PZ Myers. 2005 Dec 20. Thank you, Michael Behe. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/thank_you_michael_behe/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 04.
Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Thank you, Michael Behe
Michael Behe has previously commented on his testimony in the Kitzmiller trial. He felt good about it; in fact, he thought it was exhilarating and fun.
I haven't the foggiest idea how the Judge will rule, but I think we got to show a lot of people that ID is a very serious idea.
Hmmmm…I wonder, what did the judge think of his testimony? Do you think there might be a way to, you know, find out?
Let's look in his decision for references to Behe! As it turns out, we owe a debt of gratitude to the good doctor of ID for the invaluable assistance of his testimony.
Here are a few choice quotes from Judge Jones' decision that specifically cite Behe's testimony.
Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the "purposeful arrangement of parts" is the same one that Paley made for design.
Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God.
Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.
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.
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. 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.
What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.
Moreover, cross-examination revealed that Professor Behe's redefinition of the blood-clotting system was likely designed to avoid peer- reviewed scientific evidence that falsifies his argument, as it was not a scientifically warranted redefinition.
We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.
As Plaintiffs aptly submit to the Court, throughout the entire trial only one piece of evidence generated by Defendants addressed the strength of the ID inference: the argument is less plausible to those for whom God's existence is in question, and is much less plausible for those who deny God's existence.
The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues." (P-721). A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used.
Behe's right. That was fun!
Here's an even more fun part. Behe thought one part of the cross-examination was such a slam dunk for him, that he singled it out for bragging:
The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster. At one point the lawyer for the other side who was cross examining me ostentatiously piled a bunch of papers on the witness stand that putatively had to do with the evolution of the immune system. But it was obvious from a cursory examination that they were more examples of hand waving speculations, which I had earlier discussed in my direct testimony. So I was able to smile and say that they had nothing more to say than the other papers. I then thought to myself, that here the NCSE, ACLU, and everyone in the world who is against ID had their shot to show where we were wrong, and just trotted out more speculation. It actually made me feel real good about things.
Oh, yeah. I can picture Behe waving away a stack of research articles with a supercilious smirk, dazzling the judge with his confidence. How do you think it was interpreted?
In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."
We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.
Ouch. Backfire.
This is terribly unseemly. I'm sitting here reading the decision, chortling to myself, when I really do have work to do. But it's so darned good! I feel like I ought to just quote all 139 pages and be done with it!
-
I'm left wondering whether Behe was rolling a pair of steel ball bearings as he testified.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 01:18 PM
-
Very much enjoyed your excerpts. thanks for taking the time to do it. 58 articles not enough, hmmm? I'm so glad Judge Jones is as intelligent as he is, that he can see through the smoke and mirrors of ID. And I'm also so glad that he was a Dubya appointee.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 01:21 PM
-
Thank you for not working...fantastic reading; and I get it in cliff notes.
What's even more fun is trying to come up with how the DI can spin Judge Jones's opinion to their favor. The inanities involved in that should be limitless. - thanks dr. myers for doing the hard work of culling the nuggets from the judge's ruling. god protect us from the god freaks!
- Jones deserves more than praise. He deserves to be recognized as a shining star in the legal profession. In a perfect world, he'd be on the shortlist of Supreme Court nominees (but please, let's not threadjack). The science blogosphere has been following this trial for months, and then Jones comes out with his decision and it's all spot in. It's all written so efficiently and perfectly that all of us put together could never have said it in quite the way that he said it. And the way he said it was f*#%ing awesome.
-
"The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster" Holy S--t, Behe isn't just delusional, he's DELUSIONAL. Wow. I could actually find it in my heart to feel sorry for a guy who's that far out to lunch. On second thought- naaah, screw him.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 01:51 PM
- Thank you. This is a real service to the community.
-
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3107&program=CSC - Views and News
Didn't take the DI long to start their swift-boating of Judge Jones.
Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:18 PM -
<quote>In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty-eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not "good enough."
We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution.</quote>
I've been making that point for years. We cannot prove today that the immune system or blood clotting systems can even work "naturalistically". Our modelling capabilities are not up to the task.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:21 PM -
If I was Bill Gates, I'd be wondering what the hell good it does to give money to the Discovery Institute right about now.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:29 PM
-
Manual trackback: http://stephenfrug.blogspot.com/2005/12/seeing-through-lies.html -- focusing on the level of lying on the creationist side which Judge Jones's ruling demonstrates.
#: Posted by Stephen Frug on 12/20 at 02:35 PM
-
Yes, thanks. I know it's evil to gloat, but just a little can't hurt. Poor, poor Dr. Buhu.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:39 PM
-
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/jonesbio.htm
Judge Jones was appointed to his current position by President George W. Bush in February, 2002, and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on July 30, 2002
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:40 PM -
If I was Bill Gates, I'd be wondering what the hell good it does to give money to the Discovery Institute right about now.
Equal opportunity philanthropy? He's got so much that he has to support every view available.
I mean, seriously, the man started his charity with $16 billion and I think he's given at least $75 billion so far. It might be even higher.
I mean goodnees gracious he has a shitload of money. -
Behe's just so transparent. He "had fun". If that were true, would he actually have to tell us? It wouldn't be obvious? He protests far too much that he's not having the ghastly time that the dolt deserves to be having, so I think we have every reason to suspect that his ego is taking a severe bruising.
Anyhow, he was given something of a pass in the past, for various reasons. It's not amusing any more, however. The "cheeriness" is painful and forced (like Berlinski's "humor"), the old handwave at all of the evidence is infantile, and the general obtuseness of the man is appalling.
I love the drubbing given him by the judge. We should give him some sort of token for his awesome role in making the decision go so decidedly and absolutely against Behe's pseudoscience. We really couldn't have as much fun at this as we do sometimes have (today especially) without the ludicrous antics of the DI wizards.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:41 PM -
Maybe dubya will nominate Judge Jones for the Supreme Court vacancy...
