 2005, 03:11 AM

Yep. Typical believer argument. They fear the results of a test that would prove them wrong... No, the problem is that the test would prove nothing.

Imagine he spent two years wasting his time with bacteria like he suggests. He then publishes a paper of which the precis, if he is honest, will read:Two years is not enough time for bacteria to develop, from nothing, a structure for locomotion specified in advance by me, and anyone who chose could have told me that two years ago. Let's be honest, I knew that myself. My finding therefore confirms standard evolutionary theory (which predicts the negative result actually achieved, since bacteria without flagellae have no similar structures to evole into flagellae) and has no bearing on my "Intelligent Design" nonsense, since Intelligent Design makes no predictions whatsoever about what can or cannot evolve, and indeed has no empirical content whatsoever. Why did I waste my time like this?And this finding will fail to rock the academic world.

CFLarsen

27th October 2005, 04:07 AM

The goal of The Discovery Institute is to replace science with religion:

Forrest also said that intelligent-design proponents have freely acknowledged that their cause is a religious one. She cited a document from the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank that represents intelligent-design scholars, that says one of its goals is “to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.”
Source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9601689/)

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

...

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

...

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.
The full document here. (http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/wedge.html)

CFLarsen

27th October 2005, 04:09 AM

I don't know if this has been posted:

Forrest compared early drafts of Of Pandas and People to a later 1987 copy, and showed how in several instances the word “creationism” had been replaced by “intelligent design”, and “creationist” simply replaced by “intelligent design proponent”.

“Forrest’s testimony showed that ID is not a scientific theory, but a Trojan horse for creationism,” said Eric Rothshild of Pepper Hamilton in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

...

Matzke, who was at the trial, points out that the “switching” of the words is also suspicious because of its timing, which came just after the US Supreme Court’s decision on 19 June 1987 that it was unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools.

The names of the drafts alone are incriminating, he says. The first draft, in 1983, was called Creation Biology, the next is Biology and Creation, dated 1986, and is followed by Biology and Origin in 1987. It is not until later in 1987 that Of Pandas and People emerges.
Source (http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8061)

Drafts of the textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” written in 1987 were revised after the Supreme Court ruled in June of that year that states could not require schools to balance evolution with creationism in the classroom, said Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University.

Forrest reviewed drafts of the textbook as a witness for eight families who are trying to have the intelligent design concept removed from the Dover Area School District’s biology curriculum.

...

Forrest outlined a chart of how many times the term “creation” was mentioned in the early drafts versus how many times the term “design” was mentioned in the published edition.

“They are virtually synonymous,” she said.
Source (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/9601689/)

27th October 2005, 04:56 AM

But that is not his position as I understand it. The position is that if evolution were true science has a simple way to demonstrate it but they haven't. (I don't buy the expriment for the reasons you state)

?

Real science wouldn't for the same reasons that they don't jump thru hoops to disprove every crackpot paranormal theory that crops up: there is no evidence that such an inquery has merit.

The onus here is on the ID'ers.

hammegk

27th October 2005, 06:09 AM

Interesting. Do you also claim that life at some (or many) level(s) is designed, and tuned, to evolve irreducibly complex features?
Good question.

At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.

You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists.

a) Self coding Turing machines are a reality. Any type of finite state machine has configurations that produce a representation of the state machine itself (or other state machines, for that matter.)
If you are convinced you are a self-coding Turing machine, what else?

b) Self coding Turing machines have nothing to do with this subject. The algorithm evolves solutions based on the problem (enviornment, landscape, etc.) it faces, just like life. If it was necessary to start with a solution before designing an evolutionary computation algorithm, obviously nobody would use them.
Damn shame the ugly word "design" is required for your belief to make any sense.

c) Evolutionary computation algorithms exist that design Turing machines. There is a whole field called "Genetic Programming" dedicated to the subject.
Er, yes, all undesigned, huh? ;)

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

27th October 2005, 06:56 AM

The fact that it was designed, and tuned, to do just that. If not, I want one of those self-coding Turing machines.
Ev was indeed designed to see if information could evolve. But your glib response is too simplistic. The question is whether the model is reasonably realistic, or whether it contains an inadvertant backdoor to smuggle in the information. Having programmed the Java version, I do not believe there is a backdoor.

