|
Michael Behe: "ID = Astrology"
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Renegade |
| quote: | Astrology is scientific theory, courtroom told
13:30 19 October 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Celeste Biever
Astrology would be considered a scientific theory if judged by the same criteria used by a well-known advocate of Intelligent Design to justify his claim that ID is science, a landmark US trial heard on Tuesday.
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.
The trial is pitting 11 parents from the small town of Dover, Pennsylvania, against their local school board. The board voted to read a statement during a biology class that casts doubt on Darwinian evolution and suggests ID as an alternative.
The parents claim this was an attempt to introduce creationism into the curriculum and that the school board members were motivated by their evangelical Christian beliefs. It is illegal to teach anything with a primarily religious purpose or effect on pupils in government-funded US schools.
Supporters of ID believe that some things in nature are simply too complex to have evolved by natural selection, and therefore must be the work of an intelligent designer.
Peer review
Behe was called to the stand on Monday by the defence, and testified that ID was a scientific theory, and was not “committed” to religion. His cross examination by the plaintiffs’ attorney, Eric Rothschild of the Philadelphia law firm Pepper Hamilton, began on Tuesday afternoon.
Rothschild told the court that the US National Academy of Sciences supplies a definition for what constitutes a scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”
Because ID has been rejected by virtually every scientist and science organisation, and has never once passed the muster of a peer-reviewed journal paper, Behe admitted that the controversial theory would not be included in the NAS definition. “I can’t point to an external community that would agree that this was well substantiated,” he said.
Behe said he had come up with his own “broader” definition of a theory, claiming that this more accurately describes the way theories are actually used by scientists. “The word is used a lot more loosely than the NAS defined it,” he says.
Hypothesis or theory?
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.
The exchange prompted laughter from the court, which was packed with local members of the public and the school board.
Behe maintains that ID is science: “Under my definition, scientific theory is a proposed explanation which points to physical data and logical inferences.”
“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."
The cross examination will continue Wednesday, with the trial expected to finish on 4 November. |
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
If you haven't heard of Behe before, do a google search. He's written several books on ID and is one of its leading proponents. Good on him for being honest, I suppose, but it does show what a circus this whole trial is. "Yeah, Intelligent Design has basically the same scientific merit as astrology, but is that any reason to keep it out of science classrooms...?"
My condolences to the children of America. I shall be praying for you at this difficult time.  |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Renegade
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
If you haven't heard of Behe before, do a google search. He's written several books on ID and is one of its leading proponents. Good on him for being honest, I suppose, but it does show what a circus this whole trial is. "Yeah, Intelligent Design has basically the same scientific merit as astrology, but is that any reason to keep it out of science classrooms...?"
My condolences to the children of America. I shall be praying for you at this difficult time. |
This Dover case I predict is really going to be ID's ultimate undoing. Indeed they have attempted to distance themselves from the actions of the lunatic Board member(s) in charge of this fiasco because they have a pretty good feelin' on what's coming. Putting this case into an actual court room where their cute ideas actually have to stand up to scrutiny is the last thing they want to happen, and it's unfolding right in front of their eyes. I don't care how many fundie pro-religious wingers are sitting on the Supreme Court, even they will have to acknowledge the extreme lack of evidence supporting ID if and when the case gets presented to them (and I predict within the next 3-5 years it will).
As for us here in Kansas, the Dover trial is really a blessing, because once it's over and done with and the ruling goes against ID, we can utilize that case to effectively bitch-slap our own Board over their grills with it. I don't say that out of arrogance, take a look at some of the updates over at www.pandasthumb.net and see how bad the arguments IDers are using are being rightly turned around against them.
There is hope for the future, but unfortunately the damage may already be done to some extent. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
forgive me for parading my ignorance, but i dont see where the prob is in allowing ID to be dicussed in schools. yeah, sure, its probably a whole load of bollocks, but then so is plenty of liberal or conservative theory and i still enjoyed learning all about those ;)
we still havent found the "missing link" to justify our belief in evolution, and whilst the ID position is dodgy at best, id certainly like to have the freedom to hear criticisms of evolutionary theory from an ID standpoint. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
forgive me for parading my ignorance, but i dont see where the prob is in allowing ID to be dicussed in schools. yeah, sure, its probably a whole load of bollocks, but then so is plenty of liberal or conservative theory and i still enjoyed learning all about those ;)
we still havent found the "missing link" to justify our belief in evolution, and whilst the ID position is dodgy at best, id certainly like to have the freedom to hear criticisms of evolutionary theory from an ID standpoint. |
For a starter, it's not science, at all! Sure it could be tought in religion class, but in a ing science class!? which I think is the whole issue here. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
For a starter, it's not science, at all! Sure it could be tought in religion class, but in a ing science class!? which I think is the whole issue here. |
true, but there've been plenty of times in my education that we went cross-discipline :p but seriously, i still think that evolutionary theory should have to answer the questions & criticisms that ID levels at it, which necessitates a discussion on ID i wouldve thought? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
true, but there've been plenty of times in my education that we went cross-discipline :p but seriously, i still think that evolutionary theory should have to answer the questions & criticisms that ID levels at it, which necessitates a discussion on ID i wouldve thought? |
What questions and criticisms have not been answered? Not only does ID promote its thesis on the platform of ignorance, but it doesn’t even do a particularly good job of discrediting the one or two branches of evolutionary theory it can actually attack. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
true, but there've been plenty of times in my education that we went cross-discipline :p but seriously, i still think that evolutionary theory should have to answer the questions & criticisms that ID levels at it, which necessitates a discussion on ID i wouldve thought? |
Evolutionary theory does just fine answering those so-called criticisms - perhaps you can bring up a few that you might have so we can discuss them? I'm a little pressed for time this week with school, but I'm more than happy to discuss this anytime.
