Transcript of Intelligent Design case

[bascule]

For those of you who haven't seen this, it's a fun and interesting read:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

 

Especially the cross-examination of Michael Behe:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html#day11pm132

 

Q And other than Pandas, you have not prepared a textbook for high school students other than Pandas?

 

A That's correct.

 

Q Before we leave Pandas, you said this was not a statement you would have signed off on, correct?

 

A Yes.

 

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.

 

Q That's not typically how the term "critical review" is used; would you agree with that?

 

A Yeah, that's correct.

 

Q So when the publishers of Pandas indicate that you were a critical reviewer of Pandas, that's somewhat misleading, isn't it?

 

MR. MUISE: Objection. Assumes that he understands what their purpose for listing him as a critical reviewer.

 

THE COURT: He just answered the question that that's not a critical review, so the objection is overruled. You can ask that question.

 

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

 

Q Advertising you as a critical reviewer of this book is misleading to the students, isn't it?

 

MR. MUISE: Objection, that's argumentative.

 

THE COURT: It's cross examination. It's appropriate cross. Overruled.

 

THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

 

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.

 

Q You don't always see eye to eye with the National Academy?

 

A Sometimes not.

 

Q And the definition by the National Academy, as I think you testified is, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences and tested hypotheses, correct?

 

A Yes.

 

Q Using that definition, you agree intelligent design is not a scientific theory, correct?

 

A Well, as I think I made clear in my deposition, I'm a little bit of two minds of that. I, in fact, do think that intelligent design is well substantiated for some of the reasons that I made clear during my testimony. But again, when you say well substantiated, sometimes a person would think that there must be a large number of people then who would agree with that. And so, frankly, I, like I said, I am of two minds of that.

 

Q And actually you said at your deposition, I don't think intelligent design falls under this definition. Correct?

 

A Yeah, and that's after I said -- if I may see where in my deposition that is? I'm sorry.

 

Q It's on pages 134 and 135.

 

A And where are you -- where are you reading from?

 

Q I'll be happy to read the question and answer to you. I asked you whether intelligent design -- I asked actually on the top of 133, I asked you whether intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory using the National Academy of Sciences definition.

 

A What line is that, I'm sorry?

 

Q That's 133, line 18.

 

A Is that going -- question beginning, "Going back to the National Academy of Science?"

 

Q Yes. And you first said, "I m going to say that I would argue that in fact it is." And that's 134, line ten.

 

A Yes.

 

Q Okay. And I said, "Intelligent design does meet that?" And you said, "It's well substantiated, yes." And I said, "Let's be clear here, I'm asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can't satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."

 

A Yes.

 

Q So for those reasons you said it's not -- doesn't meet the National Academy of Sciences definition.

 

A I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I'm of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, "I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I'll say this." But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this.

 

So I disagree that that's what I said -- or that's what I intended to say.

 

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

 

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

 

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

 

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

 

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

 

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

 

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

 

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

 

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

 

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

 

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

 

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

 

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. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

 

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

 

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

 

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

 

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

 

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

 

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

 

A Yes.

 

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

 

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

 

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

 

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

 

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

 

Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

 

A I'm sorry?

 

Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

 

A It seems like that.

 

Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

 

A Yes.

 

Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

 

A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

 

Q Page 132, line 23.

 

A Yes.

 

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

 

A That's correct.

 

Q Not, it used to be, right?

 

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

 

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.

 

A I'm sorry?

 

Q I couldn't be a mind reader either, correct?

 

A Yes, yes, but I'm sure it would be useful.

 

Q It would make this exchange go much more quickly.

 

THE COURT: You d have to include me, though.

 

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

 

Q Now, you gave examples of some theories that were discarded?

 

A Yes.

 

Q One was the ether theory?

 

A Yes.

 

Q And the other was the theory of geocentrism, right?

 

A That's correct.

 

Q And what you said yesterday was that there was some pretty compelling evidence for observers of that time that that was good theory, right?

 

A Yes, sure.

 

Q Look up in the sky, and it looked like the sun was going around us, correct?

 

A That's right.

 

Q And we know now that those appearances were deceiving, right?

 

A That's correct.

 

Q So what we thought we knew from just looking at the sky, that's not in fact what was happening, right?

 

A That's right.

 

Q So the theory was discarded?

 

A That's correct.

 

Q And intelligent design, also based on appearance, isn't it, Professor Behe?

