I was thinking these guys 
Posted on 12/24/2005 10:43:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry
It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. [p 31]Sounds like a pretty objective and fact-based decision to me....===============
Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community. (21:37-38 (Behe); Fuller Dep. at 98-101, June 21, 2005; 28:47 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 89, May 26, 2005). P. 70
======================
Contrary to Professor Behe’s assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 76 of 139========================
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).
=========================
The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.” (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used. (22:41-45 (Behe); P-756).
=======================
On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.” (22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe’s argument that certain complex molecular structures are “irreducibly complex.”17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)). After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents,
Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 89 of 139
as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community.=================================
Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points. P. 105
ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ
Damn!
The encryption module of the DarwinNet™ system was apparently on the fritz when that was sent out over the secure low-frequency system.
Maybe you could quote from the legal opinion itself rather than an editorial on the opinion which itself only quotes a historical note from the ruling and makes no attempt to explain where the judge's assessment of the evidence presented is in error.
"From a science point of view, the interesting thing about the case was that it was the first time that the relative merits of intelligent design (ID) and evolutionary theory were put before a dispassionate observer, who was tasked with evaluting them."
These musings start with a flawed assumption. Namely the judge was a "dispassionate observer." He was not. The tone and demeanor, his disclaimer notwithstanding, of his ruling indicate his bias. The judge all but called Behe a "fundamentalist." Which is stereotypic nonsense in that Professor Behe is a devout Roman Catholic. To the best of my knowledge, "Fundamentalism" is strictly a protestant phenomena. A devout Roman Catholic cannot be a fundamentalist. Ergo, the judge was biased.
This is just one of many problems with the ruling. The good judge should have limited his judgement to stating that the Dover school board was religiously motivated (although I don't see why that should be a problem in America), and used that for ruling against them. The religious motivation was shown by testimony. I don't think their motivation matters, but I will concede that it does to the legal community after previous court cases.
Whatever, the good "Bush appointed" judge couldn't resist getting on a soapbox and pontificating from the bench. Maybe he would like to start a new profession as a Zoology Professsor? Much of what he wrote was more akin to teaching current evolutionary dogma than dealing with law.
I would really like to "dissect" this man's background to discover how he was educated and what his personal religous and scientific views are. I suspect he already had his mind made up beforehand and it shows.
IMO he way overstepped the bounds of good jurisprudence. It is strange that he makes much about the vast majority of scientists holding to a materialistic view of origens and using this as ruling that ID is not science. I thought minority views/rights were supposed to be protected by the constitution and judiciary? He went too far.
Instead of this having a cooling effect on those holding an ID position (and their more conservative distant relatives the creationists), it will just cause them to become more motivated and politically active.
An interesting claim, that you can doubtless back up with evidence...
Blindness is an excuse? Read Dawkins' Blind Watchmaker or Climbing Mount Improbable. Alternatively, Herrnstein & Murray's The Bell Curve.
Damn!
LOLOLOL!!!!
Nice copy and paste, but can you summarize this?
What are you trying to say? ;)
Ichneumon is a big boy, and he can speak for himself. But as he was posting to me, I'll summarize what I got from his post. Behe's "Irreducible Complexity" is not a new idea. Darwin discussed it, and clearly explained why it wasn't a useful idea. Subsequent research has shown that the concept just doesn't hold up.
Darwin writes very clearly, and so does Ichneuman so if you read what Ichneuman posted, you'll get it.
First of all, I believe in God and evolution, just to be clear. Much of this is biology-centric, of course. As a mathematician, IC makes perfect sense. Things like infinite series or transcendental functions or even the notion of pi or the golden triangle. These in turn explain the universe and thus can be used to explain some to the inherent complexity of evolution.
But I see what you are saying about the biological applications. I'll read further. Thanks!
2005-ending-on-a-high-note PLACEMARKER
The useful is a political criterion and historically contigent. Universalizing the useful is hocus pocus.
I was thinking these guys
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.