Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
5
8
15
11
14
12
11
9
7
7
10
8
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008-2010 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
A Bogus Philosopher-King
Irony
--
. Similarly, as I’ve said, there is no evidence Jones understood the academic issues discussed in his courtroom. Those who have hailed Jones as some sort of philosopher-king have been badly misled.
--
This is particularly funny because it was Behe who seems to have not only failed to communicate the academic issues to the Judge, but also it was Behe who was extensively quoted in the judge's ruling as to why ID was scientifically without merit.
From reading the whole ruling, it become painfully clear that the judge was very aware of the scientific issues involved, he just happened to disagree with the spin provided by the defendants and their witnesses. I wonder if the Judge would have been able to make such an effective ruling without the contributions and testimonies of Michael Behe.
For instance
--
Stated another way, ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer. Defendants' own expert witnesses acknowledged this point. (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 ("implausible that the designer is a natural entity"); 28:21-22 (Fuller) (". . . ID's rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism . . ."); 38:95-96 (Minnich) (ID does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural designer, including deities).
It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).
--
A fascinating reading indeed which shows a well informed judge making a powerful ruling which ID proponents. As to the plagiarism claims, see http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/dis-plagiarism.html for a more in-depth analysis of the DI's "response" to this devastating ruling.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:40PM
Reply to this Recommend
(2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.