Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

ros, A good find on Behe. His bias for ID is too evident to take seriously; he's just another dummy who thinks pushing ID is science.

ahmen and goodnight

Actually, I think he's just a shyster selling his snake oil getting some ego boosting publicity and promoting his chosen theology all at once.

Dr. Behe reportedly spent a lot of time today in court discussing bacterium flagella as a complex machine that could not have evolved through natural processes. Dr. Behe first made that argument in 1996 and it has been refuted many times by Kenneth Miller, Ian Musgrave and other scientists. Individual components of bacterium flagella can have evolved through natural processes. Some organisms have only some of the components. (I am paraphrasing information from my reading of Miller, Musgrave and, of course the legendary "farmerman".)

Our resident Cockney wrote-



I have the screenplay in my head.I'm saving it.It's nearly as good as UFO sightings and in some respects slightly better.

Yes, he's been floating that bogus flagella argument almost as long as his creationist cohorts have been thumping their bibles.

Dr. Behe got another good shot of publicity today. Maybe he'll sell more of his $s$s$snake to the poor unsuspecting locals.

I welcome me back from da Nort Shore. S cold up dere awreADY, True be sayin bay!

Im not rushing in to Mike Behes defense but he is a very qualified molecular biologist whose done some important work on understanding enzyme cascading in blood clotting, to this ID end, hes taken his results and arrived at his present beliefs, to me thats not very scientific but hes not, by any stretch of the imagination, a moron. HEs a very very sharp guy. Im not particularly qualified nor conversant on the entire blood clotting process. But it seems to me that, from what ever weve spoken about regarding ID, the only 2 standout processes that Mikey is leaning on are flagella rotati,on and blood clotting (He used to include eye structure as irreducibly complex but hes been argued to ground on that one)
.

NOT REALLY AN OVERWHELMING DEFENSE OF ID, when we can all just list scads of really "silly design" elements that argue against ID and argue, instead for a "trial and error" or "multiple solution ' approach to these processes. I was reading some download notes by Behe at his court appearance today. Unless I got my notes from poorly recorded firsthand source, Behe didnt help his cause at all, since he stipulated that evolution is still the best theory to explain the rise of life from early forms, and should be taught to those who wish to follow science as a career.
His flagella and eye as irreducably complex organs have been repeatedly slammed by the many workers in bio science. However, his remaining argument for blood clotting has still not been successfully challenged in MHO. There are probably 2 reasons

1. Understanding the mechanisms of blood clotting has a utilitarian component and has not been the subject of funded research into its origins. Its origins have just been discovered by PCR techniques for forensics and cardiac care

2 Research hAS BEEN delving into populational differences of clotting mechanisms (Ie, developing predictors re: cardiac risk factors) and such research is getting a handle on factors that go into blood clotting like the "Stuart mechanisms in turning on prothrombin", or the presence of stuff like specific proteins that are present in larger degrees within certain populations (like Slavs and Japanese).

I think, that, if we can see that processes are inherited and transferred within populations, we may soon be able to best understand whether Behe is right or wrong.

HOWEVER, let us not get into a "pile on" mode and impune someone because his conclsions in his science became closely entangled with his beliefs. Im willing to see how his arguments stand up with time. Eyes and flagella have been removed from his quiver but blood clotting is still there.
If you look up blood clotting on open-source sites on the web ( and I tried looking at popular science sites), one will find that there are plenty and plenty more sites that are sponsored Creationist sites who are "riding Behes labcoat"
If you look up the wording that the Lehigh biology fculty used to distance itself from Behes stance, you can see that, while they praise his work, they dont buy into his ID conclusions.



Mike is hanging out there with basically one argument since hes published "Darwins Black Box" and contributed to "Pandas and People", and, hes always been outspoken on his supportive stand on evolution . His testimony didnt help his side much (Im sure hes confused the judge)and since I only had information on his direct testimony, I guess Ill hve to wait on cross examination

I didnt see anything in Behes testimony that was compelling (Of course I was reading it as miniscript)

Come on fm-

He must be a moron.A moron is roughly the same as a dummy and c.i. says he's a dummy and c.i.'s a scientist isn't he and his assurance should be good enough for any judge no matter how confused he is.(The judge I mean.)

The case rests.Who would want to stick up for a dummy?And a shyster to boot from what I heard.

It looks like the 7,178 parents in Dover (I'm assuming 2 parents each kid) and the school board and their other supporters etc have bought into what a moronic dummy says and 22 parents are too smart for such simplistic claptrap.

It's cut and dried.

