Kitzmiller vs. Dover, PA

[jcrawford]

An intelligently designed legal attack is exposing the soft underbelly of neo-Darwinist facism in public education.

Fascinating details emerging from the court transcripts of the historic Evo/ID legal battle in PA.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/k ... dover.html

[jcrawford]

None that Behe has seen or read in your "peer-reviewed" journals.

But what about you? You are the one who is pushing this view in this thread. Therefore, it is up to you to support your assertion. Bringing in Behe doesn't help, because he may be completely wrong, or worse--he could be purposely trying to fool people.

If Behe is completely wrong or purposely trying to fool people as neo-Darwinist racial theorists have ever since Darwinism became fashionable, then it's up to neo-Darwinists to prove that in a court of law. Till then, the court and the public may rightly regard Michael Behe as an expert witness who claims that no valid scientific theories of molecular evolution have ever been published in peer-reviewed journals to the best of his expert knowledge. Can you tell us what the accepted scientific theory of molecular evolution states?

Consdier this: suppose there actually is a lot of evidence in the peer-reviewed journals. Did Behe read any of it? Did he see it? If he read it, did he understand it?

There you go exercising your uncontrollable neo-Darwinist imagination again. Suppose, suppose, suppose and imagine this or that.

My evidence is Behe's scientific testimony of the facts under oath in an American court of law. Don't tell me you're a more important bio-chemist than Michael Behe is or that he would believe in some of your molecular assertions any more than I would.

I wouldn't even begin to imagine that I'm a more important biochemist than Behe, or than your pet poodle. I do, however, recognize that Behe's logic for claiming ID is "reasonable" is in error.

You're just a more highly imaginative and qualified scientist than Michael Behe is and know more about intelligence, design, logic and reason than Behe and my pet poodle do.

He may not realize that it's in error, and therefore his testimony would represent the truth as he sees it. But if he sees it wrong, then his testimony isn't particularly accurate either.

I'm impressed with the above use of applied logic to formulate your conclusion about Behe's testimony.

I also don't think that a judge is the best arbiter as to whether some scientific conclusion is valid.

I agree. That's why neither creation science nor neo-Darwinist racial theories should be taught in public schools. Let scientists teach their beliefs about human ancestry and origins to their own children at home, on the Internet or on TV, and get the state and federal government out of the educational business of promoting one racial group's ancestors over the ancestral origins of others.

For that, we need people who understand the science well enough to evaluate the support for that conclusion. The judge has been trained in a very different field. Should the judge decide one way or the other, it really says little about the scientific validity of any of the claims.

In an amicus brief, the judge has been asked not to judge on the nature of science itself, but to consider the constitutional issues of freedom of academic viewpoint alone.

It says, really, that the testimony of one side or the other was more persuasive to the judge. Behe's very good at persuading people who don't know much about what he's talking about.

So was Darwin "very good at persuading people who don't know much about what he's talking about." Evolution itself is just one long argument.

Well, since you seem reluctant to provide evidence that there is no evidence for molecular evolution, how about we ask whether you can tell us what counts as "evolution" in your mind. How about, for example, the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in bacteria?

The only thing that really "counts as evolution" in my mind, is the neo-Darwinist racial prejudice that 'primitive' African people evolved from common ancestors of African monkeys and apes before any Asian or European human beings were around to tell them they didn't.

[jcrawford]

Granted that she is so entitled in that case, might she not also associate the intelligent functioning of DNA molecules with her own native and intuitive intelligence?

Sure she could if she was dopey enough to draw such an unwarranted analogy. The point I am making is that fro the sake of this argument we can consider molecular evolution as a black-box issue. People can argue over the merits of the different theories within that box, but outside it the theory of evolution by natural selection remains the best explanation for the variety and form of life that we see.

Whether it's the "best" explanation or not would be contingent upon how 'satisfying' it is as an explanation. Just because some scientists are satisfied with a theory doesn't mean that other scientists can't express disatisfaction with it, and continue search for other explanations, does it?

After all, scientists don't operate within or under a scientific dictatorship, do they? You wouldn't want the scientific community to start resembling the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, with it's peer-reviewed College of Cardinals calling the shots against Martin Luther, would you?

What specific data are you referring to? The principles of evolution explain nothing about intelligently designed functions of DNA processes.

The data I refer to is the variety and form of life that we see. Now let's get inside the molecular evolution black box and argue about the explanatory power of the principles of evolution. Hey what do you know, it works just as well in there! No need for any intelligent design, just a source of variation and a natural selection mechanism.

Sure, we could proceed on that basis, but if there is no evidence of 'natural selection' or any other Darwinist 'evolutionary' mechanism at work on the molecular level, why should we? As Michael Behe suggested, such neo-Darwinist theories applied to molecules ought to be trashed if there is no 'observable' evidence to substantiate their application.