Somehow after this ruling I think not.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:42 PM -
I read with growing delight every one of the 139 pages of Judge Jones's decision. It was as good as I could have possibly imagined, demolishing point by point and witness by witness everything the defendants presented. Of course, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC will say whatever they have to say; but they're dead men walking.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 02:44 PM
-
I also thank you for going through all the decision so we can get the snippets to make it more enticing to read the whole thing. Because you are causing me to want to read the whole thing.
Between waking up to seeing this on the front page of the BBC site to reading your breakdown of it I have just felt so freaking HAPPY today.
You rock. Seriously. -
Maybe Behe is really one of us. Its hard to imagine any other witness so forcefully demonstrating the pure stupidity of ID.
Or maybe he's really as dumb as he seems... -
The big question is: is it enough to get Behe released from the faculty of science at Lehigh since it has been some years since he's published a scientific paper?
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 04:13 PM
-
No, he's not going to lose his job over this, nor should he.
I don't think he's going to get invited to testify at any creationist trials in the future, though, and I hope his book sales tank. -
Oh MAN, I am supposed to be cramming for two final exams tomorrow and all I can do is sit here and enjoy the show. Thank you so much for posting all this, and to everyone who has contributed so far. This has made my week -- month -- at least! I recently did a paper on ID for a philosophy of science course , and quoted Behe's Dover testimony to help demolish any pretense that ID has to being a "paradigm shift" or anything else remotely to do with science ... glad the good Judge saw it my way! LOL Love and kisses, an Evolutionist Christian
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 04:31 PM
-
#54435: David Wilford — 12/20 at 02:29 PM
If I was Bill Gates, I'd be wondering what the hell good it does to give money to the Discovery Institute right about now.
The Gates Foundation money was not for IDC purposes, it was for a traffic study of the Seattle area. Still, I hope he regrets giving them any money which aids their continued existence and anti-science activity, and discontinues such grants in the future.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 04:41 PM -
Did Behe not notice the evidence of lying by DSB members? His own testimony may have been stunning, but hitching your wagon to a sinking ship isn't safe.
By the end of the trial, were ID proponents disavowing attachments to the case due on DSB behavior? Have they since then?#: Posted by on 12/20 at 05:18 PM -
Delightful stuff, thanks for digging it out! Merry Kitzmiller to all!
#: Posted by Milo Johnson on 12/20 at 05:57 PM
-
So let's sum up.
Discovery Center claims 28 peer reviewed or peer "edited" articles and books, for the entire science of ID mind you, constitutes a sound scientific basis.
This versus 58 peer-reviewed publications, 9 books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of just one system, which of course can be waved away as nothing.
Yeah Mike, that went real well.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 06:01 PM -
If I was Bill Gates, I'd be wondering what the hell good it does to give money to the Discovery Institute right about now.
Tax write-off. Nothing more, nothing less.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 06:09 PM -
The technical legal considerations are excellent too. It's a trial court decision and isn't binding on another court. But courts in any common law jurisdiction are free to cite any relevant opinion, and any judges at the trial court or appellate level will read over this decision before making up their minds. Judge Jones did a meticulous job of going through the defense's arguments and demolishing them one by one. It was also good to see the Wedge Project exposed in the public record.
It will be interesting to see if they try to appeal. It sounds like the current School Board won't go for it, even with an outside subsidy. Their best strategy is probably to find a friendly jurisdiction, or just hang it up and keep complaining about the godless judiciary. Or give up on biochemistry and concoct a Sudden Appearance Theory.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 06:11 PM -
Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
It sounds rather like some of them are making this a sort of mystery - a deliberate test of their faith. Ie: if they can convince themselves that they believe in something as fantastical and against the evidence as ID is, then they can magically do N other implausible things, or declare themselves to be the true thingummies of whatever.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 06:37 PM -
"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."
Looks like we shouldn't thank Behe, but that "God" dude. He seems to be on the side of the righteous.
"This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."
Which just proves they haven't read the ruling even though it is important for setting sane boundaries on the separation of science and their religion. Honorable Judge Jones (seemed like a fitting title, his ruling really rocks) anticipated the very same saying.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 06:47 PM -
Professor Behe may have been the best thing to happen to ID, ever. He truly managed to show how vacuous the science of ID that DI and TMLC support is. The TMLC lawyer was talking as if this were a trivial setback, but it is clear from the decision that ID as currently sold is dead in the United States. Jones covered all the bases three times over.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 06:48 PM
-
I like his description of the (former) Dover School Board's decision as "breath-taking inanity".
CCN has nice coverage: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/LAW/12/20/intelligent.design/index.html#: Posted by rob stowell on 12/20 at 06:49 PM -
And this is nice: "Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court," Jones writes.
"Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on intelligent design, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy," he said.#: Posted by rob stowell on 12/20 at 06:50 PM -
The Gates Foundation money was not for IDC purposes, it was for a traffic study of the Seattle area. Still, I hope he regrets giving them any money which aids their continued existence and anti-science activity, and discontinues such grants in the future.
Oddly, this is almost the same argument Alan Bonsell used on the stand in KvD: the money that Buckingham gave his father wasn't to buy the books because his father was doing that anyway; similarly, the money that Gates gave DI wasn't to do with the ID because they'd be doing that anyway.
Of course, Gates explained what the money was for and Bonsell couldn't. Bill's foundation does some good things, at worst I'd call the donation ill-advised, its clear from the DI's website where they're spending their money.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 07:29 PM -
Read the whole decision and it was simply marvelous! If ever I need a distilled reference on main points in this issue that document is where to look for it.
I just wish they would make a teddybear Judge Jones for everyone to buy and hug! Awww.
#: Posted by on 12/20 at 07:37 PM -
I don't know if Behe was included, but Judge Jones mentioned “Outright lies under oath.”
I have a long blog post which lists most of Judge Jones’ most telling comments, indexed by page number in the PDF.