Exactly. But the fact that nobody buys his conclusions regarding ID is the main point here. We already know that there are things in biology which we don't understand, but you don't honestly think that Behe's blood clotting issue is going to lead conclusively to Intelligend Design do you? ID is non-scientific, he simply can't propose it within the realm of science, by definition, period.

And the fact that he's a good molecular biologist whos methods are strict, doesn't excuse him from allowing his theology to drive his conclusions. The very fact that he is that smart, and still chooses to draw a conclusion which even we (as lay people) can determine to be absolutely invalid as science leads me to question his motives.

You tell me, how could a scientist with such a good understanding of the process of science fail to recognize the core nature of science? How can that be missed accidentally. It can't. He's either fooling himself, or fooling us. And I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not delusional, which leaves...

spendius,

There are 10,000 school boards in the United States. Only 2 mandated the teaching of intelligent design. 9,998 school boards are much too smart for such simplistic claptrap.

Kenneth Miller is preparing another book for publication. In it he refutes the blood-clotting argument with scientific findings that show that dolphins do not have all of the blood-clotting components that exist in other mammals. However, even with some components missing, dolphins have no problem with blood-clotting.

The main point in all the refutations is: Complexity--Yes; Irreducability--No!

wande wrote-



Well that is at least something to go on at last.So do you think somebody is up to no good leaving the technical side out of it.

But I understood that other boards were hoping for a green light from this case in order to mandate ID.

Is that true?

spendius,

I think that the only board looking for a "green light" is in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. Most educators consider intelligent design theory to be unscientific and would never include it in science curriculum. I heard of one school district in Indiana that has included intelligent design in their social studies curriculum.

wandeljw
I shall await Millers argument. I believe that there will be some key areas discovered that can be shown to have populational differences.
The arguments will probably lead to the needs defined by the specific circulatory system and will , no doubt, be a reasonable and defensible explanation. I cannot jump ahead and presume anything , because Behe is as much a supporter of evolution as Miller, and I believe that should Behe be shown strong evidence, he will recant. Hes that kind of guy.
Weve been painting him as a carpetbagger and as someone who is searching for his "fifteen minutes" . I dont buy that cause I have been around him and have always been impressed at what he presents and his attempt to put his irreducible complexity issues "in limne" hes not a wide eyed zealot, instead hes a reasonable scietist who has a point of departure in his conclusions. As I stated before, I dont consider myself to have an opinion in this arena and, should some molecular biologist join in, I dont want to sound like I know what Im talking about until Ive been exposed to some compelling evidence.
What I know now, mostly comes from genetic STR studies in forensic SCiences. These guys have no ax to grind except as a means of detecting populational differences in human populations. From them, (and by the convenient invention of a few new sequencing machines) so much is just now being learned. Im gonna wait until this is definitive science with pronounced differences between species. ( Anyway, I dont think that Behes testimony has any bearing on the outcome of the Dover trial because neither side is fully comfortable with him and his written testimony might as well be written in Klingon, its so obscure).Fortunately, under Daubert, the court can now hire and assign its own experts to understand and explain the science to the judge.

farmerman, I'm a bit confused by your defense of Behe who supports ID in the biology curriculum. Are we now looking at greys?

So basically it is the Dover Board who are in the position I showed the 11 parents to be.Is that fair to say?What is the reason for the Dover Board to go up against such overwhelming evidence?One presumes,perhaps wrongly,that board members are a little above average in some respects pertaining to education.?

Would it be possible to mount a case challenging the driving on the right side of the road rule or something equally daft on constitutional grounds.

Another thought.As children learn in many other places besides school,often more so than in school,are not the effects of religious symbols and stories etc likely to lead to the effects ID in schools
is claimed to cause?What about libraries.What about school libraries.

spendius,

I probably won't answer all your questions, but I will try.

Why did the Dover School Board make such a decision? Court testimony shows that the board president did not like the fact that the school's biology textbook taught evolution. He was quoted as saying, "Two thousand years ago, someone died on a cross. We should stick up for him."

Driving on the right side of the road? You would need to find something specific in the constitution. (The Dover parents in challenging the school board's mandate for intelligent design did find something specific in the constitution.)

Children learning in other places? That is exactly the point of the lawsuit. They may willingly learn on their own but they should not be forced to learn in a government-operated school. Government entities are prohibited from endorsing religion.

farmerman,
Hopefully this link will take you to a relevant essay by Kenneth Miller:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html

wand, Good link. Thank you. Behe's claim that ID is not theistic is ridiculous. If not theistic, what is ID?