Is it a coincidence that the selection criteria amounts to "persistence of those things best equipped to persist", not really. It's the essence of what we are.

Now you are delving into the neo-Darwinist and Marxist-Leninist philosophy, ideology and metaphysics of scientific materialism and biological determinism.

[jcrawford]

The principles of evolution explain nothing about intelligently designed functions of DNA processes.

True. But, since there are no such functions, that's not a problem.

What? DNA processes serve no purpose or function? Do we have a language problem here, Jose?

Evolution explains perfectly well what's actually there.

Not according to bio-chemists like Michael Behe. How are DNA processes naturally or 'sexually selected," Jose?

[QED]

Granted that she is so entitled in that case, might she not also associate the intelligent functioning of DNA molecules with her own native and intuitive intelligence?

Sure she could if she was dopey enough to draw such an unwarranted analogy.

Whether it's the "best" explanation or not would be contingent upon how 'satisfying' it is as an explanation. Just because some scientists are satisfied with a theory doesn't mean that other scientists can't express disatisfaction with it, and continue search for other explanations, does it?

Sure, by all means, that's what science is all about. But if it's as dopey as association by analogy then it'll get kicked all over the place as it rightly deserves to. On the other hand we've got a theory (thanks to Darwin) and some time later a mechanism (thanks to DNA and genetics) predicted by the theory. Observations are consistent with this theory (albeit pointlessly relabelled as microevolution by some) and we can also use the principles of the theory to deliver autonomous design for our own engineering needs. If I seem to go on endlessly about this it is because I think it is of the utmost significance that we can demonstrate optimal "designs" being generated from unintelligent systems. It shows that there are logico-mathematical principles which exist in the world that are capable of doing the work traditionally only ascribed to human draughtsmen and engineers.

Is it a coincidence that the selection criteria amounts to "persistence of those things best equipped to persist", not really. It's the essence of what we are.

Now you are delving into the neo-Darwinist and Marxist-Leninist philosophy, ideology and metaphysics of scientific materialism and biological determinism.

You're a great one for labels. Let me see if you can label this one: Take a cup of sugar and a cup of flour and mix them in a bowl. Now sieve the mixture into another bowl through a fine-meshed flower sieve. Magically you have separated all the flower from the sugar again! Is it a miracle? Of course not. It's a material consequence. Now has some bogey-man from humanities blood-thirsty past used this principle to do harm? I've no idea, but I'll bet you could come up with someone.

[Grumpy]

jcrawford wrote

Till then, the court and the public may rightly regard Michael Behe as an expert witness who claims that no valid scientific theories of molecular evolution have ever been published in peer-reviewed journals to the best of his expert knowledge.

Excuse me but neither the judge's nor the public's opinion have anything to do with the credentials of M. Behe when it comes to scientific credibility. That can only be earned by the scientific method which, in this case means peer review. Neither Behe nor Dumbski nor Gish nor any other so called scientist of the CSBS/ID persuasion dares submit their bogus "scientific" writings to such a test because they know they would only induce laughter and scorn from any real scientist. Behe is an expert in no field of science and his opinion is no more valid than mine until it has passed peer review, I don't care how many bogus science books he writes.

[Jose]

Welcome to the fray, Grumpy! Another voice is always good. You may find we have some differences of opinion here but that's part of the fun.

The principles of evolution explain nothing about intelligently designed functions of DNA processes.

True. But, since there are no such functions, that's not a problem.

What? DNA processes serve no purpose or function? Do we have a language problem here, Jose?

I think we do have a language problem here. You spoke specifically of intelligently designed functions (see my highlight in blue above). I merely noted that there are no such functions (i.e. intelligently designed). Behe and Dembski speculate that there are, and even do some math to pretend that they have scientific support for their speculation, but all they do is show that their own, private models of evolution cannot create the things they discuss. They have yet to address the theory of evolution itself. Since they have not done so, there is no reason to abandon it in favor of magic.

Not according to bio-chemists like Michael Behe. How are DNA processes naturally or 'sexually selected," Jose?

Well, first of all, there's another language thing here. DNA is a chemical, not a process. This makes it somewhat difficult to figure out just what you mean. However, maybe this will suffice:

Garter snakes eat salamanders (among other things). On the west coast, there are some populations of salamanders that produce tetrodotoxin (TTX), which is the same toxin that pufferfish make. If a snake eats one of these poisonous salamanders, it becomes paralyzed--but if the paralysis isn't too severe (not too much toxin), the snake spits out the salamander before swallowing it completely.

The snakes that are in the same regions as these toxic salamanders turn out to be resistant to the toxin. It's kinda like natural selection has operated here, selecting mutant snakes that can tolerate the toxin.

