PBS Airs False “Facts” in its “Inherit the Wind” Version of the Kitzmiller Trial

Bob O'H: I just sent an email to Dr. Behe letting him know that in my showdown with Dr. Musgrave over at ERV's blog I had already pointed out to Ian that the development of viroporin activity happened in the 20's and 30's, well before anyone had ever heard of HIV. Thus, if one considers the time period for which Table 7.1 was constructed, the viroporin activity should not be included. The ZERO should remain ZERO. PaV

Thus Dr. Musgrave must conclusively prove the development of two more protien/protein binding sites to defeat Dr. Behe’s estimate of a limit of 2.

eh? Don't fall into Musgrave's trap of conflating the two examples of minor Darwinian evolution. The whole point is that something like this might be expected to be within the powers of Darwinism for viruses. The problem is that they're taking the factors surrounding viruses and extrapolating that as somehow providing evidence for higher organisms even though the situation is very different. Really, the only reason Darwinists are gaining any mileage at all on this minor issue is because it was not originally included in EoE. You don't hear them crowing over the other minor examples of Darwinian evolution that were discussed in the book. The oddball part is that none of these examples have enough informational bits to be CSI. Even before Behe took the time to look at this example I was wondering what the commotion was about since even to me it was rather obvious after a cursory reading it would not present a challenge. So why make a mountain out of a molehill? Patrick

Dr. Musgrave is crowing that He has defeated Dr. Behe, Yet I don't see his logic. First his population distortion is a blatant attempt to get around the 10^10 HIV replications per day. Thus, he is whistling in the dark to avoid facing reality on that matter since 10^10 HIV replications per day, is in fact 10^10 chances per day for evolution to strut its almighty stuff. Since Dr. Musgrave was so blatant on this distortion, I looked at what Dr. Behe said about this binding site that Dr. Musgrave is so impressed with. One should, however, also make some distinctions with this example. First, although there apparently are five or so copies of Vpu in the viroporin complex, that does not mean that five binding sites developed. Only one new binding site need develop for one area of a protein which binds to a different area of the same protein, to form a homogeneous complex with, say, C5 symmetry. That is all that is required for a circularly symmetric structure to form. Second, the viroporin is not some new molecular machine. There is no evidence that it exerts its effect in, say, an ATP- or energy-dependent manner. Rather, similar to other viroporins, the protein simply forms a passive leaky pore or weak channel. (4,5) This situation is probably best viewed as a foreign protein degrading the integrity of a membrane, rather than performing some positive function. And third, I explicitly pointed out in Chapter 8 of The Edge of Evolution that HIV had undergone enough mutating in past decades to form all possible viral-viral binding sites, but commented that apparently none of them had been helpful (now I know that one of them helped). This I discussed as the “principle of restricted choice”: From my limited knowledge of the subject, it seems the protein/protein binding site he is so excited about, is actually a additional "refining" protein binding site of the one that actually allowed the HIV to gain access to humans in the first place. Yet even conceding this point Dr. Behe comments: So the square point in Figure 7.4 representing HIV should be placed on the Y axis at a value of one, instead of zero, and Table 7.1 should list one protein-binding site developed by HIV instead of zero. Thus Dr. Musgrave must conclusively prove the development of two more protien/protein binding sites to defeat Dr. Behe's estimate of a limit of 2. To me the whole debate is laughable , because the conservative estimate of number of protein/protein binding sites in a cell in Dr. Behe' book is 10,000. Yet in a number of replication events that far exceeds the proposed mammals split from reptiles (which requires far more than a paltry few binding sites to develop), we see this quibbling over whether zero, one, or even a few, protein/protein binding sites developed. It does not follow logic at all for evolutionists to claim proof of principle when they have done no such thing at all. Until evolutionists can come up with far better proof than what they are currently crowing about (one overlooked binding site), they are merely stating a conjecture of their imagination with no solid foundation in reality. bornagain77

Joseph -

There aren’t any new protein to protein binding sites made by those 9- that is protein to protein binding sites within the virus.