 

A All sciences is based on appearances. That's -- what else can one go with except on appearances? Appearances can be interpreted from a number of different frameworks, and you have to worry that the one that you're interpreting it from is going to turn out to be correct. But in fact since science is based on observation, now that's just another word for appearance. So intelligent design is science, and so intelligent design is based on observation; that is appearance.

[timo]

For those of you who haven't seen this, it's a fun and interesting read:

And for those who don´know what the "Intelligent Design case" is: Could you perhaps edit in what this is all about? I´ve read several pages of dialogues and reports now but still I haven´t figured out more than that it´s about ID and that some court is involved.

[Kermit]

Intelligent design is how the rabid conservative psychos are trying to disguise creationism as a science. Sayonara could probably give you a far, far better explanation on how absolutely foul it is, and I agree.

I personally think that if they let this crap get into our schools, they'll get other stuff too. A kid'll probably go into school one day to learn that the Earth is only several thousand years old and that prehistoric man lived with dinosaurs that were wiped out by some sort of flood. If you ask these fundies to give you proof, they'll give you "proof" alright. They'll show you some very badly smudged photos in which dinosaur footprints had a bit of sand thrown into it to make it crudely look like a human footprint, and they try to pass it off as the "fact" that both humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

Anyone seem to notice or care that American schools tend to be the lowest rated in the entire world? First we have kids who can't even locate the USA on a map, and now they want to push this stuff in.

I'm moving to Canada.

[ecoli]

Q: And intelligent design, also based on appearance, isn't it, Professor Behe?

A:All sciences is based on appearances. That's -- what else can one go with except on appearances? Appearances can be interpreted from a number of different frameworks, and you have to worry that the one that you're interpreting it from is going to turn out to be correct. But in fact since science is based on observation, now that's just another word for appearance. So intelligent design is science, and so intelligent design is based on observation; that is appearance.

 

I'm completely against introducing ID into the classroom, but this last line, especially was interesting, I think it provides the strongest argument for Prof. Behe, despite the fact that it's still flawed.

[ffsjoe]

I was shocked to find out that ID is worming its way into American science classes. Luckily I live in Australia, and we don't tolerate that kind of crap.

 

Intelligent Design vs Evolution. Lets see who wins in google fight.

 

ID vs Evolution

[Mokele]

but this last line, especially was interesting, I think it provides the strongest argument for Prof. Behe, despite the fact that it's still flawed.

 

That's actually only Behe's claim (that ID is science). Later in the trial, he actually admits that ID does not fit the definition of science, and that he uses a different one which is so broad as to actually include *Astrology*.

 

-----------------

 

As for more specifics, a while back the school board in Dover, PA, made it mandatory to read a statement about ID before teachers teach evolution. Some parents sued, and the case is in a federal court ATM. Over the past several months, numerous witnesses on both sides have been called, including Behe (who made a total fool of himself and the entire movement). The trial ended in early November, iirc, and the judge is due to make a decision sometime in January.

 

While creationism has appeared numerous times in the courts, ID has not, and this marks the first time. The court could decide any number of things, including finding that ID is simply creationism (thus falls under the laws keeping creationism out of schools).

 

I'm looking forward to the decision; given that the IDiots made total fools of themselves (and one admitted to perjury), I think it's a foregone conclusion. The interesting part will be how the judge makes his decision, since that can greatly affect how this ruling applies elsewhere.

 

Mokele

[AL]

And for those who don´know what the "Intelligent Design case" is: Could you perhaps edit in what this is all about? I´ve read several pages of dialogues and reports now but still I haven´t figured out more than that it´s about ID and that some court is involved.

 

Be grateful you don't have this problem in Germany, but here in America, the religious right have a lot of clout, and they're very serious about turning America into a theocracy one step at a time.

 

In any event, the ID movement is about teaching that complex life-forms were intelligently designed by a Creator-being, rather than having evolved from simpler forms. Since the ID proponents seem to have a bit of a problem getting their research accepted (the bulk of which is concerned with finding fault in evolution rather than substantiating ID), they have gone the political/legal route and have attempted to introduce their ideas into classrooms by packing schoolboards and such.

 

 

 

Some key players in the ID movement you might need to know:

 

Philip Johnson is a law school professor at Boalt (makes me ashamed I went to Cal, but Cal also produced Duane Gish, a prominent young-earth Creationist), and is considered to be the founder of the ID movement. He established the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, which is the foremost ID think-tank responsible for strategizing how to get this stuff into our schools. Aside from believing in ID, Johnson is also a proponent of the idea that HIV does not cause AIDs. Guess he enjoys reveling in crankdom.