Let’s put it this way: If Jones is telling Behe he doesn’t even have a firm grasp on his own centerpiece of ID, the idea of “irreducible complexity,” ID now has zero credibility. Period.#: Posted by SocraticGadfly on 12/20 at 07:41 PM -
With all the laugh-out-loud stupid comments the IDers make, the laugh-out-loud witty rebuttals from you and all the blogs I read, and the splendid upholding of one of my country's principles, I think I've already gotten more than I hoped for for Decemberween.
But you can still send me presents anyway. The address is:
123 Fake St.
Springfield, QZ, United States -
http://www.argonaut.uidaho.edu/content/view/575/37/
Well, we are all having fun with the foolishness of Behe, but he had help in the form of his jester Minnich. The man purports to be a scientist and is willing to waddle out in public and show his quackery.
The University of Idaho has some explaining to do.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 08:03 PM -
"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution."
We have ourselves a winner!!!
Someone needs to grab this phrase, place it in glass, and pull it out whenever creationist rightwingers go around asking for 10 billion proofs to justify evolution while their own has less than 1.
MYOB'
.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 08:07 PM -
I read <a href="http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3107&program=CSC - Views and News">the DI's press release</a>, and guess what?
I saw a lot of stupid-ass hot-air verbiage similar to the representative excerpt that PZ posted in the last thread, and lots of whining about the evil Dover voters kicking the IDers off the school board. But I saw nothing, nothing, that would indicate any desire to take this case to the appellate level. (And of course, absolutely no lengthy quotes from, or links to, the judge's decision -- goodness gracious, you'd think that the Discovery Institute people are afraid of people 'discovering' just what the judge said about them!)
Nosiree, the DI ding-dongs are going to go venue-shopping now for their next test case. They need to find a place that has both a compliant school board AND an idiot judge of the Roy "Ten Commandments" Moore flavor. Much, MUCH cheaper, and much safer strategically, than going the appeals court route and risking an asskicking that holds nationwide.
But they'd better make sure that they get one HELL of a corrupt and/or stupid judge, because Judge Jones has set one HELL of a precedent that exposes the Discovery Institute's legal strategy as a pack of lies; and their primary "expert witness", Michael Behe, is likewise exposed as a ridiculous airhead whose testimony undermines the ID cause.
My own prediction: They'll try venue-shopping, get their asses kicked again, then try retooling ID into something else, and then find themselves totally out in the cold as the pendulum swings back towards the reality-based community.#: Posted by Phoenix Woman on 12/20 at 09:02 PM -
The last two quotes, Behe's recitation of the immune system exchange and the Judge's version, demonstrate that ID proponents, like most religious zealots, are clearly delusional. They live in a fantasy land.
#: Posted by Martin Striz on 12/20 at 09:44 PM
-
Behe isn't so much delusional as he is a victim the environment he helped create. In professional surroundings you are as likely as not, to have dissent over ideas. Even fundamental concepts are likely to get an occasional thrashing.
Behe has so surrounded himself with sycophants who take him on faith. They WANT to believe him. He had fun, and thought he nailed the cross (examination) because in his world, a little swagger, a wave of the hand, and he perseveres. He never saw it coming.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 09:57 PM -
The big question is: is it enough to get Behe released from the faculty of science at Lehigh since it has been some years since he's published a scientific paper?
Also remember, Behe is tenured at Lehigh. So this won't cost him his job. He's already a pariah there (all his fellow department members signed a statement disowning him), so his status there can't go much lower. But his speaking engagements will probably dry up.#: Posted by on 12/20 at 10:08 PM -
I don't think he's going to get invited to testify at any creationist trials in the future, though, and I hope his book sales tank.
Oh no, I think they'll love him. They'll hail him as a martyr.
Remember, religious believers don't base their beliefs in fact, so they're not good at updating their beliefs when new facts come along. And they certainly won't change their beliefs over what some judge said. They'll just attack the judge. As indeed they already are.#: Posted by on 12/21 at 01:05 AM -
"The University of Idaho has some explaining to do."
Well, UI president Tim White recently declared that there would be no teaching of ID in science classes at the UI, so I'm happy.#: Posted by on 12/21 at 01:10 AM -
Absolutely wonderful decision, this has made this the best week in ages for me. Getting my scholarship, my new giant microbes and now this: It's awesome all the way.
#: Posted by Joseph ODonnell on 12/21 at 02:00 AM
-
Oh no, I think they'll love him. They'll hail him as a martyr.
Not so sure. He is also now a loser, and the IDC crowd just might be getting tired of that...#: Posted by on 12/21 at 02:17 AM -
I think some of you are misunderstanding Behe. He's playing to an audience, and it's not you. He doesn't care what you think, or what you see. His target audience will see only what they want to see, and his words are targeted to help them do that.
I'm also fairly sure he's someone who's completely, amorally comfortable with lying, at least in this one area. I think he simply doesn't care what's true or not, or what's right or not. He has no feelings for it, so caring about it never passes through his head.
We should probably save the lambasting, the anger on his behalf. Don't even hope he'll one day see the error of his ways. He doesn't seem to be wired that way. (Think of Dustin Hoffman's Rain Man, only instead of an intellectually-challenged man with narrow but extreme mental gifts, think of the reverse, someone who seems otherwise normal, but who has narrow but extreme mental shortcomings.)
Picture Behe not as a person to deal with, but more as something on the order of simple bad weather. You don't waste time shouting at bad weather, or marveling at its astonishing lack of feelings or reason. You just ... act in such a way that it can't hurt you. You make the bad weather irrelevent to your own desires and well-being. -
I like this Behe reference in the judgement:
"Professor Behe’s only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies. (23:73 (Behe))."
