Behe Reveals the DI's Latest Talking Points

1. Design is not mystical. (Only the casual agent of design is mystical.)
2. Everyone agrees that aspects of biology appear to show design. (Everyone also says appearances can be deceiving)
3. There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution. (Just don't look too closely. Just because it has been shown that not all the parts of a flagellum or mouse trap are needed doesn't mean that they are not all needed. Oh, wait...)
4. Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination. (Grand IDism rests on unimagined discipline.)
5. There is strong evidence for Design and little evidence for Darwinism. (As told in a 101 analogies.)

The only person to have any advantage from this post is the pathetic author of "Reasonable Kansans." Reed, you are beating a dead horse. "aka ... foreskins" is not a well regarded author, or even ragarded at all. There is not a single comment attached to his miserable crap.

Why bother?

I think what is pertinent here is that the blog reports some of the talking points that Behe used to downplay the Dover decision. It seems like the DI continues to try to find ways to mitigate the impact of their defeat, in part by discrediting Judge Jones. I may be wrong, but I think this may be the first time since Dover that Behe has talked at length publicly about the Dover decision and his role in it. That's why the blog was worth pointing out, not because of the commentary.

Gary: There is now, and it's a slam.

"I think what is pertinent here is that the blog reports some of the talking points that Behe used to downplay the Dover decision."

ROTFL - You mean the facts?

Hey guys - ID is spreading like wildfire all over the world at this point. It doesn't seem to me that the good Judge's decision has slowed it down any.

The problem that I foresee for you people is that when you misrepresent the facts, it comes back to haunt you.

But, by all means, keep on doing what you do best. It'll catch up with you eventually.

It's time for you boys to work on your compromising skills because ID isn't going anywhere.

FTK is right; ID is spreading internationally. Just look at Libya.

(Yeah, I know it is low.)

But, by all means, keep on doing what you do best. It'll catch up with you eventually.

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on December 8, 2006 11:54 PM (e) FTK is right; ID is spreading internationally. Just look at Libya. (Yeah, I know it is low.)

Time magazine got the wrong guy. If they wanted the person who was behind the reasoning of the Dover school decision, they should have had Eric Rothschild, or perhaps some other members of his team.

[t]here is just the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which is an honorable job, but does not prepare one for the types of discussions that came up in this trial. A former head of the Liquor Control Board, who signed off on a tenditious brief by a product liability trial lawyer, which touted the side of his clients, and caricatured and denigrated the arguments of the other side, as briefs by trial lawyers have done since the beginning of time.

To FTK: Is that wildfire as in the destructive force, causing widespread damage but ultimately leaving the forest stronger?

or wildfire as in the medieval weapon?

Both could apply to ID.

"He then showed a picture of a duck, and stated that if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck. He said design is an In-duck-tive argument. (cute humor)"

If Behe walks like a quack and quacks like a quack...

c'mon then FORTHEKIDS. Give us your prediction as to when ID will "win" and Darwinism "lose". How long will it be before ID is taught in schools all over the world? 5,10,20,50,100 Years? Longer? 1000, 2000? I just posted a similar comment at your blog, will you let it appear i wonder? My prediction is no, you will not because then you might have to respond with a prediction. And whatever you say, we'll be here in X years to point and laugth.

It is a pretty shoddy tactic to try and shoot the messenger and attack Judge Jones. If the ID perps had spent as much time working on their problems as they do lying about everything to make themselves feel better they would have probably given up on the ID scam early enough so that they wouldn't look like the bogus slock miesters that they are.

Just think if they had come out back in 1999 when they figured out that ID was just scam and that it didn't have a prayer and admitted that fact when they put out the teach the controversy replacement scam. Meyer put out the replacment scam and discussed the legal implications that year. If ID were all it was cracked up to be why did they need a replacement scam that didn't even mention that ID had ever existed? They probably wouldn't have to make excuses for their lame performance in Dover. Maybe if Meyer had told the Ohio board straight that there was nothing to teach about ID in the public schools Dover might not have happened. Instead he left them with a lie and claimed that the decision to teach ID should be made at the local level. Why did the Discovery Institute try so hard to get the Dover rubes to drop their efforts to teach ID if that had any semblance of being true?