TTX binds to a sodium channel protein in neurons, blocking the ability of the channel to pass sodium through the neuron membrane. Therefore, TTX makes neurons not work--hence the paralysis. The mutant snakes happen to have mutations in the gene that codes for the sodium receptor. The DNA mutations, obviously, change the amino acid sequence of the protein. Here's some of the data:

snake pop'n.......amino acid sequence of protein..........TTX tolerance
Bear Lake.........IFNETFGNSIICLFEITTSAGWDGLLN........tolerates 3.6 units TTX
Warrenton........IFNETFGNSIICLFEIVTSAGWDGLLN.......tolerates 15.2 units TTX
Benton.............IFNETFGNSIICLFEIVTSAAWDGLLN.......tolerates 34.1 units TTX
Willow Creek.....IFNETFGNSILCLFEIVTSAGWNVLLN......tolerates 730 units TTX

from Geffeney et al, Nature 434:759 (2005)

The I-to-V mutation (blue; a change of A to G in the DNA) is in all three resistant populations; it appears to have occurred at least twice. The G-to-A mutation (red; a change of a G to an C in the DNA) seems to make the protein additionally resistant to TTX. The other mutations (green; A to C, G to A, and G to T in the DNA) make the protein even more resistant. Statistical considerations suggest that it would be highly unlikely that all of these DNA changes occurred at once. Therefore, it is reasonable that the I-to-V mutation occurred first, and the other mutations occurred later--that is, the mutations "accumulated" over time.

Well, here's some molecular evolution for you. Even if Behe can fool the judge, he can't fool Mother Nature.

[Glee]

Ummm, dont know if anyone caught this gem or not:

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity...

Implications?

[Grumpy]

jcrawford

I realize I am new to this forum but I have an observation about decorum in debating each other.

I am greatly offended to be called a fascist, a racist and a communist(neo-Darwinist and Marxist-Leninist ) simply because I would insist that only science be taught in a public school science classroom, not just any pseudoscientific, superstition based, belief system which cannot or will not comply with the scientific method.

Besides homilies about people who live in glass houses and stonings for relatively minor offenses it is incredible to me that I am expected to agree to disagree agreeably while you are free to slander and insult me whenever you feel like it. Both evolution and religion have been used by evil people for evil purposes but until I express a belief in the above mentioned evil ideologies I will insist that, according to the rules of this forum, you refrain from using those labels to describe me or those who agree with my viewpoint. I really do not care what opinion you have of mr, nor do I want to hear it, but you will maintain a civil manner just as I am expected to do.

Grumpy

[McCulloch]

Ummm, dont know if anyone caught this gem or not:

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity...

Implications?

Creation Scientists will continue to avoid peer review. Their approach is not really science.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford

I realize I am new to this forum but I have an observation about decorum in debating each other.

I am greatly offended to be called a fascist, a racist and a communist(neo-Darwinist and Marxist-Leninist ) simply because I would insist that only science be taught in a public school science classroom, not just any pseudoscientific, superstition based, belief system which cannot or will not comply with the scientific method.

Since you are new to the forum, please be advised that it is not my intention to call any of my fellow-posters fascists, racists, communists or Marxist-Leninists, even if they do align themselves with the neo-Darwinist camp. I reserve the distinction of name-calling for the leading expositors of neo-Darwinism, and if they happen to be your scientific idols, then I can appreciate your sensitivities but can do nothing to assuage them.

I'm simply trying to draw your attention to the racial apsects and implications of neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution in Africa in high hopes and expectations that such racial theories concerning human origins may be reasonably modified by neo-Darwinists themselves before they are banned in public education altogether.

Besides homilies about people who live in glass houses and stonings for relatively minor offenses it is incredible to me that I am expected to agree to disagree agreeably while you are free to slander and insult me whenever you feel like it. Both evolution and religion have been used by evil people for evil purposes but until I express a belief in the above mentioned evil ideologies I will insist that, according to the rules of this forum, you refrain from using those labels to describe me or those who agree with my viewpoint. I really do not care what opinion you have of mr, nor do I want to hear it, but you will maintain a civil manner just as I am expected to do.
Grumpy

Yes, of course, Grumpy. We're not targeting individual personalities here, and there is no need to take personal offense to anything posted by others since Jose and I have already agreed to discuss neo-Darwinist theories of human evolution from both a creationist and evolutionist viewpoint. I'm sure that you appreciate the fact, Grumpy, that intelligent people like ourselves should refrain from ad hominem comments about each other and confine ourselves to simply examining, investigating, questioning and offering opposing points of view concerning any data, beliefs or theories which are being discussed, debated and in some instances, hotly contested.

After all, I'm the only creationist on the forum, and if I depart, the other posters will have no one to argue with but themselves. Try to be a little nicer to me in your next post. Ok, buddy?