Not only has Behe dumbed down science by allowing astrology in, his defense of the design inference is defended on the grounds that it "works" in science-FICTION. I can't stop laughing when I read that part.#: Posted by Heathen Dan on 12/21 at 05:45 AM -
A wise comment, Hank. Spin, and the spun opinions of the public, are often more momentous than mere fact, especially in fora such as public schools. 'Tis life, and we have to deal with it.
But there are at least two good reasons to deal with Behe and his ilk as something other than unchangeable bad weather. One- exposing Behe and ID the way this trial did is something many people can understand. Two- it's fun, and we should occasionally not begrudge ourselves a bit of fun.#: Posted by on 12/21 at 05:54 AM -
Well, there's no way that the PRESENT Dover school board is going to appeal this decision; they're already on the hook for the judgement (and the plaintiff's legal fees!)...
..but it does seem a bit of a shame that the new school board has to come up with the money for the previous member's blatent IDiocy.
Can the current school board sue the previous board members for misadministration (malfeasance, barratry, whatever the right term is), to help cover the costs that they've loaded the board and the Dover taxpayers with?
Although, tar, feathers, and being run out of town on a rail would also be an appropriate response.#: Posted by on 12/21 at 07:31 AM -
"I'm also fairly sure he's someone who's completely, amorally comfortable with lying, at least in this one area. I think he simply doesn't care what's true or not, or what's right or not. He has no feelings for it, so caring about it never passes through his head."
Are you saying that Behe shows a sociopath's behaviour?#: Posted by on 12/21 at 08:51 AM -
What can we say? This is a resounding victory for reason. When reason was applied to the ID argument, ID's legs were broken. The veil has been ripped away from this attack on naturalism.
#: Posted by on 12/21 at 09:51 AM
-
Just a clarification: who pays the bills for the lawyers in this case? I'm worried that this approach of inane court procedings could also fit into another "wedgy" strategy - Norquist's idea to bankrupt the US government.
#: Posted by Keith Douglas on 12/21 at 09:54 AM
-
Sadly, I think the ID crowd may have won plenty of points with their constituents regardless of the outcome. Most people with a passion for, or even genuine interest in science know enough about the scientific process, the actual definition of "theory" and so on that they were unlikely to be swayed by the trial. For those without the tools to tell facts from feces, the mere suggestion that "we don't know everything" can easily lead to the opinion that "we can't really know anything", ergo, "God did it". Enough talk about anything, no matter how false, can leave lingering impressions. For example, U.S. politicians continue to assert the falsehood that 9/11 terrorists entered the country via Canada [including Montana Senator Conrad Burns just this week].
I guess, then, it's that much more important that the "right" side continues to talk as well, whether in blogs like this, through mainstream media, or 'on the street'.#: Posted by on 12/21 at 10:09 AM -
#54510: Brian Ewins — 12/20 at 07:29 PM
...
Of course, Gates explained what the money was for and Bonsell couldn't. Bill's foundation does some good things, at worst I'd call the donation ill-advised, its clear from the DI's website where they're spending their money.
I have some thoughts on that, which are only speculation:
Near the end of the previous administration, you may recall that MicroSpank was on the ropes for illegal monopolistic practices. Conservative Republicans take over the White House, and then the monopoly lawsuit is made to mysteriously disappear. Do you think that comes without a price? Naturally, a large gift to a specific political party or politician would appear suspicious, so perhaps there are suggestions about which charities they might look favorably upon.#: Posted by on 12/21 at 10:10 AM - Nice to see that the Wedge Project exposed in the public record.
-
It's funny to think that in roughly a month of testimony, Behe and others did more to nuke the ID movement back to the stone age than it and Creation Science have been advanced since the founding of ICR, AiG and all the other pseudoscience institutions.
Isn't it obvious to ID proponents that every time religion has stuck it's foot in the doorway of empirical reasoning, it has only left itself wide open to scrutiny that easily reveals its own flaws? By trying to legitimize Biblical Creationism, the eventual effect I think will be more awareness of the absurdity of reading not just Genesis, but any chapter of the Bible as anything more than colorful metaphor.
To paraphrase Roger Ebert's review of "Armageddon"...
Intelligent Design and Creationism "got blowed up real good."#: Posted by Rubin Safaya on 12/21 at 03:47 PM -
I think we (the non-creationists) all sensed the fallacies in ID and the sheer underhanded way it was being pushed as science. But no one could have expressed it more precisely than Judge Jones when he rips apart all that ID sophistry with precise to-the-point rebukes. I had no idea who judge jones was until this point. But this piece of writing clearly shows an intellect that I could never hope to match. I bow before him.
#: Posted by on 12/22 at 01:47 AM
-
What a lot of ID advocates fundamentally do not understand, is that it does not matter whether or not intelligent design is correct or not. What does matter is that intelligent design is NOT science, because the conclusions are reached a priori instead of purely empirically.
I do not know where these "professors" teach, but I hope it isn't at any accredited school!#: Posted by on 12/22 at 02:27 AM -
I also read the whole decision (it's pleasure to read--gives me new faith in the legal system). Jones made at least two cogent points which have not been discussed so far, and ought to be.
The first is that the establishment clause is meant to ensure theological neutrality. Not atheism, as those with an agenda would have us believe. Neutrality. Ideally, its agents neither advance nor disparage any faith (or lack thereof). Government agents, including public school teachers, take no official position on matters of religion. Calling this atheism is a straw man.
The second point is that he emphasizes the use of false dichotomy in ID arguments, such as implying that any incompleteness in the Darwinian theory of evolution is scientific evidence for ID. It strikes me that the use of false dichotomy is a common theme in extremist religious sophistry, and increasingly in political rhetoric. Examples: Without (my particular) religion, the world would be without meaning, or there could be no moral or ethical behavior. Families are either religious or dysfunctional. You're with us or you're against us. A vote against ID is a vote against God. Those who are not (my particular flavor of) Christian are Godless athiest communists.#: Posted by on 12/22 at 04:43 AM -
Thanks for the great summary of the findings of this case. Makes fascinating and encouraging reading. Of course, here in Australia, we have to convince Dubya's little mate, our Prime Miniature Howard, of the validity of the judge's ruling.