Each creature begins with a completely random chromosome. A portion is treated as a weight matrix (the gene), and the rest has binding sites scattered across it. The program computes the number of bits of information needed to encode the location of the binding sites (Rfrequency). The creatures are then subjected to cycles of mutation, evaluation, and selection. The selection pressure is that the gene should match only the binding sites. On each cycle, the information content is computed (Rsequence). The hypothesis was that Rsequence would start at 0, approach Rfrequency, and then hover around it. That is what happens, across a wide range of model parameters. When you turn off the selection pressure, Rsequence drops back to 0.

The premises of the program are simple enough that I think they are pertinent to real evolution. For example, I think Ev models the lac operon fairly well. Here is a paper on the information analysis of a real biological mechanism:

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/fisinfo/fisinfo.html

~~ Paul

delphi_ote

27th October 2005, 07:19 AM

Er, yes, all undesigned, huh? ;)

Yes.

drkitten

27th October 2005, 07:44 AM

I don't see how you can prove the absence of a negative. Could you give me some examples of scientists proving that something wont happen?

Well, we've done a pretty good job over the past few centuries proving that nothing will fall UP. We've got a fairly good practical proof that no bats have feathers. Of course, I'm using "proof" loosely here, because what we have isn't a formal mathematical proof, merely demonstration piled upon demonstration until no one with the sense of a St. Christopher medallion would expect the contrary, and in fact, would suspect trickery and fraud if presented with contrary "evidence."

Scientists don't operate in the realm of mathematical proof -- they operate in the realm of evidence.

Regarding Behe's proposed experiment -- in a land of infinite time and funding, someone would probalby perform Behe's experiment just to shut him the hell up. In the real world -- well, I'm a practicing scientist myself. I have, at a guess, about 100,000 hours of research time over the course of my life, time in which I must establish my place in the history books, achieve financial security for myself and my loved ones in our retirement,... oh yes, and advance the course of human knowledge and leave the world a better place than I found it (and all the while still teaching my 10am intro sections). How many hours of my life would you like me to spend running Behe's experiment, when we've already established that it won't, in fact, tell us anything we don't already know? How much are you willing to compensate me for my lost time?

Pastor Bentonit

27th October 2005, 09:09 AM

Good question.
At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.
All of it (meaning life)? And all the time? Also, how do you define the anthropic principle and more importantly, why use it here?

You see design & tuning and conclude time and chance are the reason, since no other factors are available to materialists.
Straw man. Natural selection is anything but random! You might want to clarify.

Dragon

27th October 2005, 10:08 AM

Good question.

At least in the Anthropic Principal sense, what I see around me appears to strive for added complexity.

... snip ...
Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?

Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist.
Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"?

c4ts

27th October 2005, 03:40 PM

Who is the Anthropic Principal? Some senior figure at your High School?

Oh, and appearances can, of course, be deceptive.
The current Theory of Evolution does not require any "striving for comlpexity" or any striving at all, just variability, the occasional mutation and differential survival. All of which we know to exist.
Didn't some 14th century friar say, "Plurality should not be assumed without necessity"?

I think he was a monk. Anyway, by the end it didn't matter because he was excommunicated for calling the Pope a heretic...

petre

27th October 2005, 05:00 PM

For some odd reason, I woke up last night and suddenly had this thought:

ID claims that there is some intelligent entity (or entities, assuming singular for this paragraph) that was responsible. ID refuses to make any specific claims about this entity beyond that it was intelligent (they're trying to keep it simple to avoid looking like theism I imagine).

My question is, why does it even have to be an intelligent entity? Maybe there is a whole dimension of invisible astral enzimes that tend to mutate DNA strands to produce new, advantageous structures. Perhaps this dimension occasionally collides with our own plane of existance, and results in such events.

So I hereby proclaim that if evolution is not correct, then I believe it is some unintelligent entity or entities that actually caused the creation of certain forms of life. I refuse to make any further claims about this unintelligent entity beyond simply that I believe it is unintelligent. This new UD (Unintelligent Design) theory is every bit as valid as ID.