Anyone that trusts anything that these guys say is worse than hopeless at this point. Just try and find ID mentioned in the latest name change (critical analysis) creationist scam. Who wouldn't wonder about the perps that are running the replacment scam when they are the same perps that lied to everyone about ID and they know that they can't even mention ID in the new scam.

Forthekids:

Last time I saw you appear here and retreat in a huff I twice tried to post to your blog asking for a clear statement of the theory of ID but it never appeared. Surprise, surprise!

Perhaps now you are here again you will tell us the theory of ID and how it could be falsified?

Hey Richard,

How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified?

I've no doubt you have a wonderful analysis of how that could be accomplished. Should be interesting.

Hey Richard,

How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified?

I've no doubt you have a wonderful analysis of how that could be accomplished. Should be interesting.

Hey Richard, How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified? I've no doubt you have a wonderful analysis of how that could be accomplished. Should be interesting."

— forthekids

Hey Richard, How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified? I've no doubt you have a wonderful analysis of how that could be accomplished. Should be interesting.

Forthekids wrote:

How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified?

Steve T -
Nicely done. Of particular note is the way both Darwin and Kelvin recognized the scientific reasoning at play, and both were willing to be refuted by good evidence. That's scientific honesty.

Steve T . . .your post was really great. Well put, succinct, and would be very informative
to anyone but a brain-dead creationist or IDiot.

I picked up a copy of the 10th aniversary edition of Darwins Black Box. Had a look at the new section; its around 20 pages of not much at all.

If 'Reasonable Kansans' is reasonable compared with other Kansans, what a horrible thing to say about Kansas!

Behe, claiming that there isn't actually a fair analysis of the ID arguments in the Kitzmiller decision, says that instead, [t]here is just the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, which is an honorable job, but does not prepare one for the types of discussions that came up in this trial. A former head of the Liquor Control Board, who signed off on a tenditious brief by a product liability trial lawyer, which touted the side of his clients, and caricatured and denigrated the arguments of the other side, as briefs by trial lawyers have done since the beginning of time.

1. Design is not mystical. It is deduced from the physical structure of a system. We detect design when we see a purposeful arrangement of parts. The more parts there are and the more precise the purpose leads to a stronger case for design.

There's a very simple way to get rid of ID once and for all: just let them win. Every biological research group, university, whatever in the world announce that from now on, they stand ready to use ID principles to guide all of their research. This would create the ultimate horror for ID advocates: ID would actually have to produce something. At that point, there would be exactly two options for ID advocates: either admit they can't produce anything operating from ID principles, or work from evolutionary principles but pretend it's ID. After all, pretending reality is something other than it is may work fine for press releases and making criticisms of others, but human beings can't actually create something out of nothing.

The political tactics of the ID/Creationist crowd haven't changed since at least the mid 1970s. After every major defeat, they continue to behave in public as though nothing happened, some of them even claiming that they won. Then there are the ones that claim they were treated unfairly.

The Wizards of ID at the Discovery (of their navel) Institute have spent something like 4 megabucks on their political campaign, so they apparently have some motivation to give it the appearance of success.

Our local newspaper continues to print letters-to-the-editor that are recitations of the standard ID camp follower theme (i.e., "ID is a real science with lots of research to prove it and scientists are too cowardly to debate with the ID scientists"). Most of these are arguing that the science community and the courts are suppressing ID's findings. They are also attempting to make their language and definitions of science the memes that the wider public uses when they think about or discuss evolution and science.