PM Howard kisses Dubya's fanny at every opportunity, and so is unlikely to be convinced by this sensible, rational judgment. Interestingly, Australia has in its Constitution a nearly identical clause re the (non)teaching of religion in state-run schools; however, our government's twisted interpretation of that is "it means the government mustn't formulate its own 'religion' and each it in schools".#: Posted by on 12/22 at 05:11 AM -
So the Evo's say, hey it ain't all that complicated. We are smart enough to where we can figure it out. And I guess I am supposed to believe that they just about have the start of the universe figured too. Yet it wasn't all that long ago that scientists that studied such things, were only trained in Uniformitarianism. Catastrophism was a no no. Why? Because it was akin to what those who believed in the Bible believed. So, you were more or less supposed to be thought of as an idiot if you believed in Catastrophism. Well, what happens? Back in 1995, I am watching NOVA and they have this little program about Venus. I think it was called Venus Unveiled. Well its all about how the Uniformitarianism guys had the chair pulled out from under them. On top of just about every single scientific program you see on public t.v. now days is about Catasrophic this or that. Some major meteor, or caldera, or tidal wave, or planet hitting earth to form the moon --- on and on and on. A whole lot of crow to eat with regards to their oh so scientific certainties about Uniformitarianism. Then again, as long as it is the scientific community saying we were wrong (which they don't like to do in public) it is okay. But if it is an outsider that points out that they were wrong - whoa!
Remember how the scientific community thought the doctor from Australia was nuts for saying that some ulcers were caused by bacteria. Opps. Wrong again weren't they. But, we must not talk about that. You know, with all this tremendous knowledge these guys have, you would think they could make a simple anti-acid that would take care of everybody. But what do I read two days ago? My chances have increased by 50%, if I take Zantac, that I will get an uncontrollable case of the squats.
Yeah, you guys have it all figured out alright.
P.S. how about the duzy of Punctuated Equilibria some of your buddies came up with awhile back. I guess if you believe in this pop-corn theory of evolution, you could believe in just about anything. And they say it takes faith to believe in religion?!!!! Face it, you got your religion, and others have theirs.#: Posted by on 12/22 at 05:13 AM -
It would the judge's further remarks re S. Fuller.
He is a historian of science that I previously had a good deal of respect for (and who I have argued with occasionally on the HOPOS mailing list). I nearly choked on my cheerios when I heard he was testifying for the fundies. Hope the judge gave him a good spanking as well.#: Posted by on 12/22 at 06:36 AM -
Of course God created the universe, but like many others here, I thank Judge Jones for stating so clearly that belief in God is no substitute for scientific knowledge.
The many religious bodies that have clearly disavowed Intelligent Design as representing their beliefs deserve as much respect as the Creationists. -
God told me just this morning that he too greatly enjoyed reading the decision. He said he is furious at the ID crowd for denigrating his invention of evolution, of which he is justly proud.
#: Posted by on 12/22 at 09:51 AM
-
Hi All, The following is a letter which I wrote today to the kind folks over at Discovery Institute. I breathlessly await the response of the good people at DI. Merry Kitzmiller to all - that's great!
<B>
Thank God. The tide of tortured, idealogically motivated efforts to insert religion into public school science classrooms has been soundly beaten back to the hinterlands of fundamentalist Christian America from whence it came.
<B>
As a high school Physics teacher and practicing Catholic, I am reminded of the somewhat famous case that the Catholic Church fought against Galileo in 1633. The Church learned in the wake of its supression of Galileo's writings that it was wrong. Simply, unarguably wrong. And so it is with "intelligent design", that ill-begotten stepchild of creationism. Fundamentalist Christians would serve their communities far better by focusing on building strong minds and spirits through this central message: Jesus did not come to tell us how the world works! He came to provide a lasting example of how to live!
All that is now left for the people of Dover, PA is a legacy of public embarassment and financial liability. If your organization has the courage that your website seems to suggest, you will offer to cover the legal fees incurred by the district, which I read are in excess of $1,000,000. Mssrs. Bonsell and Buckingham may be able to use your support as well - their record of perjury is a quite real and serious matter, and does not deserve to be laughed off.
Seriously - get a real issue if you want to make the world a better place - your methods of subterfuge and word manipulation may satisfy your narrow fundamentalist Christian audience, but our world remains full of need.
Sincerely,
Gary Smith
Boston,MA#: Posted by on 12/22 at 10:01 AM -
To you science-minded folks: I would not gloat too much or too long. The court battle was won, but the real battle will take place in the hearts and minds of the public, and in Congress and the White House. So long as the uneducated and undereducated dismiss Darwinian evolution, and indeed look at it as a threat to fundamental Christian doctrine, they will continue to battle over education. Home schooling, charter schools, voucher programs and attacks on the public school system thru defunding are all a means to an end - to put a stop to rationalist thought. Before your ardor abates, consider getting active in local school poliltics. You can bet, the pro-ID people are already drawing up candidate slates and raising money.
#: Posted by on 12/22 at 10:35 AM
-
I'm sure Dr. Behe was designed, the only open question is whether it was intelligent.
-
"How Goes It" makes the point that the failed endeavor of science, which features venturing into the unknown, making mistakes, and then learning from those mistakes in an attempt to gain new knowledge and make progress, is a bad thing.
Far better to live in the safe, easy, absolute certainty of a holy book. That way, you can confidently sneer at anybody trying anything new and different. And you can do it while taking advantage of all the biblically-inspired advances which have come before, such as computers and medicine. -
I will forever be indebted to Judge Jones for contributing that most delightful phrase "breathtaking inanity" to our language.
