Posted on 10/18/2005 9:31:08 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
The Harrisburg courtroom was packed yesterday with reporters and members of the public who came to see the second half of Dover's intelligent design trial.
The defense began presenting its case by calling its star witness -- Lehigh University professor, biochemist and top intelligent design scientist Michael Behe.
Thomas More Law Center attorney Robert Muise started the questioning in a simple format, asking, for example, if Behe had an opinion about whether intelligent design is creationism. Then he asked Behe to explain why.
Behe said intelligent design is not creationism, but
a scientific theory that makes scientific claims that can be tested for accuracy.
Behe testified that intelligent designdoesn't require a supernatural creator, but an intelligent designer: it does not name the designer.
He said evolution is not a fact and there are gaps in the theory that can be explained by intelligent design.
There is evidence that some living things were purposefully arranged by a designer, Behe claimed in his testimony.
Gave examples: One example is the bacterial flagellum, the tail of a bacteria that quickly rotates like an outboard motor, he said.
The bacterial flagellum could not have slowly evolved piece by piece as Charles Darwin posited because if even one part of the bacteria is removed, it no longer serves its original function, Behe said.
Biologist and Brown University professor Kenneth Miller testified for the parents about two weeks ago. He showed the courtroom diagrams on a large screen, detailing how the bacterial flagellum could be reduced and still work.
Also showing diagrams, Behe said Miller was mistaken and used much of his testimony in an attempt to debunk Miller's testimony.
Miller was wrong when he said that intelligent design proponents don't have evidence to support intelligent design so they degrade the theory of evolution, Behe said.
But Behe also said evolution fails to answer questions about the transcription on DNA, the "structure and function of ribosomes," new protein interactions and the human immune system, among others.
By late in the afternoon, Behe was supporting his arguments with complex, detailed charts, at one point citing a scientific article titled "The Evolved Galactosidase System as a Model for Studying Acquisitive Evolution in the Laboratory."
Most of the pens in the jury box -- where the media is stationed in the absence of a jury -- stopped moving. Some members of the public had quizzical expressions on their faces.
One of the parents' attorneys made mention of the in-depth subject matter, causing Muise to draw reference to Miller's earlier testimony.
He said the courtroom went from "Biology 101" to "Advanced Biology."
"This is what you get," Muise said.
Board responds: Randy Tomasacci, a schoolboard member with a Luzerne County school district, said he was impressed with Behe's testimony.
Tomasacci represents Northwest Area School District in Shickshinny, a board that is watching the Dover trial and is contemplating adopting an intelligent design policy.
"We're going to see what happens in this case," he said.
Some of his fellow board members are afraid of getting sued, Tomasacci said.
Tomasacci's friend, Lynn Appleman, said he supports Dover's school board.
He said he thought Behe was "doing a good job" during testimony, but "it can get over my head pretty quick."
Former professor Gene Chavez, a Harrisburg resident, said he came to watch part of the proceedings because the case is "monumental."
He said he had doubts about the effectiveness of Behe's testimony.
"I think he's going to have a hard time supporting what he has concluded," Chavez said. "I think he is using his science background to make a religious leap because it's what he believes."
|
Thanks for the ping!
It's creationism wearing a borrowed labcoat, hoping to masquerade as science.
It's amazing that some feeble minded people are falling hook, line, and sinker for such an obvious load of crap.
A distinction in search of a difference.
If the Parent's attorneys are any good, Behe will look real bad quickly and he will bleed a lot.
And then, we will bleed too.
It appears that Behe is being a very effective witness when one of the plaintiffs' attorneys mentions the in-depth nature of Behe's testimony. Muise's response was great.
As I said earlier on a few occasions, one needs to wait for the defense to present their case before getting too excited about the plaintiff case.
No one is falling for it. But I have doubts about the judge. He may decided to do what he imagines is the "correct" thing and let the "controversy" into the schools. Then it will work its way up to the Supreme Court, and we shall see what the new court will do. We had an earlier thread that gave a pretty good analysis of the legal arguments, and how the SC might deal with it:
Dover players prepare for Supreme Court [Penna evolution trial].
Then he has to explain who designed the designer, since he is saying there need be no supernatural explanation.
No problem, it's obviously "turtles all the way down".
Then he has to explain who designed the designer, since he is saying there need be no supernatural explanation.
This is what we are wasting our time and tax dollars on?
Truly representative of a society that has lost perspective.
I don't think the plaintiffs' attorneys are going to lay a glove on Behe. If the plaintiffs' attorneys think they can outsmart Behe, they are mistaken.
Miller has done a nice job of outsmarting Behe over the years. He got Behe to admit the blood clotting cascade was not IC. Since he's advising the plaintiffs, I'm sure they will continue the process.
ROFL! Okay, you keep believing that if you want to, and you obviously want to very much. The cross-examination is going to shred Behe. He can wave his hands all he wants and try the old "baffle 'em with BS" technique, but the cross-examination will have no problem cutting to the chase and demolishing this nonsense from Behe, which makes all of Behe's charts about biology completely moot:
Miller was wrong when he said that intelligent design proponents don't have evidence to support intelligent design so they degrade the theory of evolution, Behe said.The problem for Behe is that all of his hand-waving about biochemical systems is being done in order to try to argue, "gosh, this sure is complex, I personally don't think it could have evolved, therefore it must have been designed." And this is exactly what Miller was (correctly) saying about the "ID" case. Behe and the other IDers keep making the elementary logical fallacy of the False Dichtomy -- they keep making the simplistic and incorrect mistake of thinking that there are only two possible explanations, and that if evolution can be (allegedly) ruled out, then ID "must" be correct by default.
Unfortunately, it just doesn't work that way. Evidence *against* evolution is not evidence *for* ID (or any other particular alternative explanation). And Behe has never, ever, ever given actual evidence which directly supports ID itself -- he has always attempted to just undermine evolutionary biology.
Furthermore, even his arguments "against" evolutionary biology are fundamentally flawed, and it shouldn't be hard at all to show that to the court as well.
"ID" is an empty shell, consisting of misrepresentations, propaganda, and outright deceptions.
As I said earlier on a few occasions, one needs to wait for the defense to present their case before getting too excited about the plaintiff case.
And as we've said on several occasions, Behe is coming to the trial with a busted flush, and if this is ID's "star witness", it's in big trouble. For example, here's part of an earlier reply of mine to you when you had previously pinned your hopes on him coming to save the day for ID:
When does Behe take the stand? For me, these earlier witnesses aren't contributing much. The cross examination of Behe should be very interesting.Yes it should be very interesting, since Behe is an idiot, who can't even get trivial basics of biology correct, and his arguments are fatally flawed.
It does not speak well for the "ID movement" that it reveres such clowns as their "big guns".
They are not falling for it; they are jumping for it like it was the last lifeboat off the Titanic.
Behe is tougher than WJB, but he'll roll since there's nothing under him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.