Proinsias wrote:The court date I was thinking of was the
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District:
Witnesses for the defense
October 17–19
Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and a leading intelligent design proponent who coined the term irreducible complexity and set out the idea in his book Darwin's Black Box.[25]
As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded 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".[26] In response to a question about astrology he explained: "Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless… would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and… many other theories as well".[27]
His simulation modelling of evolution with David Snoke described in a 2004 paper had been listed by the Discovery Institute amongst claimed "Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design",[28] but under oath he accepted that it showed that the biochemical systems it described could evolve within 20,000 years, even if the parameters of the simulation were rigged to make that outcome as unlikely as possible.[29][30]
I
wrote on this 10 years ago, before Judge Jones had ruled:
- As for Dover, PA board of education introducing ID into the science curriculum... this is not a move by mainstream ID advocates. For example, the Discovery Institute were deeply opposed to what happened there, and even requested the board policy be revoked. They do not want ID introduced into the science education curriculum because it has not matured significantly as a science. They have only been pushing to teach the problems both for and against Darwinian evolution. And they currently only want ID discussed in the higher levels of academia, not within education until it has been more developed.
Yet, it seems obvious you have some trying to use ID as a tool to push their own Creationism motives within Science. Such people are going to do a great deal of damage to ID, and such people are completely outside the mainstream ID movement. Right now ID isn't an alternative to evolution, for as you say no proper scientific theory has been proposed. It is more of a tool, and ID needs to mature first before one ever thinks about it being an option to Darwinian evolution. Creationism is however an alternative, and thus if anyone says ID is an alternative it would seem to me they are confusing ID for Creationism. Clearly Creationism is based more on religious Scripture than Science, and so as such belongs in Theology. ID on the otherhand is not Creationism, and currently cannot be considered an alternative since no scientific models have been put forward.
I'll stand by
what I wrote at another time too:
- the judge has no idea of ID if he made a broad ruling on ID in general. Even if one is amiable towards ID for religious reasons, it is a category error to state that ID is therefore religious. It is for this reason the judge presiding over the case was wrong in declaring ID to be religious, despite rightfully detecting the religious motives of those on the board.
Then,
I've also responded about Behe's participation (see below).
I'd like to stress that at the end of the day, I really don't care if ID brought the case on -- but they didn't.
If ID wanted it their ideas taught in the classroom also, I really don't care.
I do believe they could positively benefit science, but that's a separate issue here.
While I really don't want to defend ID or everything Behe has done or said, I suppose I just like the facts of the matter being known.
- Behe is likely acting in the case because distorted statements are being made about ID, and as previously mentioned, the ACLU wants to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design. That is, they aren't going to trial to have it stopped from being taught (for indeed, there would be no real ID theory to teach), they are going to court to censor even its mere mention. It additionally wants to censor discussion that critically analyses Darwinian evolution supported by ID proponents. The Discovery Institute (which Behe is apart of and I believe represented) was against the statement introduced by the board, and is against ID being taught in classes. Yet, they are "also strongly [opposed to] the ACLU's attempt to censor classroom discussion of intelligent design." To quote their position further:
- Discovery Institute strongly opposes the ACLU's effort to make discussions of intelligent design illegal. At the same time, we disagree with efforts to get the government to require the teaching of intelligent design. Misguided policies like the one adopted by the Dover School District are likely to be politically divisive and hinder a fair and open discussion of the merits of intelligent design among scholars and within the scientific community, points we have made repeatedly since we first learned about the Dover policy in 2004. Furthermore, most teachers currently do not know enough about intelligent design or have sufficient curriculum materials to teach about it accurately and objectively.
Discovery Institute's Position on Dover, PA "Intelligent Design" Case, John G. West
The Dover case was probably ACLU looking for an opportunity to take on ID, and naive YECs putting the cart before the horse via ID.
Creationists should have just left it alone. ACLU would have been mad not to challenge.
And then there's been well meaning attempts by those who clearly do not understand ID since, for example, Ben Stein and his movie Expelled where he clearly (wrongly) conflates in Creation and ID... but now, everyone is just all so confused ID is like a lost cause.
Truly, I believe authentic ID proponents were on leave while Creationists hijacked their ship.
They didn't get very far and ran it into the reef. Again, I don't care any more to defend ID -- it's lost.
I use to care, but I suppose its been deflated even if I do see good ideas and thoughts.
Meyer and Dembski make a lot of philosophical sense. Behe, I liked his book.
In business, there is advice that if you don't clearly define what it is you do as a business, that others (consumers) will define what you do.
With ID, I think they never truly defined themselves. They absolutely refused to draw lines in the sand and create boundaries around what ID is/isn't.
Instead they opened up a big umbrella and said anyone who believes in true design, or who thinks Darwinian evolution can't account for this stuff we're seeing within the cell, well hop aboard. That was stupid on many counts.
Regardless, I am still interested in the information that we see within the cell and all the fascinating stuff that goes on.
Including many related concepts that core IDists have put forward such as specified complexity and the like.