There is still a large segment of society that thinks allowing debates to take place in the classroom will help settle the issue. Part of their argument is that debating the "controversy" in class is more interesting than the standard science course and students will learn more as a result. When they express this on the internet or in the newspaper, they seem to think that people who know nothing about science will be able to figure out who is lying by watching these debates. The Idiot/Creationist crowd appears to be taking political aim at these so-called "reasonable" types.

Hey Mike... if they write letters, write some letters yourself. I think every scientist should get in the habit of writing letters to newspapers about important issues.

Behe went on to show in detail that Jones' written 139 page decision was filled with cut and paste sections from Rothchild's documents. Whenever Jones wrote on an academic issue, he provides a lightly edited "drag and drop" from the trial lawyer's documents. Behe said that some judges do this to a certain extent, but not on as large a scale as Jones did. This made Behe wonder if Jones even understood all of the academic issues that were being presented to him if he had to copy so much from Rothchild's documents.

— Forthekids

BOO,

you are absolutely wrong, letting ID into universities will do nothing but corrupt good science. The right way to get rid of these inferior and unfit IDists is to exterminate them or at least put them in camps. This should be obvious since all they do is hinder evolutionary progress with their presence.

Darwinism has spread internationally. Just look at Adolf Hitler.

— J. Mahoney

Darwinism has spread internationally. Just look at Adolf Hitler.

This one is FORTHEKIDS . . . Darwin was also unsure how variance in organisms could he heritable. His theory led to the hypothesis that there must be some means or method of transmitting the traits from one generation ot the next . . . and guess what came later? DNA!

Behe is just trying to deflect the blame for killing ID at Kitzmiller to someone other than himself.

And by killing ID I mean killing it as a subject for public school science which is what this was all about.

However, Behe is responsible for the death of ID by his very testimony. First, he testified that ID is not science. In order for ID to be considered science the very definition of Science would have to be changed to consider such stirling concepts as Astrology as science. Way to go, Behe!

Second, Behe destroyed his own credibility as an expert on the stand by waving away actual research with a flick of his evolved hand. Ignorance and apathy: don't know and don't care.

So, in two parts Behe was responsible for the demise of ID as a science topic in public schools.

Thank you, Behe, you did a service to us all.

What is very interesting is that there are many people who are not philosophical naturalists, yet they disagree with design as well. There is no objective reason for this

While not biological evolution, the spreading use of Evolutionary Algorithms, including but not limited to the Simple Genetic Algorithm, demonstrates that the basic principles of the Theory of Biological Evolution do, in fact, lead to acceptable solutions. And do so without 'design'...

Re. Comment #149203 by Inoculated Mind:

Yup, I have done just that. A couple of my "Viewpoint" articles, as they are called in our local newspaper, got good reviews, even from people outside the circulation area of the local paper. For a while, there was a lull in the diatribes by the ID cultists, but it has flared up again.

I suspect there is another set of talking points being circulated in some of the local fundamentalist churches. I'm seeing a flare-up of this stuff on some of the religion TV channels also, and it looks very similar to what is being printed in the letters to the editor. The Discovery Institute isn't the only organization circulating this stuff. There appear to be other clandestine groups besides the bigger, well-known players that are doing this more furtively. Some of it is clearly "evolutionist baiting".

Hey guys - ID is spreading like wildfire all over the world at this point. It doesn't seem to me that the good Judge's decision has slowed it down any.

How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified?

One (okay, two) things that I think should be made clear:

"Jones also made the statement in his decision that Behe said, "Those papers were not good enough". In fact, Behe did not say this. Those are the words Eric Rothchild tried to put in his mouth while Behe was on the witness stand. Behe actually said that they were wonderful articles, that they were very interesting, but that they simply don't address the question as he posed it. They address a different question."

and

"Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science.

Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science."

It would seem that either of these claims can be refuted/proved by the court transcripts (which I know are available). The thing is that I don't have the time (or rather, the patience) to sift through the transcripts looking for the particular sections referred to above to see what the context was.

