If I'm not mistaken, he said this *after* he testified that, according to him, astrology is a legitimate science.

Which raises the question: "WHY should anyone care what this man says about science?"

I dunno...seems to me he's already dug his own grave. When you testify that, according to you, astrology = science...sorry bud...game over.

If I were Behe, I'd write another book, and call it, "I was wrong, and here's why". He'd probably sell more copies of that than DBB.

"Behe presents something new!"

File that under Headlines You'll Never See.

According to the report in the LJ World, Behe trotted out the same old arguments that were rubbished during the Kitzmiller trial leading to a resounding defeat for the defense in that case. I'm sure the Dover School Board sent a big Thank You to Behe for his (cough, cough) performance on the stand.

Although all of Behe's "arguments" were thoroughly demolished during Kitzmiller, and you can read the transcripts of the trial at the NCSE site, here he is a year later spouting the very same nonsense. Unmodified! It's amazing, really, that the man is so insulated from reality.

According to the LJ World, Behe says that "everybody agrees" that some aspects of biology appear designed.

No, that's not true. I can tell the difference between a real bear and Yogi Bear. Real bears don't wear hats.

Earth to Behe: we're not laughing WITH you.

Most pathetic comment by Behe in LJWorld article:



Awwwww... poor Michael.

BTW, it sounds from the article and from you-know-who's account as if Behe spun, twisted or outright misrepresented things he said during the trial. For example, the questioning about astrology being science followed a chain of cross-examination questions that led Behe to the inescapable truth that "Yes, by that definition, astrology could be called science." My impression is that Behe invented some face-saving responses at his KU talk that he didn't actually deliver during the trial. I could be wrong.

And another BTW --

Isn't it interesting that the first time Behe was supposed to speak, we got a load of ice and snow, and the second time, the temperature dropped to about 5 degrees? And that's not even the wind chill. I wonder if it affected attendance at the talk? Did anybody here actually go?

Hmmmm.

ToSeek, thanks for posting the LJW article. Like most news articles though, it didn't provide a comprehensive review of Behe's talk.

I was hoping some of the KU/JCCC science faculty had reviewed the talk. Was there anything substantially different from his Dover testimony? Did he make any corrections to Darwin's Black Box, or was it the same old same old?

Well, FTK at reasonablekansans.blogspot.com...you know who...has an extensive well thought article up at her site.

It is apparent, however, that the commenters here have not even read it.

It is apparent to the casual observer, however, that at least RF Brady and Hrafn have read it; see the middle of page 2 of this thread.

We know FTK well and her capabilities and prejudices. There's no reason to expect her to produce anything well-thought-out. Got any evidence that she's changed?

As JonF points out, I had read it. It brought to mind the proverb "In the country of the blind one-eyed man is a king." Given FTK's profound ignorance of science, it is unsurprising that she finds Behe impressive.

FTK is a classic example of the Right Wing Authoritarian Personality, who are known to be likely to "Uncritically trust people who tell them what they want to hear."

All I just saw was a couple of ad hominem posts.

Nothing substantive.

All I see is a woman who is woefully ignorant of the meaning of an "ad hominem" argument, and should learn the meaning of it before throwing around accusations.

FTK's ignorance of science and the scientific method has been documented out of her own mouth countless times on this forum.

Behe's ignorance of Evolutionary Biology and Immunology (the field in which he makes numerous of his claims of 'Irreducible Complexity') is likewise well-documented.

That FTK exhibits all the "Significant Correlations" of the RWA Personality would, I suspect, receive widespread support on this forum.

Three assertions in my previous post (two explicit, one implied), all substantiatable. Zero ad hominem arguments.

And there is another ad hominem post.

Attacking ME and not the point.

Got a problem with IGNORANT women Hrafn, or just women?

No Diana there is not.

An 'ad hominem argument' is a logically fallacious argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Ad_hominem_as_logical_fallacy

I have not made an argument of this form.

I have asserted that FTK and Behe are ignorant of various areas of science. That is not an ad hominem argument (in fact it is not an argument at all). I have asserted that FTK has a RWA personality. That is not an ad hominem argument.

Further, I have offered no contentions based upon these assertions, so I made no ad hominem arguments on the basis of these assertions.

I based my assertion that you are ignorant of the meaning of ad hominem arguments, because you accused me of having made them when I clearly hadn't. This is not an ad hominem argument.

We know FTK very well around here, after dealing with her for -- was it one or two years? In my opinion, she not only does not understand science but disbelieves anything anyone who *does* know about science says.

When she first arrived, she kept pushing Walt Brown's "Hydroplate" theory.
Anyone who reads even a little of Brown's online book will realize that he is promoting creationism. Anyone who knows anything about any of the many science fields Brown (an engineer) pretends to understand realizes that he knows little or nothing about any of them.

FTK respects and admires Brown, which says much about FTK. She persisted in defending Brown's Biblical creationist "work" as science and repeatedly urged forum participants to call him up and schedule a formal debate, long after it had been made apparent that Brown is a crank to whom no one wanted to waste time talking.

Let's just say that when FTK left, I didn't cry myself to sleep.

I read it; I imagine several others did as well... I'd be curious as to what you thought worthwhile in her post.

It's no wonder that Behe is scrambling the way he is, trying to place the blame for the Kitzmiller debacle on anyone else but himself.

However, Behe is hampered by one thing: his own words in the trial transcripts.

Literally, it's not rocket science. Through Behe's own testimony, and his deposition, he made it clear that ID was not science. In fact, according to Behe, the only way to make ID science was to change the definition of science itself! That, of course, led to the "astrology is therefore science" fiasco, and Behe was in a serious jam at that point; he had just killed ID. And in court, no less.

The stack of books that Behe casually waves off as courtroom drama was more a credibility tragedy to Behe. First, Behe testified that he was unfamiliar with the material presented. Unfamiliar with material about the very subject for which he gave testimony only days earlier: evolution of the immune system. Second, Behe further testified that he didn't need to be educated on the subject.

Ignorance and apathy: I don't know and I don't care. It destroyed his credibility as an expert witness.

Behe himself set the charge and lit the fuse that destroyed ID as a subject for public school science classes. He can't legitimately blame it on Judge Jones or Eric Rothschild. Behe's words did the deed.

Kitzmiller was a perfect storm. Behe demonstrated that ID is not science. The Dover Area school board provided a documented religious motive for teaching ID, and carried out their plan by actually presenting the material in biology classes thus violating the Establishment clause. And the Panda's book publisher provided a clearly documented evolution of creationism to intelligent design as a way to get around the Supreme Court ruling of 1987 in Edwards v Aguillard.

We should salute Behe for helping rid us of the problem of ID being wedged into the public school cirriculum; at least for now.