I was thinking these guys 
Posted on 12/24/2005 10:43:36 AM PST by PatrickHenry
The verdict [PH here: the journalist means "judgment"] rendered in the Dover case has been echoing around on news and commentary sites for several days now, and a few themes are emerging. Many are upset about the scope of the legal arguments, and there's a smattering of complaints about the social implications. 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. Experts, including the most prominent pro-ID biologist, Michael Behe, provided the testimony. The result? An overwhelming win for science. How did this come about?
The first lesson from the ruling is that ID is attempting to be both a social and scientific movement, and that dual role damaged its credibility as science. Its wholesale incorporation of creationism in terms of both literature and followers allowed the clearly creationist text Of Pandas and People to be used against it in the ruling. Even the more scientifically oriented ID proponents were cited in the ruling for some striking language when speaking to non-scientific audiences, such as William Dembski's quote "Christ is never an addendum to a scientific theory but always a completion." Judge Jones also noted that, "Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
The judge also recognized that there is a difference between these statements and those regarding the philosophical implications of the scientific findings of evolution, such as Richard Dawkin's claim that evolution allows him to be an intellectually satisfied atheist, a quote brought up by the defense. The former places theological considerations as the basis of their proposal; the later is a philosophical conclusion derived separately from the science. The link between ID proponents and creationists in the ruling has come under criticism as "guilt by association" in places such as this blog by a law professor at the U of Chicago, but this complaint seems odd given that even the more scientific of the ID proponents would have to stop associating with themselves to avoid a clear linkage with religion.
A second aspect of the ruling that reflects a clear split between science and ID is in the judge accepting a definition of science that relies on natural and observable phenomena. In making this decision, Judge Jones relied on both the historical development of science and the current definition of science provided by the National Academy of Sciences. Oddly, the pro-ID Discovery Institute claims that the judge's determination that ID requires supernatural intervention is wrong, despite Jones having used the testimony of Discovery Institute Fellows to reach this conclusion. This is especially ironic given that the Discovery Institute also provided input into the writing of the new Kansas science standards, which permit supernatural explanations in science.
In terms of actual science, the testimony at the trial reflected arguments that have been raging in print and on the Internet for years. Irreducible complexity as a recognizable phenomenon that argues against evolution was defended by Behe, and attacked by the plaintiff's lawyers. The difference was that a clear verdict was rendered by a disinterested judge following this argument. The verdict was that ID concepts such as irreducible complexity fell well short of science. Notable indications of this in the ruling include "Professor Behe's concept of irreducible complexity depends on ignoring ways in which evolution is known to occur" and "the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade has been disproven by peer-reviewed studies dating back to 1969."
The response to this aspect of the verdict has been to largely pretend that it hasn't happened. Unsurprisingly, press releases from the Discovery Institute continue to trumpet ID as a competing scientific theory. But even legal scholars are making this sort of mistake, refering to the "strong - explicitly scientific - claims put forward by intelligent-design proponents" and claiming that "the champions of intelligent design . . . focus only on where the biological evidence leads." In accusing Judge Jones of getting things wrong after hearing two competing arguments, these commentators assume that he had no reason to find one side or another more compelling and credible.
Forget for a moment that the judge could have reached his decision based solely on the stated opinions of nearly every professional scientific organization regarding ID. The credibility of the pro-ID witnesses wound up having significant problems at the trial. Behe, having claimed that his book was subject to rigorous peer review, was confronted with evidence that one of his reviewers had simply had a 10 minute conversation with a publisher. Behe's cavalier dismissal of extensive peer reviewed literature on the evolution of the immune system, which he viewed as something that "made me feel real good about things," was specifically cited by the judge as an indication "that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof." In short, Judge Jones reached his decision because he found the witnesses supporting ID to have limited credibility relative to the experts who supported evolution.
For now, it appears that the ID community will disparage and ignore the legal judgement against their proposals as completely as they have disparaged and ignored science's judgement against them. In some ways, this is their loss. In pointing out the flaws that prevent their concepts from being taken seriously as science, Judge Jones has provided a roadmap for the correction of these flaws. Paying attention to this ruling might help ID proponents move at least some of its proposals onto a more solid scientifc footing. To their loss, they are choosing to ignore it.
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.