Can someone in the know get the record straight? I know, I'm lazy (and worse) for asking this of someone else.

Re "Jones has been called everything from a megalomaniac to a Neanderthal."

Wouldn't that imply that the one doing the calling accepts the common ancestry part of evolution? ;)

Henry

Re "Jones has been called everything from a megalomaniac to a Neanderthal."

Wouldn't that imply that the one doing the calling accepts the common ancestry part of evolution? ;)

Henry

Might've known it (the blog s/w) was gonna do that...

What happened to the preview function that it no longer shows the already existing replies in the thread? Argh.

Guys,

FTK has proven over the past year or two on the KCFS Discussion Forums (before finally being banned) that she understands nothing about science, and that she disbelieves anyone who *does* understand science.

FTK has consistently promoted Walt Brown's "Hydroplate" "theory."

'Nuff said.

How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified?

How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified? Well, it has been in some instances.

Monimonika wrote: Can someone in the know get the record straight?

the court transcripts

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects." That's the scientific theory of astrology? A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community. Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world. And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory. Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct? [snip] Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right? A That's correct. Q Not, it used to be, right? A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense. Q I couldn't be a mind reader either.

Q. We'll get back to that. Now, these articles rebut your assertion that scientific literature has no answers on the origin of the vertebrate immune system? A. No, they certainly do not. My answer, or my argument is that the literature has no detailed rigorous explanations for how complex biochemical systems could arise by a random mutation and natural selection and these articles do not address that. Q. So these are not good enough? A. They're wonderful articles. They're very interesting. They simply just don't address the question that I pose. Q. And these are not the only articles on the evolution of vertebrate immune system? A. There are many articles. [snip] Q. And I'm correct when I asked you, you would need to see a step-by-step description of how the immune system, vertebrate immune system developed? A. Not only would I need a step-by-step, mutation by mutation analysis, I would also want to see relevant information such as what is the population size of the organism in which these mutations are occurring, what is the selective value for the mutation, are there any detrimental effects of the mutation, and many other such questions. Q. And you haven't undertaken to try and figure out those? A. I am not confident that the immune system arose through Darwinian processes, and so I do not think that such a study would be fruitful. Q. It would be a waste of time? A. It would not be fruitful. [snip] Q. And the fifty-eight articles, some yes, some no? A. Well, the nice thing about science is that often times when you read the latest articles, or a sampling of the latest articles, they certainly include earlier results. So you get up to speed pretty quickly. You don't have to go back and read every article on a particular topic for the last fifty years or so. [snip] Q. You conclude the chapter called "Publish or Perish" by saying, "In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish," right? A. That's correct, yes. Q. And then all these hard working scientists publish article after article over years and years, chapters and books, full books, addressing the question of how the vertebrate immune system evolved, but none of them are satisfactory to you for an answer to that question? A. Well, see, that again is an example of confusing the different meanings of evolution. As we have seen before, evolution means a number of things, such as change over time, common descent, gradualism and so on. And when I say Darwinian evolution, that is focusing exactly on the mechanism of natural selection. And none of these articles address that. Q. Again at the same time you don't publish any peer reviewed articles advocating for the alternative, intelligent design? A. I have published a book, or -- I have published a book discussing my ideas. [snip] Q. Professor Behe, isn't it the case that scientists often propose hypotheses, and then set out to test them themselves rather than trusting the people who don't agree with their hypothesis? A. That's true, but hypothesis of design is tested in a way that is different from a Darwinian hypotheses. The test has to be specific to the hypothesis itself, and as I have argued, an inductive hypothesis is argued or is supported by induction, by example after example of things we see that fit this induction. Q. We'll return to the induction in a few minutes. A. Yes, sir. Mr. Rothschild, would you like your books back? They're heavy.

