Diogenes wrote:Actually what I was talking about was the refusal of publications to review his work, or even allow his rebutals to criticisms of it....
Read it. Boo-frigging-hoo for Behe. Getting published is
hard. I know - I've co-authored two HIV papers, and it took a hell of a lot of time to make all the reviewers happy, and we ended up re-submitting and re-submitting. Behe's "papers" didn't make the cut. Happens to most of what gets submitted. Just because he feels he's on some crusade doesn't entitle him to lowering the standards just so he can have a soapbox.
As far as controversy - both
Science and
Nature have published a good chunk of controversial articles: on homeopathic molecular interaction (Benveniste), Duesberg's antiHIV rants, the alleged Thomas Jefferson-Hemings DNA connection, and the most recent South Korean stem cell debacle.
Behe's whining for special treatments and cries of conspiratorial censoring are laughable.
Diogenes wrote:And it may be 'cricket' in your eyes, but it's still hearsay in a court of law.
Apparently not, since it was all admitted in court. Federal court. Where the folks doing the deciding know a hell of a lot more about legal stuff than you do.
Just because you don't like having Johnson's or Dembski's paper trails outted in court does not suddenly make them inadmissible in court.
If they wanted to impeach Johnson and Dembski, they should have called them as witnesses, and the testimony about their 'intentions' should have been quashed.
If you read anything about the case, you'd have known that Dembski and Johnson were supposed to testify and ended up bailing out prior to the start of the court date due to disagreements they had with the pro-ID folks in this specific case.
Some highlights from the trial.. -using the stuff you yourself posted:
Q Well, why don't we go on to page 700. If you could highlight the question that Professor Behe is asking on this page. "Is it plausible that the designer is a natural entity?" in the first full paragraph.
That is the question you ask. "Is it plausible that the designer is a natural entity?"
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And then if, Matt, if you could actually go to the next two full paragraphs and highlight those.
BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:
Q And you say, "The problem is the following. Currently we have knowledge of only one type of natural intelligent designer even remotely capable of conceiving such structures as are found in the cell, and that is a human. Our intelligence depends critically on physical structures in the brain which are irreducibly complex. Extrapolating from this sample of one. . . " -- that's humans, correct?
A Yes, that's right.
Q ". . . it may be that all possible natural designers require irreducibly complex structures which themselves were designed. If so, then at some point a supernatural designer must get into the picture.
"I myself find this line of reasoning persuasive. In my estimation, although possible in a broadly permissive sense, it is not plausible that the original intelligent agent is a natural entity. The chemistry and physics that we do know weigh heavily against it. If natural intelligence depends on physical organization, then the organization seems likely to have to be enormously complex and stable over reasonable periods of time. While simpler systems may perform the tasks that irreducibly complex systems perform a terrestrial life, they would likely perform them more slowly and less efficiently, so that the complexity required for intelligence would not ultimately be achieved. Thus, in my judgment it is implausible that the designer is a natural entity."
You don't absolutely rule it out, but you're not taking it very seriously, are you?
A Well, I've said that quite a number of times. I think I said that at the beginning of my testimony yesterday, that I think in fact from -- from other perspectives, that the designer is in fact God. But if you turn back to page 699, there's a section entitled, "Is it possible that the designer is a natural entity?" And I won't quote from it, but I come to the conclusion there that sure it's possible that it is, but I do not -- I myself do not find it plausible.
Oh, but "Intelligent Design" is a purely scientific proposal...my ass
....
Behe: And the distinction that I was trying to make throughout my testimony is that when we use scientific reasoning, and when we constrict ourselves to physical evidence and logical reasoning, we can only go so far. We can say we don't have a natural -- we don't have an explanation for this event right now. We cannot -- and the history of science shows this time and time again, we cannot say that because we don't have a natural or an explanation for a certain event now, that we won't have one in the future. Intelligent design I think is in the same category as the Big Bang on that point.
Bullshit. By positing an other-than-natural cause, Behe et al. have gone outside the boundaries of science.
Q And I know you're fond of the Big Bang, but let's be clear, you're not an expert in physics, correct?
A That is correct.
Q And nor an expert in astrophysics?
A That's right.
Q Okay. And you're making a pretty scientific argument here, physics, chemistry, they pretty much rule out a natural designer; that's what you're trying, right?
A No --
Q Not absolutely, but makes it pretty implausible?
A That's what implausible means. Yes, but again, the conclusion from this evidence does not lead one to an explanation beyond nature.
With this I was also relying on my other -- on considerations other than scientific ones, from philosophical, theological and historical beliefs. So again, arguing from scientific data only takes you so far. It takes you to the point of the fact that we do not have an explanation for this event right now. But to go beyond that requires a reasoning beyond just scientific reasoning.
Q Now, you ve said in your testimony today and yesterday you personally believe the designer is God.
A Yes.
Q And in this article in fact you say for purposes of the discussion I'm going to assume the supernatural entity is God, right?
A Yes.
MR. ROTHSCHILD: And, Matt, if you could turn to page 705 of the article. If you could highlight the top paragraph, until the sixth line.
And you write here, "What if the existence of God is in dispute or is denied? So far I have assumed the existence of God. But what if the existence of God is denied at the outset, or is in dispute? Is the plausibility of the argument to design affected? As a matter of my own experience the answer is clearly yes, 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."
Bingo. Behe has now admitted that the acceptance of his proposals is dependent upon the extent to which one believes in a religious entity - God.
Behe et al. have been arguing that ID is a purely scientific argument and as such belongs in a science curriculum. In court and in previous writings, Behe (above) , Dembski, and Johnson have openly admitted that their proposal necessarily invokes a supernatural designer and that the designer is, quite frankly, in their eyes, God. Toss in theior admission that the groundrules of science would have to be re-written just for their proposal, and their lack of scientific credibility just blazes forth.
THE BIBLE - Because all the works of all the science cannot equal the wisdom of cattle-sacrificing primitives who thought every animal species in the world lived within walking distance of Noah's house.
