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.
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:
"Forrest, who has written a history of ID, was an expert witness in the Dover case, and her piece recounts the various personal attacks and snide comments she had to endure during the trial. (See it here: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html .)"
She's got nothing on ID now: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/response_to_barbara_forrests_k.html
- F2XL
October 27, 2008 10:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
He was a judge. Not a molecular biologist...
why is it we have to argue things that are completely unarguable? Of course he didn't understand the intricacies of the case for ID--- HE WAS A JUDGE. Anyone claiming that he DID understand the subject matter completely is being intellectually dishonest - since people in the field itself have varying levels of understanding when it comes to the subject matter -- and they actually do it for a living...
And to make statements about how Forrest had to deal with insults and snide remarks from the other side.... cry me a river - I'm sure you guys were nothing but saints right?
- lux113 July 21, 2009 10:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 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
- From Michael Behe
By Dr. Michael Behe - Author/Professor
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
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.