In a post posted some many posts above, Steve T straw-mans ID when he gives his example of marbles, sand, snow, and such, arranging themselves into an indicator of Design which is only apparent but really only naturally caused, outside during winter. (What a crappy sentence. Oh well, no time...)

When dealing with the design hypothesis (for it doesn't exactly seem to be formulated as a scientific theory) set forward by today's Intelligent Design proponent/activists/theorists/fans, you must understand their argument a little better or when they read your posts here they will just shrug their sholders and comment to themselves (and one another) about how you really don't understand their writings or haven't ever read them.

Here are two of the errors made by Steve T without going very deeply into it. (really, some of you ought to read at least a few of Dembski's books.)

1. You cannot falsify Design by showing some example that looks designed but wasn't really designed. Trust me, there are good reasons for this and one may find them in various sections of No Free Lunch, The Design Revolution, etc. I'm not going to spell them out for a bunch of people who consider themselves informed critics of ID. (little hint... FP's)

2. The apparent arrangement/design naturally produced by the given experiment above would hardly count as a reliable indicator of intelligent design. (that is, specified complexity, or more simply put, a thing which would make it to the last node of Dembski's Explanatory Filter)

Just trying to help out,

MS

FTK asks: How about you tell us how Darwinian evolution could be falisified?

Me: Well, it has been in some instances.

PvM: Nope, what has been shown is that there are also other mechanisms of evolution

Darwinian mechanisms were demonstrated to not occur in some specific instances; which was exactly my point. But the fact is, evolution (even before Darwin suggested some mechanisms) was not an idea that always enjoyed strong support in the past. Over time, something happened (actually a lot of things happened as scientific knowledge advanced), that lead to the general acceptance of evolution in science. If there were good and strong arguments against evolution in general then the idea would no longer enjoy the support it has today. Thus Darwinian evolution and evolution in general could in principle be dumped in the future. Unlikely perhaps, but it suggests the "How can Darwinian evolution be falsified?" question is a naive one with regard to the development & evolution of scientific thought.

Again, if Behe and Dembski think Darwinian evolution is unfalsifiable or undeniable, then why do they persist in trying to demonstrate the opposite?

You cannot falsify Design by showing some example that looks designed but wasn't really designed.

You are assuming some other criteria than Steve T did. Unfortunately, all other criteria ID has come up with has made no predictions and are debunked for good reasons. And surprise, surprise, a simplest default criteria is easily falsified. A designer looks like a stupid IDea from the start (which is sometime before organized religion). Witness the subsequent failures. How many thousand years should a failed idea be tossed about?

You cannot falsify Design by showing some example that looks designed but wasn't really designed

The apparent arrangement/design naturally produced by the given experiment above would hardly count as a reliable indicator of intelligent design

I agree with both Mark S and STJ about the weaknesses and relevance of my "testing a design hypothesis" example. I really wasn't trying to provide a definitive test of ID but was responding to something the FTK said in summarizing Behe's sermon lecture.

What is the matter with you? Attacking Judge Jones is the name of the game. If you think that Behe's KU speech was hard on Jones, you ain't seen nuthin'. Jones has been called everything from a megalomaniac to a Neanderthal.

Re Mike:

I suspect there is another set of talking points being circulated in some of the local fundamentalist churches. I'm seeing a flare-up of this stuff on some of the religion TV channels also, and it looks very similar to what is being printed in the letters to the editor. The Discovery Institute isn't the only organization circulating this stuff. There appear to be other clandestine groups besides the bigger, well-known players that are doing this more furtively. Some of it is clearly "evolutionist baiting".

Philip Johnson was invited by a local Davis church called Grace Valley Christian Center, who regularly invites ID proponents to town to give lectures. Their student-affiliate club registers the biggest room on campus so they can put on the first part of the two-lecture series - the more sciencey one, in a classroom.