 

Michael Behe is a biochemist at Lehigh who wrote a book called "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution," which is very popular among ID proponents, and one of the few ID books that does not mention religion. He argues that certain biological constructs, such as the mammalian immune system, are so stupendously complicated ("irreducibly complex"), that they could not have evolved all at once. And if they only evolved piecemeal, the organism would be dead from lack of a functional mammalian immune system. Of course, what he conviently forgot was that there are actually lots of living organisms that don't have mammalian immune systems, and they survive just fine without them: we call them non-mammals.

 

William Dembski is a mathematician/philosopher/theologian (yes, he quite impressively has degrees in all 3 fields) who takes more of a mathematical approach to ID, basically pointlessly introducing mathematical symbolism to William Paley's old arguments for divine teleology ("if you found a watch, you'd have to conclude a watchmaker"). I've read one of Dembski's books and several of his essays -- he actually premises Christianity and seems more concerned with making the argument that you cannot be a Christian and accept evolution than convincing non-Christians of ID's merits. Anyway, there are several good refutations of his work. I recommend the articles by Mark Perakh you can get on talkdesign.org.

[Kermit]

You know what my personal opinion on ID and creationism is?

 

It has to be attacked and destroyed before it gets more widespread than it is. It's a roach that has to be killed before it infests the entire house, you know. It's not something that is to be defended in ANY way because it is completely wrong, and there are dozens of books that explain my opinion far better than I can type as it's mostly an emotional thing for me.

[ecoli]

You know what my personal opinion on ID and creationism is?

 

It has to be attacked and destroyed before it gets more widespread than it is. It's a roach that has to be killed before it infests the entire house' date=' you know. It's not something that is to be defended in ANY way because it is completely wrong, and there are dozens of books that explain my opinion far better than I can type as it's mostly an emotional thing for me.[/quote']

 

You can't stop and shouldn't force people to stop believing in what they want. Yes, ID shouldn't enter the science classroom, but creationism is far from completely wrong.

[FreqWhenSee]

A mind wired to a language with 26 letters is too feeble to comprehend the complexities involved in ID at this point in time.

[bascule]

A mind wired to a language with 26 letters is too feeble to comprehend the complexities involved in ID at this point in time.

 

Quick, let's invent a few dozen more letters and maybe ID will actually make sense

[AL]

A mind wired to a language with 26 letters is too feeble to comprehend the complexities involved in ID at this point in time.

Language does have limits, but the number of letters is not it. Even an alphabet with 2 letters can produce an infinite number of words and messages (think binary).

 

Furthermore, how do you know ID is beyond our comprehension?

[FreqWhenSee]

An alphabet with two letters, though able to produce an infinite number of words, would take a great deal longer to interpret all the information. Our brains only have so much processing power. So time and ability to interpret information for understanding are factors. Asian languages have 5000+ characters and multiple meanings for each word we have. This allows them to produce a more defined understanding of any situation or circumstance, including scientific study... smaller, lighter blocks to build an understanding with.

 

ID isn't beyond our comprehension, but when we're fed only so much information on a subject, it will take much longer to find the answers... especially if the education system filters what we are told.. I mean educated with.

 

Chemists and biologists continually hit a road block in their ability to explain how we've come to be if they are not allowed to implicate the possibility of ID. Their names are constantly lynched and slandered by those in power who have some preconceived religious or personal belief.

 

The first proteins that make up life could not have come to be without stored sequencing instruction. Without DNA there is no self replication. Without self replication, there is no natural selection. So we can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing we are trying to explain.

 

A,T & C,G. So what is DNA?

[Mokele]

ID isn't beyond our comprehension, but when we're fed only so much information on a subject,

 

No, actually, it's been explained in great detail, including many books.

 

The problem is that it's just plain incorrect.

 

Chemists and biologists continually hit a road block in their ability to explain how we've come to be if they are not allowed to implicate the possibility of ID.

 

Wrong again. Do some actual research.

 

The first proteins that make up life could not have come to be without stored sequencing instruction. Without DNA there is no self replication. Without self replication, there is no natural selection. So we can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing we are trying to explain.

 

Two things:

 

1) Current theories of abiogenesis lean heavily towards RNA as the primal molecule, since it can function as an enzyme *and* as an information store simultaneously.