In my experience with ID, their "criticisms" are nothing shy of blatant distortions and extreme ignorance meant to deliberately muddy the waters to the layman. I did believe otherwise for quite some time about ID, and I did my best to explore it's hypothesis to great extent, but in the end it was, at best, a very seriously flawed hypothesis that had no scientific basis to create a hypothetical question in the first place. There was no foundation to begin to answer such a false dichotomy and argument from ignorance question, which was why it was so unsurprising that they turned away from their supposed "research" aspect (uhh, they never produced any, *shock!*) and focused on distorting evolutionary theory in hopes to pursuade the casual reader who knows next to nothing about the evolutionary theory.
So please don't think that I haven't given ID its fair share. Personally I think I've given it more than enough rope to hang itself. Since the beginning of the attacks on the science classroom by fundie s here in Kansas in 1999, I've given it years to produce anything worthwhile and correct it's distortions and misinterpretations of evolutionary theory. Only recently have I felt that I've been all too kind to Discovery nutbags and other ID advocates like Behe and Dembski, especially when it's painfully obvious how blissfully ignorant they willingly become of answers given back to them as well as questions posed directly at their distortions.
Dembski is especially notorious. His blog is hilarious in that any worthwhile criticisms are immediately deleted. And keep in mind that this isn't some political blog where it's merely a matter of opinion. We're discussing actual evidence to support scientific assertions, and when it's posed to counter his silly claims he merely wipes them clean as if they never existed. Meanwhile he and his ilk produce nothing, not one ing piece of research to support their notions - which of course isn't surprising given the answer that ID supposedly gives us.
Overall, they truly are funny people, these IDers. I'm just not in the mood to laugh when we have similar twits on my State BOE who actually affect not just my future children's education, but our state scientific and academic reputation on all educational levels. |
|
|
| tiesto14 |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
For a starter, it's not science, at all! Sure it could be tought in religion class, but in a ing science class!? which I think is the whole issue here. |
Agreed...teaching ID makes as much sense as teaching the stork delivers babies in med school. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
What questions and criticisms have not been answered? Not only does ID promote its thesis on the platform of ignorance, but it doesn’t even do a particularly good job of discrediting the one or two branches of evolutionary theory it can actually attack. |
haha, fvcked if i know. i dropped the one (philosophy) unit that had ID-related stuff in it ;)
i think creating an environment within which other, possibly less convincing arguments could be challenged is far better than just banning its discourse completely.
edit: especially in america where youre prob more likely to find people that believe the world was made in seven 24hr days. |
|
|
| *InVeRs3* |
It's not science, but it's philosophy, and I don't think that they are teaching philosophy in grade schools, so no point in teaching it.
It can't be taught in a religion class because it has nothing to do with religion, but it's related to creationism.
ID is more valid than astrology, because you can actually test astrology. ID can't be tested, and it can't be falsifable, therefore, it's not a scientific theory.
How does ID promote ignorance? I don't think it does. It's similar to the god of the philosopher's philosophical theory that the Greeks or Romans developed long a go. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
haha, fvcked if i know. i dropped the one (philosophy) unit that had ID-related stuff in it ;)
i think creating an environment within which other, possibly less convincing arguments could be challenged is far better than just banning its discourse completely.
edit: especially in america where youre prob more likely to find people that believe the world was made in seven 24hr days. |
So would you be willing to let astrology be taught alongside learning of the planets of our solar system? |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
So would you be willing to let astrology be taught alongside learning of the planets of our solar system? |
haha, youve got me there :( no, no i wouldnt. but i think the difference is that there are *bunches* of ppl that might be swayed by ID ideas that should have those thoughts challenged by conventional scientific theory. too many ppl believe in god you see ;) |
|
|
|
|