And, I highly recommend reading the entire 139 page ruling. I did not intend to read th whole thing when I downloaded it but I couldn't stop. Every bit of it is superb.
jt#: Posted by on 12/22 at 02:49 PM -
Dear Hank Fox,
The jest of what I was trying to convey, had nothing to do with not wanting to experiment. It had nothing to do with not wanting to try and learn something we didn't know. It did have everything to do with having a fat head about who knows best, and also about living in absolute utter fear of exposing ones offspring to an alternate or opposing point of view. When was the last time you heard of a four paragraph statement that was to be read once at the start of a semester to school kids, strike such terror into the community of supposed elite scientists?
First off, I love people experimenting for many reasons, if not only in order to come up with a better mouse trap. I probably could have bought a new home a few years back with all the money I spent on processors, analyzers, signal generators, meters, blah, blah, blah. I eat this stuff up. I love it. No fear here. Got something new and great - I'd love to know about it. Experiment away. Please. I want you to.
Point I was trying to get across was, that science is not as smart as it would like all to believe. They blow it. A lot. Tons. They do experiment after experiment, test after test, and many times, fail in their sincere endeavor to come up with a solution to their problem. But every now and then, they get it right or have a breakthrough --------------- sort of -- remember, you have to make sure and read all the warnings on those bottles of medicine or disclaimers on whatever product you bought. That is, they never seem to work out all the bugs. Not the absolute masters of the trade that many would like you to believe.
Science, in a sense, is the best they could come up with, for the moment, based upon all that is known. It can certainly be improved upon. The 'best they know' certainly changes with time. What the science world ALLOWS OR MANDATES TO BE CONVEYED AS absolute truth at this time, may not be what is conveyed as absolute truth in a few years.
Being as a lot a science buffs tend to like Star Trek, maybe you remember when the crew went back in time to San Francisco to pick up some whales. Remember when Checkov was hurt and the doctors of our current day where going to do something like drill holes in his head or whatever. McCoy says something like "My God. You guys are practicing voodoo medicine" or something vaguely to that effect. Point being -- what is known as science today, maybe more than laughable tomorrow.
And sooooooo, why don't we make a truce. I won't think of you as a clown, if you don't think of me as stupid. Maybe, just maybe, there is a different point of view with some merit. What may be absolute to you, may not be so with me. I can live with it if you can.
One more thing, I am not so afraid that the children will not be able to develop any deductive reasoning in order to help them decipher a better way. That I or anyone tells them that - "you know, not all people believe this" well, I don't think the whole system is going to come crashing down if that happens. Frankly, I believe there are tons of other stuff that is far more threatening.#: Posted by on 12/22 at 04:54 PM -
One request of all of you who - like me - agree that this was a remarkable and, in many ways heroic, decision by a judge who will be derided (as he well knew in advance and spoke to): Thank the lawyers.
In Midsummer's Night Dream (I think), one of Shakespeare's characters - his name is Dick - makes the famous statement, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." People love that saying, without knowing any more about its context than the context of evolution: It was the statement of a tyrant-to-be, fomenting revolution, whose plan, once in power, was to eliminate those most capable of knowing how to use the law to protect the rights of those who would otherwise be denied them by despots.
Here, lawyers - who will have received death threats and who may jeopardize much of their personal careers - and a judge (a lawyer promoted to decide such cases) have devastatingly prevented this bunk from infecting not one set of schools, but probably thousands. And yes, they beat other lawyers (I happen to know Richard Thompson and yes, he really IS a jerk), but our justice system, often derided, worked, and it worked through the efforts of lawyers protecting our rights.
So next time someone cracks wise about a lawyer, think about this case. And tell them, "Hey...they make our lives better and safer too, sometimes."
When I get down to pray tonight, I'll say a prayer of thanks for this decision...and for the efforts of my brethren in the Bar.
Russ E. Boltz
Attorney at Law#: Posted by on 12/22 at 08:20 PM -
I believe three things:
1) God is the connective tissue between us, each other, and the rest of the universe.
2) It is human to seek these connections.
3) I could be wrong about 1 and/or 2 above.
Behe lost nothing. His audience will only listen to what ever he spinns as truth. The danger is in letting one man or group 'pocket' the 'Truth'.
Believing in God isn't the issue, it's believing Behe and the likes of men that would use religion to control politics. Believing in God is good religion. Believeing in the Scientific Method is good science. Jones got it right.
I would task everyone on this blog to seek out a Fundamenalist Christian, Jew, or Muslim and work to 'convert' them. I have had great success. It takes about a year of discourse, but if you keep the conversation going, I guarantee commonsense will prevail.
The first step though, is to understand Religious doctrine, and be able to communicate in their vocabulary, and you are probably no more willing to learn that, then a good Fundie is willing to take BIO(101).
Remember: discourse, communication, connection. Peace.#: Posted by Matt Bailey on 12/22 at 10:53 PM -
Dear How Goes It: I used to have a lot more patience with people like you, but eventually I realized that, for people who can say the kinds of things you say, it's most likely a serious waste of my time to attempt to explain ... well, anything.
The language you use when you speak of science, for instance, makes me think your head is on some radical elliptical from any common orbit where we could actually discuss this stuff.
And this phrase:
“... absolute utter fear of exposing ones offspring to an alternate or opposing point of view.”
Argh. Argh, I say. (Slap forehead, roll eyes, raise hands imploringly to heavens.)
One of my flaws is impatience. For me, it seems far better to spend time and effort on people who start out open-minded and reasonable, and attempt to explain stuff to THEM, than it is to start with someone who needs a shitload of work just to get them to the open-minded and reasonable point.
And for someone who seems to have a hidden axe to grind, and I can’t even guess what the axe is ...
Well, anyway, have a nice life. -
Hank Fox,
I always love it when those so impressed with themselves, turn to insult rather than discuss the issues.
So let's summarize your response.
First paragraph -
You no longer are patient. Your time is oh so precious. You don't know how to explain.
