ID daze in COURT ... Time to place your bets ...

I did not read all the court transcripts, only the ones for Behe because I wanted to see if the prosecutor would ask him what I have wanted to get an answer about. He is so far the only scientist to try and posit having found actual science based evidence.Thankfully the attorney did move along the same lines I would have and you are right that Behe's credibility was destroyed.In addition to the points you raised something pretty critical was revealed. While he kept asserting that it was evo theorists who were using presumptions to cloud their findings, he repeatedly did the same thing.He asserts X to be true, and when asked why he did not run experiments to try and substantiate that he said that it was because he believed X to be true and if it was then nothing would come of the experiments! That shows he doesn't even understand the power of a negative result.When asked if he had read numerous articles and books on the subject his answer was the same, he assumes X to be true and so the books and articles could not in any way suggest an undercutting of X.It was a display of sheer willful ignorance and arrogance and antiscientific behavior.It was also disturbing to watch him try to wriggle out of obvious statements he had made as well as what the book under discussion was making. Anyone having a problem with Clinton's "is" waffling, should have exploded in rage over Behe's "means" twisting.In the end, through Behe, the Pandas book which was to be suggested reading if not enforced was shown to not have an accurate depiction of either evo theory or id. So what was it good for? I guess for another round of books kids could be taught discrediting it?This message has been edited by holmes, 12-13-2005 03:55 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I went ahead and read his full testimony (pros and def) on your suggestion. If he was not outright lying most of the time, then he is a fantastic example of why ad hoc reasoning really comes back to bite one in the ass.The defense portion seemed to contain assertions based on a rather biased view of science, two of the more important were...1) Monotheism drove/caused the creation of singular encompassing scientific theories in the western world.The first question I had is why does a single creator suggest at all that there would be a unified set of rules for everything? People create things differently with different rule sets all the time. And I might point out with some irony the whole point of the ID movement is to undermine unification rules of biological origin and diversity. Whatta dumbass.2) Evolutionary theory would cause a loss of interest in science because we just live and die.Where does he get off with such an assertion? And again with much irony most ID adherents... and he himself... chose NOT to go into science and practice science. Those fighting ID are generally those that have been in science and want to continue doing so. Again what dumbass.And I was troubled by suggestions he made over both sets of testimony...3) The state of modern science necessitates a form of affirmative action for disadvantaged theories?4) As long as intelligent design is forwarded as an alternative theory, then the cost of making kids unenthused about science (because of the inaccurate Dover statement to students) is something he is comfortable living with?Yeah this guy was great for science. He admits that MN has been a contributor to lots if not most of our scientific advances. He admits that ID comes from creationist backgrounds and as of yet has no real theories nor tests nor justifications (which by his own definition of science means it only has background "discovery" issues to offer students). He even admits it may not actually provide any scientific advances.Yet his conclusion from all of the above is that any reasonable person with a knowledge of the history and philosophy of science would be to reject MN, and that society should artificially generate recruits among unwitting students, moving them into ID just to see where it might lead?My guess is he would not accept that in any area of life or science, except ID.The prosecution's cross started as an entertaining bit of pinning an ad hoc reasoner (or liar) to the floor using his own previous statements. By the end it was pathetic.This message has been edited by holmes, 12-14-2005 09:08 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hey now! I would probably best be considered a philosopher and sociologist of science. It is real and it can be done. In fact lately I have been considering going back to school in essentially that field.This guy was not a very good example of what that is. You could think of sociologists of science as being anthropologists who go investigate tribes of scientists in the field and see what goes into (underlies) what they do.What I didn't get is where he switches from anthropologist to activist. How does he go from how science is done to then say we need to change that because I don't like how I see it is being done? Especially when he can also see and admit that it has produced results which were its intended aim.The key difference between that guy and a person like me, and many others I hope, is that I have a real background in actual science. I did take massive coursework (full undergrad and some grad) in phys sciences as well as having worked there.He appears to like to think of himself in the role (or mind) of God, thinking how he'd like things to be. Heaven forbid he actually has to work IN science. Much easier for him to tell everyone else what they should be doing.There were several sections I found funny, and you hit a couple of them.On the critical mass thing, it seemed to me that during def he was arguing against Kuhn and for Popper, but within pros crossexam had shifted to stating that Kuhn's prediction was coming true and because of this must use the power of govt to make Popper's dream come true via Kuhnian mechanisms.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Oh I forgot to mention one of my favorite parts. After refusing to acknowledge that ID was a kind of creationism, the prosecutor pulls out that article written by him which was discussing religion based activities and then gave as example:intelligent design aka creationismAnd then Fuller tried to wriggle out saying he wasn't really aware of what it was at the time and anyway a lot more work had been done in it, when he had already said it had not advanced at all with regard to justification rules, which are the only thing that matter.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

glad to see you're still around... always liked you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

The verdict is in and ID is out... of Dover anyway. That's going to be hard to come back from.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)