 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 1:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| rufus wrote: | | These quotes from Bouncer give the impression, at least to me, that Michael Behe was on trial. He wasn't. Behe's testimony in the Dover case was entirely voluntary. |
You don't have to be on trial to be on the witness stand. You know, that place where people are sworn in.
Do you actually have any idea what you're talking about?
Just because someone is a volunteer doesn't mean they're somehow immune from perjury charges if they lie under oath.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7644
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, it's pretty awful that the media misquoted Behe. What a terrible thing to have facts and statements twisted like that! They should be ashamed!
If there is an afterlife, then Gould probably got a kick out of this.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: Don't like the way I put it? |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | Bouncer wrote: |
Michael Behe fearing perjury charges if he wasn't honest in his testimony reveals a number of interesting facts during his testimony in Kitzmiller v Dover. |
| Bouncer wrote: |
It seems the only way to get the truth out of the ID movement is to put them on the stand and make them swear to tell the truth. |
These quotes from Bouncer give the impression, at least to me, that Michael Behe was on trial. He wasn't. Behe's testimony in the Dover case was entirely voluntary.
In October 2005 the Discovery Institute, of which Behe is affilliated, filed an "amicus curiae" on behalf of the Dover school board, defendants in the case. An amicus curiae (friend of the court) refers to someone, not a party in the case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case.
Let me repeat that: Behe did not have to offer testimony in the Dover case. Behe was not a party in the case (i.e. he was not a member of the Dover school board). His testimony was entirely voluntary. |
And your points are ENTIRELY not relevant.
Voluntarily or not and I don't think I gave the impression he was compelled by the court to testify. Whether He was sent by DI or not we may never know. His reasons for being on the stand have no bearing on his testimony.
Since he was under oath he could not make the usual ID claims. He knew that he could be convicted of perjury so he was justified in fearing it. The fact that his testimony contradicts many ID claims is very revealing.
| Bouncer wrote: |
...ID is not science. It is according to one of it's founders Michael Behe, a pseudoscience, like Astrology. |
Okay, here's Behe's side of the story on the astrology comment:
| Quote: |
Media Misquotes on Astrology:
"Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science. Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science."
....Put the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] on the witness stand, and they would admit that 500 years ago, some people would have said that geocentrism qualified under their definition of "theory." In fact, 500 years ago, many of these same people would have put "astrology" under the NAS definition of science.
From:
Evolution News & Views: Michael Behe Speaks in Kansas on Intelligent Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/michael_behe_speaks_in_kansas.html |
He forgets what was pointed out to him in court that we are not in the 16th Century any more?
| Quote: | Bouncers claim that Behe was "fearing perjury charges" is without foundation. The worst case scenario would be that Behe, on the second day of questioning in a trial he volunteered to participate in, perhaps just got nervous and gave a poor answer.
Again, Behe was not a party in the case. His organization filed an amicus curiae on behalf of the Dover school board. |
I have no idea if he was nervous or not. I read the source document, the court transcript which does not contain any information about the behavior of the witnesses. His testimony contradicted ID's public statements. It is not unreasonable to assume he was telling the truth because he feared being charged with perjury otherwise. Any reasonable person in his position would have felt the same way.
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | Bouncers claim that Behe was "fearing perjury charges" is without foundation. The worst case scenario would be that Behe, on the second day of questioning in a trial he volunteered to participate in, perhaps just got nervous and gave a poor answer. |
| Bouncer wrote: |
I have no idea if he was nervous or not. I read the source document, the court transcript which does not contain any information about the behavior of the witnesses. |
Good point. Since we don't know the behaviour or emotions (fear is an emotion) of all who testified in this case, and that includes the plaintiffs, and those that filed an amicus curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs, we have no way of knowing what Behe, or anyone else who testified, may have or have not feared.
I see no reason why Behe would be fearing perjury charges. This was not a case involving "criminal law". No one in the Dover case, including the Dover School Board who lost the case, was charged with a crime. This was a case involving "constitutional law". Was the decision to include ID in the school curriculim constitutional? That's what was being decided.
Attorney Rothschild's question to Behe, listed in the OP, was "what is the 'definition' of the term 'scientific theory'"? Behe would have no reason to fear a perjury charge simply for disagreeing with how the National Academy of Science defines a word or phrase. Behe would have no reason to fear a perjury charge even if he defined the phrase "Intelligent Design" that contradicted how he defined it in one of his publications. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:00 am Post subject: Ever been to court? |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | rufus wrote: | | Bouncers claim that Behe was "fearing perjury charges" is without foundation. The worst case scenario would be that Behe, on the second day of questioning in a trial he volunteered to participate in, perhaps just got nervous and gave a poor answer. |
| Bouncer wrote: |
I have no idea if he was nervous or not. I read the source document, the court transcript which does not contain any information about the behavior of the witnesses. |
Good point. Since we don't know the behaviour or emotions (fear is an emotion) of all who testified in this case, and that includes the plaintiffs, and those that filed an amicus curiae on behalf of the plaintiffs, we have no way of knowing what Behe, or anyone else who testified, may have or have not feared. I see no reason why Behe would be fearing perjury charges. This was not a case involving "criminal law". No one in the Dover case, including the Dover School Board who lost the case, was charged with a crime. This was a case involving "constitutional law". Was the decision to include ID in the school curriculim constitutional? That's what was being decided. |
Perjury is not limitied to testimony in Criminal Court. In fact one can be convicted of perjury and never set foot in court to commit it. A witness can be charged with perjury in a civil case just as easily, maybe more easily than in a criminal case.
| Quote: | | Attorney Rothschild's question to Behe, listed in the OP, was "what is the 'definition' of the term 'scientific theory'"? Behe would have no reason to fear a perjury charge simply for disagreeing with how the National Academy of Science defines a word or phrase. |
That was the meat of the case.
