Contributing to Behe's sense of martyrdom

Under cross examination, ID proponent Michael Behe, a biochemist at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, admitted his definition of "theory" was so broad it would also include astrology. ... Rothschild suggested that Behe's definition was so loose that astrology would come under this definition as well. He also pointed out that Behe's definition of theory was almost identical to the NAS's definition of a hypothesis. Behe agreed with both assertions. ... "You've got to admire the guy. It's Daniel in the lion's den," says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can't believe he teaches a college biology class." ...

How unfortunate that Dembski turned down the chance to testify.

Bayesian Bouffant wrote: "How unfortunate that Dembski turned down the chance to testify."

I think Dembski was smart enough to know what was going to happen. The moves he's making on his own web sites are interesting.

I agree Norman.

The moves he is making ??

Judging by the company Dembski keeps it would do him no good to have his pants ripped off.
His cheer squad would simply cheer louder and that would remove any semblance of doubt as to their saneness.

The people that really matter his-- scientific peers would no doubt be left just shaking their heads.

Dembski of course doesn't need to prove he is an idiot by getting into the stand he already knows he is an idiot.

He has science envy and status envy at the same time.

And the easiest way to make yourself feel good if the best in world think your a fool?... surround yourself with people more foolish than yourself that way you'll always be the best in your own mind.

Behe says IDC qualifies as a scientific theory if you redefine "scientific" and "theory". I guess I can't argue with that.

LOL

to paraphrase another famous prevaricator...

i guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is :p

otoh, the really scary thing about the folks behind ID is that redefining science and theory is exactly what they are about, eh? If they didn't try to change the rules of the game, nobody would be that concerned.

they obviously don't care if they win in court now... because their goal is to change the courts, and thereby the interpretation of the law itself.

I just stopped laughing.

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A leading advocate of "intelligent design" on Wednesday questioned whether his critics have enough scientific evidence to discredit his ideas as he testified in a federal trial over whether the concept can be discussed in a public school biology class.

he is "quite skeptical" of science texts.

well, duh. he'd have to be to maintain his position eh? the only burden he has shifted is towards the mental health department to pick him up before he gets even more looney.

Behe has freed himself of all burdens, of proof or otherwise. he is a free man. free, but only in the way those who have completely abandoned reality can be.

to paraphrase another famous prevaricator... i guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is :p

— sir_toejam

You know I've had a thought. I know what I would like to do if I were the attorney at the Dover trial. I would get a standard highschool textbook and get Behe or his unctuous ilk to highlight the nits they didn't like. Then I would suspend the trial for a month or so while I did the necessary work.

This work would involve chasing down every reference, every research team, every individual scientist, right back to the oldest retired relevant guy.I would then get them to bring in every relevant research paper, every relevant lab book and every relevant living scientist they could get to come along. That is I would show every written transcript of every experiment that supported the conclusions objected to in that textbook and have it brought in by every living exponent or experimenter that was possible to get.

It would be a bit of a squeeze! Mind you the after court conversation would be ASTOUNDING and the jury would get the best science education available!

I would then get Behe or the oleagenous IDCist of choice to show what he/she had that a) explained the data brought in by the multitude, and b) refuted it. I would then get each scientist to take Behe or whoever through the data piece by piece. This might take a few years. Kind of like show and tell on big scale!

Of course the entire thing would be videoed. The next time we had some IDCist want to rearrange the universe to suit their religion, all we would have to do is hand them the several hundred thousand DVDs of the court case and say "Don't take it up with me, take it up with them.".

Might even work at shutting them up! Hell, it might even work at educating the ignorant bastards about actual science.

You know I've had a thought. I know what I would like to do if I were the attorney at the Dover trial. I would get a standard highschool textbook and get Behe or his unctuous ilk to highlight the nits they didn't like.

How unfortunate that Dembski turned down the chance to testify.

— Bayesian Bouffant

otoh, public knowledge that you can be bribed in order to support the DI's lies will just encourage more scientists down on their luck to sell out to the DI.

meh, whatchya gonna do, eh?