Month: October 2005
Slate’s Argument From Ignorance: Mind the Gap
Lately there have been a lot of people resurrecting a long debunked charge against ID of merely being “God-of-the-Gaps”. One such person was Slate Senior Editor Dahlia Lithwick. Never one to let the facts of what ID proponents actually propose get in the way of a vacuous potshot Ms. Lithwick says: But the critics are missing the beauty of this new theory. Because the really great thing about intelligent design is that it takes all the awkward uncertainty out of science. It says, “You know those damn theoretical gaps and conundrums that send microbiology graduate students into dank basement laboratories at 3 a.m.? They don’t need to be resolved at all. Go back to bed, sleepy little grad students. God Read More ›
Backer of Theory Never Contradicted Self, Truth Shows
Writing about Michael Behe’s cross-examination, the Philadelphia Inquirer has alleged that “Backer of theory contradicted self, lawyer suggests.” (Nevermind that the news media didn’t write such headlines about Dr. Kenneth Miller when he testified on direct that his textbooks contained NO religious discussions [see Day 1 AM transcript, page 104], but then the next day admitted under cross-examination that some versions of his textbook had religious descriptions of evolution [see Day 2 AM transcript, page 4-5]). The question remains, did Behe contradict himself on the stand while under intense cross examination? A factual examination reveals the answer is no! Let’s dig in! Does the scientific theory of intelligent design identify the designer? Firstly, the article claims that Behe contradicted his Read More ›
500 Years Ago, Geocentrism & Astrology Would have Fit NAS definition of “Theory”!
I’ll make one unnecessarily obvious point: Michael Behe, I, and everybody else at Discovery believe that geocentrism and astrology are 100% wrong. Michael Behe today concluded his testimony at the Dover Trial. Behe did a great job of making his views excruciatingly clear to the Court and fending off attacks during cross-examination. Unfortunately, one article misleads readers by wrongly insinuating that Behe somehow endorsed astrology as a scientific theory. Since these false allegations are in print, we will respond to them here. (I’ll make one unnecessarily obvious point: Michael Behe, I, and everybody else at Discovery believe that geocentrism and astrology are 100% wrong.) The tilted article is titled “Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told” and it alleges the following Read More ›
The Trojan Lama?
Parents in Dover, Pennsylvania, have sued to block the teaching of intelligent design ordered by the school board. They claim that intelligent design “effectively promotes the Bible’s view of creation.” For them, what’s happening there in Dover and elsewhere is merely an attempt to get “Christian creationism” in through the back door. Tenzin Gyatso would probably be surprised to learn that he’s promoting “Christian creationism.” It’s true that his new book criticizes what he calls “radical scientific materialism.” And, like Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley professor, he doesn’t hesitate to point out that the materialistic worldview is every bit as metaphysical as a theistic one. Still, it’s absurd to label Gyatso’s work a stalking horse for “Christian creationism.” After all, if Read More ›
Behe Testimony Round 2
Yesterday, Michael Behe completed his second day of testimony in the Dover trial. Below are more highlights based upon informal notes submitted by the Discovery Institute’s Logan Gage, who is currently observing the trial. Direct Examination Behe responded to many claims made by plaintiffs’ expert Dr. Kenneth Miller, including: Behe on other topics… Behe also critiqued the Lenski study. He said that computer studies are fine; but they must model real biological processes. He said Lenski “stacked the deck,” creating a model that assumes the disputed point. Behe points to his paper he coauthored with physicist David W. Snoke (M.J. Behe and D.W. Snoke, “Simulating Evolution by Gene Duplication of Protein Features That Require Multiple Amino Acid Residues,” Protein Science, Read More ›