Second paragraph -
The catchy phrase of -- radical elliptical from any common orbit
Third paragraph or section -
Argh, Argh
Forth paragraph -
You are impatient (and redundant)
You like to spend your time on an easy touch.
Fifth paragraph -
Hidden axe of which neither you or I know of.
Last line -
Have a nice life
Do you think that maybe those that choose insult over issue, is because they have nothing worthwhile to say? Yeah.
Let's see if you can string a whole line of expletives together to show that great intelligence.
Hack away big guy. I have nothing further to add to something so useless.#: Posted by on 12/23 at 03:12 AM -
I think this judgement is consternating: It is apalling that people would have to go to court to get a decision preventing religious beliefs to be presented as science. Of course, it is encouraging that the court decided in favor of science. In many other countries, the plaintifs would have been stoned...
#: Posted by on 12/23 at 03:18 AM
-
Great story guys. I've been following this story from afar, glad to see that the ID chumps have been knocked back again.
I don't understand how they can set a crazy high standard of proof for Evolution, yet in the next breath demand ID be given a hearing with no proof.#: Posted by Juan Incognito on 12/23 at 03:42 AM -
Whoa! Hold on a moment dear How Goes It
“So the Evo's say, hey it ain't all that complicated. We are smart enough to where we can figure it out.”
I’ve been teaching evolutionary biology for 20 years and it’s a mighty challenge to keep up with this ever-changing and fascinating field of research. I constantly tell my students that in 100 years scholars will look back at our current level of knowledge and snicker as we do at the quaint ideas of the 19th century. But hey, quess what, we know a lot more now than we did then
“And I guess I am supposed to believe that they just about have the start of the universe figured too.”
Hey, do you read? Cosmological questions are at the forefront of debate. String theory, the multiverse, etc, etc. are all very controversial and the subject of endless disputation. What scientist says they just about have it all figured out? Not one. But we do have a wealth of evidence that things such as evolution have occurred.
“Yet it wasn't all that long ago that scientists that studied such things, were only trained in Uniformitarianism. Catastrophism was a no no. Why? Because it was akin to what those who believed in the Bible believed. So, you were more or less supposed to be thought of as an idiot if you believed in Catastrophism. Well, what happens? Back in 1995, I am watching NOVA and they have this little program about Venus. I think it was called Venus Unveiled. Well its all about how the Uniformitarianism guys had the chair pulled out from under them. On top of just about every single scientific program you see on public t.v. now days is about Catasrophic this or that. Some major meteor, or caldera, or tidal wave, or planet hitting earth to form the moon --- on and on and on. A whole lot of crow to eat with regards to their oh so scientific certainties about Uniformitarianism. Then again, as long as it is the scientific community saying we were wrong (which they don't like to do in public) it is okay. But if it is an outsider that points out that they were wrong - whoa!”
Don’t know where to begin. The catastrophism you refer to has nothing to do with the 19th century catastrophism of Cuvier et al. That idea was theistic and based on divine intervention. So-called modern catastrophism is naturalistic and based on scientific research and the uniformitarianist paradign. Cataclysmic extraterrestrial impacts (a la the Shoemaker-Levi Comet that hit Jupiter) are natural events that leave empirical evidence behind. Volcanic events such as the Siberian Trapps that may have resulted in the Permian Extinction event leave behind empirical evidence which we study and understand based on uniformitarian principles. What I’m trying to tell you How it Goes is that you know not what of you speak.
”Remember how the scientific community thought the doctor from Australia was nuts for saying that some ulcers were caused by bacteria. Opps. Wrong again weren't they. But, we must not talk about that.”
Well guess what. We did speak of it and there was a paradigm shift.
“You know, with all this tremendous knowledge these guys have, you would think they could make a simple anti-acid that would take care of everybody. But what do I read two days ago? My chances have increased by 50%, if I take Zantac, that I will get an uncontrollable case of the squats. Yeah, you guys have it all figured out alright.”
Sorry, but science is a self-correcting methodology and as history attests when mistakes are made they are eventually corrected. How do the religionists or other know-nothings you seem to support respond to challenges to their beliefs? They you hide their heads in the sand.
”P.S. how about the duzy of Punctuated Equilibria some of your buddies came up with awhile back. I guess if you believe in this pop-corn theory of evolution, you could believe in just about anything.”
Again, you know not what of you speak. Your ignorance of the real issues continues to amaze. I won’t go into the old Punctuated Equilibrium ploy. You can read up on that yourself.
“And they say it takes faith to believe in religion?!!!! Face it, you got your religion, and others have theirs.”
No, its not a matter of faith for us, it’s a matter of reasoned argumentation, the study of empirical fact, the testing of hypotheses, the revision of theories when warranted, etc., etc. So put that in your pipe and smoke it and it might dispel the cloud of ignorance that has enveloped your mind. How does it go How Goes It?#: Posted by on 12/23 at 07:30 AM -
Well, How Goes It, you seem to have a strong need to be angry for some reason. The source or target of that anger, your posts are not making clear.
Apparently we have established that you are not a technological Luddite, however your positions seems to be that since science can never know all that religion is a better guide. That implies that testable, repeatable scientific information is inferior to centuries old tribal stories passed down in the bible..... even though many of those stories have become quaint fables which are obviously full of factual inaccuracy. But, since you dont ever explicity make this argument, I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that this may not be your position.
Instead it looks as if you might be arguing for the potential for new knowledge, or a new way of thinking under the ID paradigm. This is a tantalizing proposition, and one that the ID leaders use effectively. The lie of this is the clearly exposed tactic of taking a creationism text and replacing the references to god with 'intelligent designer'. Read the court ruling. It is right there in plain sight for all to see. They dont really believe they are creating a new way of thinking, they are just repackaging an old way. They are saying in effect that the world is too complicated for us to comprehend, so an omnipotent power must have had a hand. This is like saying the internet cant exist because it isnt centrally created and controlled. It is a false choice of models. Myriad and multiple forces act upon the earth and its many life forms, and events, mutations and adaptations lead to changes in the enviroment and those life forms ... whether or not any one of us comprehends all the details and processes, or how it all came to be.