 

2) abiogenesis has *Nothing* to do with evolution. This has been repeatedly explained in great detail in many other posts. Because we are all sick of this strawman, it is board policy that conflating evolution and abiogenesis after being corrected will result in a "persistent strawman" warning.

 

---------------

 

The problem with ID isn't that it's "beyond our comprehension". It's that it's not science, makes no testable predictions, and basically is just creationism in a cheap lab coat.

 

Mokele

[AL]

An alphabet with two letters, though able to produce an infinite number of words, would take a great deal longer to interpret all the information. Our brains only have so much processing power. So time and ability to interpret information for understanding are factors. Asian languages have 5000+ characters and multiple meanings for each word we have. This allows them to produce a more defined understanding of any situation or circumstance, including scientific study... smaller, lighter blocks to build an understanding with.

I still see no point in invoking language limitations to defend ID. Do you have evidence that Asian languages produce a "more defined understanding?" The 5000+ characters in Asian languages aren't even analogous/comparable to the 26 letters in English, as the former is ideogrammatic and the latter is phonetic. Furthermore, multiple word meanings exist in English as well, and more can be added as needed as there is nothing intrinsic to English that restricts creation and usage of homographs. Though again, I fail to see how homographs make language more defined, since it would seem, all other things equal, that they make language more ambiguous.

 

ID isn't beyond our comprehension' date=' but when we're fed only so much information on a subject, it will take much longer to find the answers... especially if the education system filters what we are [i']told[/i].. I mean educated with.

 

Chemists and biologists continually hit a road block in their ability to explain how we've come to be if they are not allowed to implicate the possibility of ID. Their names are constantly lynched and slandered by those in power who have some preconceived religious or personal belief.

First of all, as has already been pointed out to you, abiogenesis != evolution. Secondly, naturalistic explanations for abiogenesis aren't even taught in any detail in general biology courses, so why should you expect that the ID version of it be given a thorough treatment?

 

The issue is not abiogenesis but common/uncommon descent. The IDers believe that disparate species could not have evolved from a common ancestor but must have been specially created because they possess constructs like blood clotting systems and so forth that require too much genetic information to have evolved by chance rather than divine teleology.

 

If you want to argue abiogenesis, fine. But realize a) it's not the issue, and b) all sides are speculative. It is no less a conjecture to invoke a divine being to explain how life originated than to say life began from clay templates. The latter though, has the advantage that we can argue against it because we know something about clay, whereas we know nothing of any divine teleological agent. (I think this is the primary reason IDers find naturalistic explanations to be deficient -- naturalistic explanations can actually be argued against and refuted, whereas a divine being cannot, and this fuels the IDers' confirmation bias).

[bascule]

Chemists and biologists continually hit a road block in their ability to explain how we've come to be

 

I'll assume you're talking about abiogenesis here. You should look into the work of Julius Rebek and his colleagues at the Scripps Institute in California, who demonstrated autocatalyzing reactions with variadic products, all of which continue to make copies of themselves. So right there you have the basic setup for evolution/natural selection: you have replicators which make copies of themselves but sometimes there are random variations in those copies.

 

The first proteins that make up life could not have come to be without stored sequencing instruction.

 

That's somewhat correct, however who says life was originally made out of proteins? You see, while proteins make an excellent catalyst, they certainly aren't the only catalyst that exists. RNA can act as both a keeper of heredity AND as a catalyst!

 

Without DNA there is no self replication.

 

Wrong! Any autocatalyst is inherently self-replicating, and an autocatalyst can be any kind of molecule which catalyzes the production of itself. And as I said above, Julius Rebek demonstrated an autocatalyst which sometimes produces different autocatalysts which continue to make copies of themselves in their varied form.

 

Without self replication, there is no natural selection. So we can't use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing we are trying to explain.

 

Irreducible complexity really is just an excuse for ignorance. "We can't figure this out, therefore God did it?"

 

Science has come up with some extremely plausible explanations for abiogenesis. The problem is we have no way of knowing the specific path life on earth took from an autocatalyzing reaction to where we are today, however I think:

 

Autocatalysts -> "RNA world" -> DNA/RNA transcription/protein

 

...is a very reasonable hypothesis

[padren]

I run into roadblocks in my research regarding my missing socks from the dryer unless I am allowed to introduce gremlins into my theories...and yes, I too am scoffed at by my peers when I do this.

 

When people cite the fact that scientists are still stumped by elements of biology as a basis for promoting ID they are utilizing a rather common logical fallacy...I can't think of the name, but its like claiming algebra is mathmatically flawed just because you can't figure out an answer in a 10th grader's workbook.