The GVCC also maintains a news bulletin that explicitly includes Intelligent Design news, but the ID news has been pretty absent ever since KvD. Nevertheless, they will still probably put on the lectures, and they are for what it seems, a fundamentalist church. There is also a relative of one of the ID proponents in Davis, and I suspect that they attend this church. For the lectures that I've attended, they pack the house - they must advertise and organize widely.

Glad to hear you're writing letters back.

Shiva wrote:

Define design - an operational definition would do.

As for the sand and marbles thing, you are saying it ain't design because you know how it happened and who did it.

And as for the other thing (flagella and all that) you don't know who did or how it is done but it is design!

Wah Bhai wah! You are catching up with the larger crowd of IDists. Bad boy - you shd read what you hack out before you post it. Even Dave 'gravity is the strongest force' Scott has learned his lesson.

Behe is trying the old soccer trick. As we say in another language; if you can't get the ball, hit the kaal (leg); and if you can't hit the kaal get the aaL (the man)!

— shiva

He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times.

GuyeFaux wrote: At the very least, it's a bit sensationalist to say that Behe things astrology is science.

Gary writes:

"There is not a single comment attached to his miserable crap."

Par for the course. 'Forthekids' is a typical creationist that can only prosper when engaging in hero worship, purposeful willful ignroance, and, of course, censorship.

FTK:

"The problem that I foresee for you people is that when you misrepresent the facts, it comes back to haunt you."

Well,y ou and Walt Brown and your sundry ID heros know all about that, don't you?

of course, it really doesn't seem to matter to you people.

To "J. Mahoney"

Hi, Larry! You already used that name, or had you forgotten?

Excellent post GuyeFaux.

To answer your pondering of "why the science side continued with the much touted "Behe thinks astrology is science" straw-man." see the post given above about cheating in soccer.

Both side also are fighting a rhetoric war for the hearts and minds of the less educated masses. It simply looks bad and colors ID to associate it with astrology. In the same way that the IDist associate darwinism with Hitler.

Textbook anti-academic debating tactics.

MS

BC said:

"... except of course evidence. I thought this was a pretty telling statement by ForTheKids. She seems to think that the only reason people believe in naturalistic evolution is to reinforce atheism. If someone isn't an atheist, "[t]here is no objective reason for" supporting naturalistic evolution? Ha. What a joke."

DaveScot uses the same argument as FTK over on UD a lot. The problem is they use the term "design" in a very general sense, whereas ID uses the term design in a very specific sense. I (and I assume most other TE's) agree that there is, in a sense, "design" in the universe. I don't, however, find that we can detect blatant design in "IC" or "CSI" "molecular machines," or what have you... they do the same things with words like "unguided" and "random." I think that TE's are a huge threat to ID because we totally ruin their argument that evolution is somehow reliant on atheism and we threaten to bring reason to the Church with us and expose their lies...

Both side also are fighting a rhetoric war for the hearts and minds of the less educated masses. It simply looks bad and colors ID to associate it with astrology. In the same way that the IDist associate darwinism with Hitler.

"Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, that's correct.

Please note everyone:

Dawkins and Miller are mentioned in the same breath.

The reference to counter argument is the "Beyond Belief" conference which equated science with atheism.

Forthekids may not even be conscious of doing it, but he, like Dawkins, etal., equates, not just evolution, but science in general with atheism.

The irrational insistance of linking science with atheism is insanely self-defeating. What's the tragedy?
1. Its unnecessary. Humanism doesn't need to prove anything. How evolution takes place is irrelevant to morality, or theology.
2. The strawman controversy buries the crucial facts that our society needs to learn: "What is science?" "How do you distinguish science from psuedoscience?" "How do I interpret what the scientific community is telling me?"

This is completely insane! Cut it out! Get your culture war out of my biology!

This is a quote mine because Behe qualified this statement in a material way. He meant that astrology was science at some point in its history.

This is simply not true. Do you even read the transcripts?

Behe: And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

"Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct? A Yes, that's correct.