So, we are back to that centuries old dogma being used to attack scientific thought and processes.
More science has made our world more understandable. Less religion has made our world more predictable. Every day you rely on testable, repeatable observation to conduct your life. Believe me, you dont want to return to pre Enlightenment times when life was riven with superstition, but that is exactly where the Behe's of the world would lead you, or in the Dover case, would lead your children.#: Posted by on 12/23 at 08:13 AM -
In case anybody missed it you can find THE decision, in full, here:
http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/opinions.htm#: Posted by on 12/23 at 08:20 AM -
Teaching Evolutionary Biology back in the days before Watson and Crick exploded onto the scene was mostly about fossil evidence. But in the intervening of years, every piece of scientific evidence in fields as diverse as biology, chemistry, cosmology, physics and zoology has only served to reinforce and give absolute credence to Darwin's brilliant theory. There is simply no other way to interpret all the available evidence. And Intelligent Design, as the judge's decision suggested, is not worth mentioning in the same breath. The ID court case amply demonstrated that ID as an explanation is not a theory but more in the nature of mindless blather and wishful thinking by a group of hopeless and hysterical Luddites. If Darwin hadn't come up with his idea of evolutionary theory, someone else certainly would have done so.
But with the legal dismissal of Intelligent Design as a hoax, perhaps the IDer's could turn their attention and bring their considerable, misguided energies to look at the most troubling and annoying theory of all times, the theory of God because nowhere in the history of mankind is there a more destructive theory created by the fertile imagination of man. Not a scintilla of evidence exists to support Biblical Genesis nor any other God theory of the universe's origin so it is always a mystery to me where these religious beliefs come from.
But the answer is simple, brainwashing.
And it starts with prayers. If you take any child, make them kneel alongside their bed and then project an image of a frightening ethereal figure hovering over them ready with clip board in hand to make a note of each time they touch themselves "inappropriately" or have impure thoughts, and that they will die in the fires of Hell for doing so, you have captured a mind that is evermore so fearful, that it will never question the truth of the concept. So despite all the prattle by those who have found "true" faith, belief in it, no matter it'ssupposed origins, is cultural, not spiritual nor deifically ordained.
Once you accept this and throw off the religious yoke, it is enormously enlightening. So the challenge for Ider's is to come up with an alternate explanation of the God Theory that fits all the available facts.#: Posted by on 12/23 at 04:45 PM -
Dear Sage ----
Well, How Goes It, you seem to have a strong need to be angry for some reason. The source or target of that anger, your posts are not making clear.
There is no anger. Sarcasm, yes. Holding anger towards any individual would likely affect me. Not a smart way to live. And, I actually find helping individuals is just a whole lot better for all.
your positions seems to be that since science can never know all that religion is a better guide.
Guide for how to live morally, yes. But not for planning the trajectory for a trip to the moon. Go to the best school you can (which according to Mike Wallace and 60 minutes, that is some school in India -- don't get mad at me, get mad at Mike), and work with the smartest people you can find for something like that.
Look, I am not adverse to good science. I am adverse to people getting ahead of themselves and making conclusions that may prove wrong latter on. Does that me that we do nothing in fear of making a mistake. No. Just don't take the self righteous view of -- I am truth, and you know nothing.
Instead it looks as if you might be arguing for the potential for new knowledge, or a new way of thinking under the ID paradigm
Look, I have seen Behe on T.V. a few times. Never read his book or any other I.D. book. Exactly what I believe as to seven 24 hour days, or, was a day longer than 24 hours as we know it during creation, I haven't come to any conclusion. I do not believe it is essential for my making it into heaven.
The lie of this is the clearly exposed tactic of taking a creationism text and replacing the references to god with 'intelligent designer'.
I am not trying to hide anything. I believe things were created. Can I give you the fine details step by step. No.
They are saying in effect that the world is too complicated for us to comprehend, so an omnipotent power must have had a hand
Last I heard, Hawking was of the belief that small has a limit. My question is, what other things, or how many levels are there to be found past String Theory? How far does it go? Do things get infinitely small or not? I would think the verdict is still out on this one. Let's suppose that things do go on forever. Smaller and smaller and smaller with no stop. And what about all the interactions at different levels. How does a quark or neutrino or black matter, or who knows what --- well, how do all these things interact? And what about the butterfly effect or something similar to that. Meaning, something far removed effecting something that seems so unrelated? And if things go on forever, how can our finite minds know all there is to know? Now let me interject. Does this mean that we can't function as humans because we can't see the entire picture. Of course not. We do it now with our limited knowledge. Just how complex is all this stuff? Is it possible that things are irreducibly complex? Or, is anyone prepared to say ---- I know enough and I can make the definitive statement on this one. And if you do, is Dr. McCoy going to come back and haunt you for your bold statement?
More science has made our world more understandable
Of course. On many things it has.
Less religion has made our world more predictable
My religion has taught me to help others for one thing. And like Martha says -- that's a good thing.
Believe me, you dont want to return to pre Enlightenment times when life was riven with superstition, but that is exactly where the Behe's of the world would lead you, or in the Dover case, would lead your children.
So do you figure that Behe's kids are wearing prehistoric clothing and walking around and grunting?!
I know loads of Christians that live some of the most refined lives you can imagine.
Tons of money and modern day adornments. Many Christians I know are millionaires if not multi- millionaires, and take advantage of what science has wrought. I ain't doing all that bad myself as a business owner.
Most of these are self made people (with the help of their God). And, they also do a lot of work for their communities or help financially.
So what you talk of on this one, I have not the slightest idea.
Let me add, that it might surprise you, but you probably wouldn't have a clue who these people were if you ran across them in town. As normal as anyone and most I know are plenty friendly.
I am totally surprised as to what you think of Christians. No wonder