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".
On the surface, it may seem to be a false dichotomy; but is it really? "If evolution is ruled out", ID would the best best explanation absent other alternative explanations. Do you know of alternatives to evolution, besides ID?
As for me, I have never argued that IS must be true simply because evolution is disproved. There are other reasons as well, including the absence of other rational explanations.
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.
I don't think Behe ever claimed that he has. The real issue is that if the evidence undermines evolutionary biology, it casts doubt on the truth of 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.
I don't think it will be nearly as easy as you might think. You ought to keep in mind that only one of the plaintiffs' witnesses claimed that evolution is a 'fact'; and that claim was based only on a perception that it is a fact because it is 'widely accepted'. Miller even admitted that evolution is not a 'fact'.
Not going to say the defendants are going to win, because you never know what a judge will decide, regardless what the evidence says.
The statement of the Dover school board was carefully crafted and I don't think the plaintiffs have shown that it does anything more than state that there are other opinions about 'life' and where one might look for that information if a student is interested.
You are going to have a LAWYER doing the cross. My experience of lawyers is that they think they are omnicompetent, but their knowledge of anything besides the law is large rote. He will take Miller's testimony as his brief and try to defend that position. My guess is that he will advance an argument like" Most people say you are wrong; why should we believe you?"
The pope--who is a supporters of evolution, by the way--has a book on Christianity that makes an interesting point. Not all religions are "faiths." Some, like Roman relgion, was largely the punctilious observance of tradition rituals. One did not have to "believe" in the existence of the gods to participate in these rituals. Participation in them did not require "faith" in the Chruistian sense of the word, More or less the same is true of the teaching of "evolution." However, in a room in which half of the students may believe literallity in the truth of Genesis, an element of compulsion is present. A concession to this raw fact is what the school board is making. I prefer a poliucy of accomodation. You may think that ID is not more than creatioism in disguise. Maybe the board has this in mind. But even though I agree withe the Court in the Arkansas case, I disagree with the thinking that has compelled the court to strain at gnats and make decisions that are, frankly, just stupid.