And, like I said, that qualification makes this exchange reasonable:

Behe was specifically being asked about his definition for science as it stands TODAY, not a thousand years ago, or even a hundred.

GuyeFaux wrote: Yes, I've read the transcripts. Here's the important qualification:

Astrology become unscientific over time?

Who are you trying to kid!?! We're talking modern science, right? Scientific method and all that.

Astrology was never scientific. Ever. It predates science for a start. Second, astrology has always been about fortune telling. It's mystical. It's witchcraft. Astrology is not nor has ever been science.

Behe killed ID at Kitzmiller and one of the weapons he used was astrology. The topic of astrology as science was raised at Behe's deposition taken months before the trial. Behe had months to prepare for Rothschild's questioning, but still managed to screw the pooch. Behe thought he could skate by with his old mousetrap and Mt. Rushmore routine, but it didn't wash because Rothschild was prepared. Behe was pinned to the mat with his own words.

Behe was put on the stand as an expert witness. Expert Witness. Not some boob pulled off the street. However, when you're stuck with a cow's pseudoscientific ear like ID there's only so much of a silk purse you can spin out of it. Behe tried to backpedal and say, well, he was thinking in the historical sense when he said that astrology could be considered science. Behe knew he was screwed because he had used the present tense twice on the stand and once in deposition. Rothschild didn't even need to drive the point home because the Judge heard the entire exchange. It was obvious that Behe was inventing stuff on the fly. Even in an historical sense Astrology was never and could never be described as science. Behe hoped that nobody would notice or argue that point. He was wrong. Again.

But, why quibble? Astrology requires mystical intervention and so does ID. Behe wasn't lying when he said that the definition of science would have to be broad enough such that astrology could be considered scientific in order for ID to be considered scientific. On the contrary, Behe needed that definition in order to drape ID with even a thin scientific mantle. Behe needed mystical interventions to be at least considered, at least tolerated before ID could even get its foot in the door. It didn't wash.

In the transcripts you can see Behe squirming like a worm on a hook trying to contort a definition of science and scientific theory to fit ID's requirements, but he can't do it. In the end it's Behe, himself, who demonstrated that ID is a will-o'-the-wisp, smoke and mirrors; an unsubstantiated notion. And he did it in public and under oath. It's laughable and pathetic that after a year Behe is trying to explain what it meant. It's too late. The decision has been made. It's over in Dover.

Thank you, Behe, Elvis has left the building.

Who are you trying to kid!?! We're talking modern science, right? Scientific method and all that.

The decision has been made. It's over in Dover.

No. The case can not be made for astrology having been science every.

Astrology and astronomy developed in parallel, but at no time did or does astrology have any predictive power. Astrology always had to do with the gods and the affairs of man. Always. Fortune telling by the stars.

Behe was totally wrong about astrology simply falling out of favor. Didn't happen. Astrology is with us today.

The other thing that Behe brought up, aether, is a different matter. It was postulated that an aether filled the void and that waves propagated through it. That was subject to testing and ultimately proven to be incorrect; no aether.

Finally, recall that Behe likened ID to the early days of the Big Bang theory as being "unpopular" and that the Big Bang finally became popular (who knows, maybe it got breast implants) while ID still has acne. That, again, is historically wrong and Behe is not so stupid nor so illiterate that he is unaware of this. Mind boggling as the Big Bang was, it was based on physical observation (galaxies receeding) and had predictable components (the microwave background radiation at something like 3 Kelvin) that were later detected and the theory has been fleshed out over the years by a series of predictions and confirming observations.

The Big Bang didn't just become popular, it gained acceptance through test after test, prediction after prediction.

ID is nothing like that and Behe knows it. No tests for ID. No predictions for ID. No confirmations for ID. No soup for ID!

ID put their best and brightest on the stand at Kitzmiller. Behe was the Expert Witness, not some Boob from Bethlehem (Pa., home of Lehigh U.) and Behe proceeded to stab ID over and over again. Flagellums and parts and Big Bang and astrology, stab, stab, stab, stab. You didn't see that much stabbing in Hitchcock's Psycho! And Eric Rothschild handed the knife to Behe every time.

