The things that come out in court.

Bouncer · House Cat Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 151

Excerpts from the cross examination of Michael Behe in the Dover Pa case.
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. In the text below questions (Q) are being asked by Attorney Rothschild and answers (A) are being given by Michael Behe a big wig in the Intelligent Design movement. Behe is the guy who gave us the formerly irreducible flagellum.

Q Okay. And you don't really know if a germ theory or atomic theory, where there are gaps or unexplained phenomena?

A I don t, but I do know evolutionary theory, and I know there are gaps and unexplained problems in that.

Q Probably true of all scientific theories, right, Professor Behe?

A It might be true of -- yes, it's certainly true of many scientific theories.

Q Now, you claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory.

A Yes.

Q But when you call it a scientific theory, you're not defining that term the same way that the National Academy of Sciences does.

A Yes, that's correct.

Now if we understand Mr Behe correctly there is a usual and customary way to define a theory. That method has been defined by teh National Academy of Sciences. In case you still don't get it, what Behe is saying is that ID is not a theory the way The ToE is a theory. But, he still insists ID is a scientific 'theory.'

More:

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

Whoa! What's your sign Michael? Are we soon to see our schools bombarded with requests to teach the 'weaknesses' of Astronomy now? According to Michael Behe of the Discovery Institute Astrology is as much a scientific theory as Intelligent Design.

There is more:

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

A That's correct.

No can't be God that would make ID religous. Oh I forgot it has religous underpinnings and backing, the overwhelming majority of people who work in ID are fundamentalist Christians, but it is not religous. Sure.

Q It does not describe how the design occurred.

A I'm sorry?

Q Intelligent design does not describe how the design occurred.

A That's correct, just like the Big Bang theory does not describe what caused the Big Bang.

Q Does not identify when the design occurred.

A That is correct.

Q In fact, intelligent design takes no position on the age of the earth or when biological life began.

A That's correct.

Q But think it was -- the earth as billions of years old or 10,000 years old.

A That's correct.

Q It says nothing about what the designer s abilities are.

A Other than saying that the designer had the ability to make the design that is under consideration, that's correct.

ID says in other words we can't identify the designer, we know of no properties of the designer but we do know there is one. Look how complex life is. I plan to address this concept of design in another post. Let's enjoy some more testimony shall we?

Q . . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture.
...
You don't absolutely rule it out, but you're not taking it very seriously, are you?

A Well, I've said that quite a number of times. I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. But if you turn back to page 699, there's a section entitled, "Is it possible that the designer is a natural entity?" And I won't quote from it, but I come to the conclusion there that sure it's possible that it is, but I do not -- I myself do not find it plausible.

Whoops looks like Michael slipped here. ID is not religous so why is he involving God?

Q What it said here was, "The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at it's source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialist science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a wedge that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at it's weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the thin edge of the wedge was Phillip Johnson s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991, in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

You were aware of this passage in the document when you read it?

A I assume I did read it, yes, roughly at that point.

I will admit this is a little scary. Especially considering that Michael Behe one of the founding members of the ID movement considers ID not to be a theory under the usual and customary definition. We know that the Dover case came about as a result of ID's test case for eventually getting Evolution out of the gradeschools and of replacing it with the religous non theory ID.

The transcript goes on for many pages. It makes for an interesting read. My apologies for the length.

What do you think? Is ID truly scientific? Or are they Creationism evolved?

FFT

Sarahnn · Big Hamster Joined: 31 May 2007 Posts: 92

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct.

Now he has to explain the astrology part away. And the hole gets deeper and deeper.

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

FFT

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

Bouncer · House Cat Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 151

FFT · Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject:

Trinity1 believes that the current model for the Big Bang invokes the supernatural, if I recall correctly. I forget if he thinks the modern model for abiogenesis invokes the supernatural.

Bouncer · House Cat Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 151

Creationists. He also said (paraphrasing) everything that is hidden shall be uncovered.

The Prophet Isaiah speaking for God said "I will shew you great things and you will not believe them."

We know that modern science is uncovering things at an astonishing rate. We know that some marvelous discoveries have been made in the fields of Evolution, geology, astronomy and others that Creationists hate.
And they don't believe them. Sounds like they are right in a way. Some Biblical prophecies do come true.
Rolling Eyes

admin · Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject:

Ooooohhhh.....Trinity's gonna get back and mess you up.

*hiding*

Bouncer · House Cat Joined: 23 May 2007 Posts: 151

Schuckdaddy · Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:29 pm Post subject:

The question seems to still be that if the domain of science is to explain natural causes, it will at some point be a deficient explanation, if the phenomena it explains has a supernatural cause.

This of course presupposes that reality is divided into natural and supernatural causes.

If there are no supernatural causes then we have no deficiency in science.

but if there are supernatural causes for phenomena, then at some point science is going to be wrong about them, because science does not contain the right kind of explanatory power to make

Is science accurate? Absolutely. As long as it is explaining phenomena that has a natural cause.

The question then seems to be one of epistemology: given that there are supernatural causes, how do we know which phenomena is caused naturally and which supernaturally?

Good old Hume makes me doubt that we can know or have any certainty about the cause of any phenomena and so if the supernatural exists there is a serious problem for the scientist interpretation of phenomena, more than likely they have it right.

Better to just presuppose that there are no supernatural causes, right?

admin · Posted: Mon Aug 06, 2007 4:32 pm Post subject:

This might be a good time to mention the JREF One Million Dollar Paranormal Prize - for proof of anything paranormal.

http://www.randi.org

Say what you will. There it is.

For quick sobriety, read the list of reasons people say that no one has won the prize. Yes, no one has won the prize. Read the list.

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111

Trinity1 · Emperor of the World Joined: 02 Apr 2006 Posts: 3111