 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5717
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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bouncer
Kitten
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 132
|
| 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. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Goldfish
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 63
Location: USA
|
| 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
Kitten
Joined: 23 May 2007
Posts: 132
|
| 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? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