It's all there in the transcripts in bloody detail. A year later the armchair revisionists can argue that Behe meant this or Behe meant that, but the bottom line is that Behe had the responsibility as the Expert Witness to be clear and concise and honest.

And I think he was.

He was clear and sort of concise and he honestly killed ID.

A year later the armchair revisionists can argue that Behe meant this or Behe meant that, but the bottom line is that Behe had the responsibility as the Expert Witness to be clear and concise and honest.

Astrology always had to do with the gods and the affairs of man. Always. Fortune telling by the stars.

GuyeFaux, I think you are really going out on a limb on this one. The whole discussion about whether Behe was talking about astrology 400 years ago, or today is completely irrelevant. As others have noted, astrology, in much the same way as ID, was never science. There was never an explanation for how it worked, only mystic mumbo jumbo. The fact that Behe thinks that this could have been considered science in the past is still a damning indictment.

The fact that he repeatedly referred to this idea in the present tense in his testimony only makes his error worse.

At any rate, he blithered on so incoherently, that he can't complain if he's "quote-mined" by people trying to find a coherent phrase or two in all of the mixed up ummms and ahhhs, and half-finished sentences. I can tell you that when I read the transcripts of the trial for the first time, I came away with the same opinion of what Behe had said as most other people in this discussion. That opinion is that the so-called "quote-mine" is substantially correct in it's interpretation of what Behe was saying. Even Judge Jones came away with this as his understanding.

Ouch, Guido! Skewered me with my own point. I hate it when that happens.

True, true, what Doc Bill says and what the court heard are two different things, he said shifting his carcass in his armchair.

I see your all too sharp point that what was said and interpreted in court, and what we may or may not know about a subject are two different things. After all, it all depends on the definition of the word "is."

However, from the ruling it appears that the Judge got the sense that Behe was full of hot air. And the big dominos that fell post-Kitzmiller in Ohio, Michigan and Kansas are no coincidence following that decision.

GuyeFaux wrote: Where (under oath) does Behe unequivocally state that he's willing to include modern astrology under the umbrella of science? And that's the insinuation, is it not? That Behe et al are trying to change the definition of science so that it will include modern astrology?

Evolution is IRREFUTABLE.

There is change.

The fit survive.

If they didn't surive, they weren't fit.

Therefore atheism is true.

So there.

out of my biology

Behe was specifically being asked about his definition for science as it stands TODAY

A. Is astrology? It could be, yes.

After all, it all depends on the definition of the word "is."

There was never an explanation for how [astrology] worked, only mystic mumbo jumbo. The fact that Behe thinks that this could have been considered science in the past is still a damning indictment. The fact that he repeatedly referred to this idea in the present tense in his testimony only makes his error worse.

GuyeFaux wrote: He never explained what about astrology made it science and why this definition also did not include creationism at one point or another.

... a "scientific" theory should not tailor its claims to agree with authoritative sources, such as the scriptures of any religion or the statements of any religious or governmental leaders, ...

GuyeFaux wrote: Which doesn't rule out astrology because...?

It's a form of divination that has never (as far as I can tell) been associated with religion or government, ...

Astrology has never "tailor[ed] its claims to agree with authoritative sources, such as the scriptures of any religion or the statements of any religious or governmental leaders." (From Behe's definition of scientific theory).

This may be true for astrology in general, but I'm quite certain that specific astrologers tailored their predictions to please whatever powerful dude was breathing down their necks at the time. And since astrologers' claims were untestable, they had a lot more wiggle-room -- perhaps I should say bend-over-room -- to do so than scientists as we know them today.

To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect.

Not exactly. I'm saying it isn't design because I know it wasn't the result of an effort to create or contrive a pattern for a particular purpose or effect.