Here are some snippets from the article Live from Pennsylvania: Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District by Joe Manzari:
Let the fact the ID mounted scientific arguments, be a statement to those who think ID is only religious dogma and not at all based on science!Early in his testimony, Rothschild claimed that “intelligent design is not science in its infancy, it's not science at all.” Yet Miller's own testimony contradicts this. In cross-examination, when asked by Robert Muise, the defense attorney, if during a debate between Miller and Michael Behe, an ID proponent, at the American Museum of Natural History, “you [Miller] were presenting your scientific argument against intelligent design, and Dr. Behe was presenting his scientific argument in support of intelligent design?” Miller responded: “Absolutely.”
And let this be a statement that ID (although there is techically no scientific model), has within positive scientific basis.Rothschild went on to claim that “Intelligent design has arguments … but these arguments are not a positive case for intelligent design, just negative attacks on evolution.” However, when asked about an article he authored, Miller admitted that Dr. Behe's “biochemical argument from design … [states that] the evolution of complex biochemical structures cannot even or ever be explained in principle.” Moreover, this positive argument states that “there is some aspect of this complexity, which means we can say not just, we haven't figured it out yet, but we will never figure it out, and that's where the evidence for design lies.”
Another myth here put to rest that ID proponents have not been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. And put to rest by someone who has vigorously debated against intelligent design proponents (can't stress that enough).Later in his testimony, Rothschild stated that ID proponents have not “publish[ed] original data in peer-reviewed scientific journals.” Attorney Witold Walczak asked Miller if there is “a very recent publication, peer-reviewed publication, that bears on this issue of common descent?” To which Miller responded “Well, the answer to that is, there's more than one. And the one that comes to my mind right away is an issue earlier this month of the scientific journal Nature…” Despite Rothschild's claim, an article from that group defends ID. An article which Miller alluded to but failed to mention is written by the ID proponent, Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, called “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories.”
I welcome Miller's honest portrayal seeing as ID gets warped so often by evolutionists and creationists alike with the media rarely listening to what mainstream ID proponents have to say.Finally, Rothschild claimed that arguments made by ID rely on “an act of supernatural creation.” Miller admits, however, that ID proponents like Michael Behe accept natural causes all the time—their doubt concerns whether natural causes exhaust all causes. ID proponents admit the limits of science, in that science can only infer design and not the nature of the designer. Although they see it as far fetched, ID proponents like Michael Behe don't systematically rule out the remote possibility that the designer could be “super intelligent space aliens from Mars or perhaps time traveling cell biologists going into the past from the future and causing the structures to be put together.” In other words, ID is a research program for doing science—devoid of commitments to the supernatural.
Kurieuo