Dr. Behe begs to differ:

Yes, I’m perfectly willing to concede that this does appear to be the development of a new viral protein-viral protein binding site, one which I overlooked when writing about HIV.

Bob O'H

Stanton and Jehu, In Musgrave's attempt to get around Dr. Behe's hard number of 10^10 for HIV he tries to use the smoke and mirrors of effective population size used in population Genetics. Yet I looked at Behe' sources in His book and they do in fact take into account the effective population size that is used in population genetics to arrive at there number. So Behe's number is thoroughly thought out and firm as a rock. Here are Dr. Behe's sources on page 290 of EDge of Evolution" 15. Geritti, A.M.2006. HIV-1 sub-types: epidemiology and significance for HIV management. http://www.co-infectiousdiseases.com/pt/re/coinfdis/abstract.00001432-200602000-00002.htm;jsessionid=H2HZLvtJ22B9MVWg2YbFcBYdCnWJyMVgdJ6N192QzQy4WTNZVny9!-368808804!181195628!8091!-1 Curr. Opin. Infect. Dis. 19:1-7. Rodrigo, A. G. 1999. HIV evolutionary genetics. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:10559-61. Total body burden of the number of copies of HIV RNA is estimated to be much higher, about 10^11 (Haase, A. T., Henry, K., Zupancic, M., Sedgewick, G., Faust, R. A., Melroe, H., Cavert, W., Gebhard, K., Staskus, K., Zhang, Z. O., Dailey, P. J., Balfour, H. H. Jr., Erice, A., and Perelson, A. As. 1996. Quantitative image analysis of HIV-1 infection in lymphoid tissue. Science 274:985-89). The effective population size is estimated at 500 to 10^5 (Althaus, C.L., and Bonhoeffer, S. 2005. Stochastic interplay between mutation and recombination during the acquisition of resistance mutations in human immunodeficiency virus type 1.J. Virol. 79:13572-78). http://www-binf.bio.uu.nl/althaus/publications/althaus2005jvirol.pdf 16 Rodrigo, A. G., Shpaer, E. G., Delwart, E. L., Iverson, A.K., Gallo, M.V., Brojatsch, J., Hirsch, M. S., Walker, B. D., and Mullins, J. I. 1999. Coalescent estimates of HIV-1 generation time in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:2187-91. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/5/2187 You may want to take a real close look at this study Dr. Musgrave: One of the major problems facing HIV molecular evolutionary biologists is sampling: with 10^10 virions produced daily in an infected individual, and 10^6-10^7 infected cells present, Thus, since each virus is considered a chance for evolution to strut its almighty stuff the 10^10 replication number stands solid! 17. Coffin, J. M. 1995. HIV population dynamics in vivo. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 96:2187-91. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/267/5197/483 another note for you Dr. Musgrave: These results lead to a simple steady-state in which infection, cell , and cell replacement are in balance, and imply that the unique feature of HIV is the extraordinarily large number of replication cycles that occur during infection of a single individual. I just don't understand your logic at all Dr. Musgrave. Your argument for limit to population size has no merit, whatsoever, since the entire HIV population of 10^10 is being replaced every day or two and each virus replication is in fact a search of variation for HIV. So the search area and population size of the HIV stands firm and is not limited as you are vainly trying to do. In my opinion this was a desperate attempt at distortion on your part and you should be ashamed to call yourself a scientist, since apparently finding the truth has no meaning for you! bornagain77

Stanton, HIV has 9 genes. It has never had more than 9. There aren't any new protein to protein binding sites made by those 9- that is protein to protein binding sites within the virus. Dr Behe explained he is not talking about foreign proteins. IOW it is obvious that Abbie disregards what Dr Behe is saying and then sets out to refute something he didn't say. Also Dr Behe is talking about constructive protein to protein binding sites. If the theory of evolution were indicative of reality there should be a muriad of such events. Yet we are still waiting for ONE! Joseph

Behe's final response is in http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/103-0047538-2939066 bornagain77

Stanton Rockwell said (comment #60) --

Larry, thanks for the reference. Now you might want to look up what “received as exhibits” means.