Had Behe argued that ID was a 'Scientific Theory as defined by the governing body, the NAS, he would have been charged with perjury, because it is not. Calling ID a Scientific Theory on a level with the ToE, Theory of Relativity etc... is a flat out falsehood. Behe confirmed that because he knew that if he didn't he could be charged with perjury.
| Quote: | | Behe would have no reason to fear a perjury charge even if he defined the phrase "Intelligent Design" that contradicted how he defined it in one of his publications. |
So in your judicial system it's ok for a witness to lie because it is a civil as opposed to a criminal case? I guess you think Clinton's perjury charges were just about sex and should not have been brought too?
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:03 am Post subject: Re: Ever been to court? |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: |
So in your judicial system it's ok for a witness to lie because it is a civil as opposed to a criminal case? |
I never said it was okay to lie under oath (commit perjury). I simply illustrated that accusing Behe of perjury is "groundless".
Also, if there is actual evidence that Behe, or anyone else on the ID side in the Dover case committed perjury then by all means put them on trial for perjury.
All in all, to claim that Behe committed perjury in the Dover case is nothing more than blowing smoke. If there was actual evidence that Behe committed perjury (a serious crime) I'm sure that some of his adversaries would have brought him to trial by now.
So, Bouncer, if you and your anti-ID associates can prove a perjury charge against the man then take him to court. Otherwise read Deuteronomy 5:20 and don't accuse people of "crimes" without foundation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
There'd be reason to bother if his lying under oath had resulted in miscarriage of justice. It didn't, so there's no point.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 8:57 am Post subject: Re: Ever been to court? |
|
|
| rufus wrote: | | Bouncer wrote: |
So in your judicial system it's ok for a witness to lie because it is a civil as opposed to a criminal case? |
I never said it was okay to lie under oath (commit perjury). I simply illustrated that accusing Behe of perjury is "groundless".
Also, if there is actual evidence that Behe, or anyone else on the ID side in the Dover case committed perjury then by all means put them on trial for perjury.
All in all, to claim that Behe committed perjury in the Dover case is nothing more than blowing smoke. If there was actual evidence that Behe committed perjury (a serious crime) I'm sure that some of his adversaries would have brought him to trial by now.
So, Bouncer, if you and your anti-ID associates can prove a perjury charge against the man then take him to court. Otherwise read Deuteronomy 5:20 and don't accuse people of "crimes" without foundation. |
I made no such accusation. I said Behe told the truth, that ID is not a scientific theory as defined by the NAS, BECAUSE he feared the consequences(perjury) of lieing.
Are most fundies so ignorant they don't see how you rephrase what someone says?
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here's absolute proof that at least one person for cdesign proponentists' defense was lying:
http://www2.ncseweb.org/wp/?p=80
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:43 pm Post subject: Re: Ever been to court? |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: |
Michael Behe fearing perjury charges if he wasn't honest in his testimony... |
| rufus wrote: |
So, Bouncer, if you and your anti-ID associates can prove a perjury charge against the man then take him to court. Otherwise... don't accuse people of "crimes" without foundation. |
| Bouncer wrote: |
I made no such accusation. |
Yea, right! It's sort of like if someone said:
| Quote: |
"Bouncer, fearing criminal charges if he wasn't honest in his financial dealings... |
Notice that the statement does not outright accuse Bouncer of a crime such as bank fraud, only that Bouncer feared the consequences of committing the crime.
So what would we make out of such an accusation, or should I say "implication"?
| Bouncer wrote: |
Are most fundies so ignorant they don't see how you rephrase what someone says? |
Your refering to yourself, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6096
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2008 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bouncer was saying that Behe was honest because otherwise he could have faced perjury.
You were saying that if a perjury could be proven against Behe then it should be taken to court.
But Bouncer was saying that Behe was honest because otherwise he could have faced perjury.
Bouncer was not making the accusation that Behe committed perjury. Do you get this yet?
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Alley Cat
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 177
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 3:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
Yea, right! It's sort of like if someone said:
| Quote: |
"Bouncer, fearing criminal charges if he wasn't honest in his financial dealings... |
Notice that the statement does not outright accuse Bouncer of a crime such as bank fraud, only that Bouncer feared the consequences of committing the crime.
So what would we make out of such an accusation, or should I say "implication"? |
You mean you don't fear the consequences of committing a crime? Why not? Do you commit crimes often enough to be inured to the consequences?
Here is an implication: "When did you stop beating your wife?"
_________________
...do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, ... 1 John 4:1
Shouldn't that include the Bible? -- Bouncer
"In short, Intelligent Design is not alien to Islam. It is very much our cause, and we should do everything we can to support it. " --Mustafa Akyol Islamonline |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