 

 

I can't even imagine what criteria ID could possibly pass to get into a textbook. Won't it open the door for Dianetics to be "taught" as a 'balance' to modern psychology?

 

One minute these people are slamming schools for teaching sex education that conflicts with their personal beliefs, the next they are trying to shove their beliefs down everyone's throats.

 

Maybe that horrid voucher program where people can use public funds to send their kids to private religious schools is a good thing...if they'd finally leave the public schools alone to actually teach.

 

"Leave no child other than those of crazy nutjobs behind"

[phcatlantis]

naturalistic explanations can actually be argued against and refuted, whereas a divine being cannot, and this fuels the IDers' confirmation bias).

 

Just a quibble. Materialist claims are not necessarily falsifiable. Any materialist claim constructed from observables rationally predicting something that is demonstrably unobservable defies falsifiability. This is why we're careful to distinguish between the supernaturalism period, which can never find foundation in exclusively naturalism and mathematics, and that which may not pass the falsifiability requirement but is never the less rationally discovered through construction of material com.ponents

[bascule]

When people cite the fact that scientists are still stumped by elements of biology as a basis for promoting ID they are utilizing a rather common logical fallacy...I can't think of the name

 

I think it's the Sherlock Holmes Fallacy

[[Tycho?]]

A mind wired to a language with 26 letters is too feeble to comprehend the complexities involved in ID at this point in time.

 

Haha, thats a pretty good line.

 

edit: Holy **** you're actually serious!? I thought that was a joke about ID being too "complex"! Man thats exactly the kind of thing I would say sarcasticly. Man thats..... just sad. People try and say things that are blatantly false and the response is "oh, too complex for you". Funny.

[silkworm]

I'm wondering what the bank accounts of all of these players involved on the ID side look like about now. I'm also curious about the bank accounts of the ID supporters of the school board members here in Kansas.

 

I've been monitoring this thing for awhile, especially when it started threatening the future of the children in my state. The movement doesn't stop at ID. I get this free religious magazine that gets most of its material criticizing science. Its last issue is a series of stories about how all of these big natural disasters recently are because we have ignored God and now the end is near. They misrepresent scientific terminology constantly. The evolution issue was especially appauling because they edited what exactly happened to Galileo, who was essentially killed by this same crowd. I'm not going to mention the publication by name because that would just be advertising for it. But my point here is, this stuff has big money and is pervading other areas than just science classrooms.

 

The local paper is another example, The Wichita Eagle. Do you guys ever read the opinion lines in your papers? Everytime I look there's an attack on evolution. Two recent memorable ones are on Thanksgiving Day a woman wrote in to say something to the effect that it's interesting that we have been finding all of these mammoths recently (which is true, locally we have been finding a bunch) that we haven't found any "monkeys." And she went on to say something like it's interesting they haven't been digging up any "monkeys" anywhere and used that to say that (human) evolution has no evidence. I think most of us can tell exactly how much work this lady has done thinking about this.

 

There was one on Sunday that was also interesting, and I still have it so I will quote it here:

 

Wichita Eagle, Sunday December 4, 2005

"Path to destruction"

It is written in the Holy Scriptures that in time a person will appear upon the Earth who will try to turn mankind away from God. Those with little or no faith in the Scriptures will follow after him. No person has turned more people away from God than Charles Darwin, who is being used by Satan to fulfill his prediction. Darwin and his followers are headed down the road that will lead to their destruction.

It is not too late to change paths by searching the Scriptures to find the truth, and you will be set free. I prefer to not follow the world of a mere man. I much prefer to follow the word of God for my salvation.

John A. Brown, Wichita

 

John Brown, which is a name that's easy to rally around here in Kansas, is obviously referring to the King James version of the bible.

 

A few weeks ago Steve Abrams, the chair of the state school board, defended the board's decision in an editorial that gets Unabomber style paranoid. He starts by saying the decision hasn't redefined science and that ID is not mentioned in any of the new standards. Then he says that "evolutionists" don't want students to know about scientific criticisms of evolution and then he criticizes scientists for boycotting the mock trial on evolution in Topeka earlier this year. In Abrams classic final paragraph, he criticizes superintendents who have gone on record to say that the school board's decision means little to nothing on how they will run their respective schools and that and I quote, "But I guess we shouldn't be surprised, because superintendents and local school boards in some districts continue to promulgate pornography as "literature," even though many parents have petitioned the local boards to remove the porn." He doesn't specifically say what this porn is, but he goes on to say that evil superintendents don't allow parental control over their child's education in their districts. You can see where he's coming from, but I also bet he jingles a bit more when he walks. Especially when you see who the board hired to head the state's education department.

 

Somehow the phrase, "Everyone has a right to an opinion" has grown into a monster. Everyone who earns the right to an opinion does have the right to an opinion but those just talking, like the "monkey" lady, just run their mouths but still have a very real affect on others like her and it's unfortunate that an effort wasn't made to keep this woman, and many others like her, out of the paper. I feel sorry for this woman when she finds out how silly her argument is.

 

We, as (although somewhat unneccessary) supporters, don't help this situation much either. We're going too heavy when defending evolution. When the man on the street attacks you for being godless just take it easy on him, don't get anywhere near RNA in your explaination. I keep things simple, and here in Kansas I have converted many ID supporters into evolution supporters in casual conversations. They just didn't know, and they'd never looked. I stay away from RNA, I stay away from the origin of life, and I stay away from human evolution. I use a few everyday examples like antibiotic resistance using shapes and a piece of paper. I follow with a few simple statements about variation, how ever present it is and how different they are from their siblings and their parents. How this variation and mutation can branch individuals from populations, and as the individuals reproduce they grow their own populations, until the populations split and eventually speciation occurs. The language used in the media that overdramatizes evolution as series of choices and also is a hurdle to deal with, so I also explain that evolution is a relatively mindless process with very few choices involved. This is where they're at. I've had this conversation many times and I feel that I've only failed once, but she was from California and incredibly dense so she doesn't count.

 

Kids need those concepts in high school. Evolution as a concept in and of itself is a very very powerful concept. When I explain this to a nonreligious person who doesn't struggle against some imaginary meaning their eyes light up. It's powerful. And it needs to be in high school. This attitude towards science is a major reason why I didn't even know what science was for until I was 22. I feel robbed, and I know many others here didn't know what science is for either. And that's not exclusive to Kansans.

 

I've read the transcript. I read the transcript in the mock trial here. I don't know if many of you have heard but everyone of the ID supporters admitted to not having read anything in the Kansas trial.

 

Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

 

This little bit of blah blah blah does have a truth to it, and shows a problem that I'm tired of hearing about. We should solve it. We need to clear up this "theory" word problem. And let's make it account for what Dr. Behe is talking about here. Like the Evolution Validity (for accepted theories) the Astrology InValidity (for formerly accepted theories but are no longer) the ID NonValidity (for theories that cannot be tested). That's just an example to illustate the idea. Progress is more important than tradition.

 

Note: I don't mean to imply that ID has popular support here in Kansas. As soon as it's election time it will be Dover all over again.

[Severian]

I was actually rather disappointed by that transcript. The professor was reasonably consistant in his answers. He took a definition of 'science' which was way out there and claimed it was the definition used in the scientific community (when it is not). But then, within his definition he correctly argued that ID is a science.

 

The lawyer harped on about astrology, which the witness (perfectly correctly) said was included as a scientific theory in his definition. He accepted the definition and pressed on to see what that definition implied. What the lawyer should have done was attack the veracity of the claim that the definition was standard. He did not do this!

 

(In fact, astrology is more of a science than ID is because it at least claims to make predictions.)

 

The problem with letting this sort of thing go to the courts is that the lawyers don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about...

[phcatlantis]

The problem with letting this sort of thing go to the courts is that the lawyers don't have the faintest clue what they are talking about...

 

Where would you let it go then? This a better topic for politics or education, but I'm just curious.

[Severian]

It shouldn't go anywhere. The schools should teach what they like and the parents should be able to decide which schools to send their kids to. The schools would pretty soon learn that if they teach the kids this rubbish that the kids won't get places at college or get jobs, and the parents won't send them there.

 

I suspect this sort of thing would only effect a tiny minority of schools, which would very quickly gain a bad reputation.

[phcatlantis]

It shouldn't go anywhere. The schools should teach what they like and the parents should be able to decide which schools to send their kids to. The schools would pretty soon learn that if they teach the kids this rubbish that the kids won't get places at college or get jobs, and the parents won't send them there.

 

I like that idea. I'm also curious as to why you think children exposed to a religious and instead of secular view of the life sciences would have a harder time getting into college or finding work? Like I said, this is probably a better discussion for Education, or if we had such a forum, Public Policy