Re: "If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits." -- from Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 803(18)http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803 Why should I look it up? Why don't you tell me what it means or what you think it means? There is no applicable legal definition of the word "receive," so I just used the normal definitions of the word that are appropriate in this context, e.g., "accept," "take," "approve," etc.. And I did give you legal definitions of "exhibit," e.g., “a document or object shown to the court as evidence in a trial.” Also, with no basis whatsover, the Kitzmiller opinion said that this literature "refuted" irreducible complexity: "We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

You can’t always assume that what you read in the law may be taken absolutely literally.

Why not? Larry Fafarman

bornagain77, It doesn't appear that Behe has responded to Musgrave on that topic yet. However, the population of HIV in an infected individual is about 10^10. http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/21/10/1902 The generation time is a day or two, so your infected person produces 10^13 per year. There are 40 - 50 million HIV positive people in the world, so in any given year the population of HIV virus in humans is about 4 x 10^20. Behe is right about that. Jehu

Stanton, I already posted the link to where Smith visited and dodged the issues: https://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/ervs-challenge-to-michael-behe/#comment-134864%20rel= It conveniently logs the back and forth responses that occurred elsewhere. Patrick

To be fair to our more educated and vastly superior brethren Stanton, Musgrave is challenging Behe's population count in his last response. Yet something tells me this challenge will not hold when Behe post his final response today. I believe this ploy by Musgrave is just a desperation attempt to get the numbers somewhere near the ballpark they need to be for evolution to even be considered plausible , (Since the numbers are not even in the same country as the ballpark is at the present moment) But Hey, just squint your eyes, tilt your head, and you too can see the almighty power of evolution Jehu. bornagain77

Stanton,

It’s my understanding that Ms. Smith’s ability to respond was unilaterally terminated (she was banned, in other words) so you claims ring rather hollow. As far as understanding the issues is concerned, you know nothing about my training or education, which I will wager is a good deal further advanced than yours on the subject.

Sorry. Wrong. She was banned for her rudeness but then the poster went to her blog and posed the question there and she still refused to answer it. Smith should be an embarassment to your side. She argues like a juvenille delinquent. Anyway, if you have such vaunted "education and training" show some evidence of it. Jehu

Stanton, To illustrate how out to lunch you, Musgrave and Smith are on Behe's Edge of Evolution, let me give you an illustration. On page 143 of Behe's Edge of Evolution, Behe writes that the estimated number of organisms needed to create one new protein to protein binding sites is 1020. Further down the page, Behe notes that the population size of HIV is, surprise, 1020. So according to Behe's own thesis, HIV should be able to evolve a new protein to protein binding sites. So along come Smith and Musgrave, point out a mutation clearly within Behe's thesis, and then declare victory when in fact they have not contradicted Behe at all. Jehu

Jehu, It's my understanding that Ms. Smith's ability to respond was unilaterally terminated (she was banned, in other words) so you claims ring rather hollow. As far as understanding the issues is concerned, you know nothing about my training or education, which I will wager is a good deal further advanced than yours on the subject. Stanton Rockwell

Stanton

’ve read Behe’s Amazon comments (where Behe has disabled comments on all except one post)and I’ve read Edge and DBB, etc., etc. The fact that Behe claims that Smith’s and Musgrave’s contention are “unimpressive” to him is irrelevant (and sadly comical) to anyone who’s perused the material with an open mind.

Actually, you don't understand the issue. You are in over your head. Abbie Smith came to this blog and had her head handed to her by a poster here. It was on of the worst thrashings I have ever seen. The fact is, she has failed to identify an exception to the Edge that Behe outlined in the Edge of Evolution. The only way one can find Smith's arguments persuasive is if you don't really understand the issue. This was probably the case with Smith originally. But I think she eventually realized this and refused to answer a simple yes or no question repeatedly put to her because she knew she was caught. Jehu

Stanton Rockwell, It is amazing that two different people can read the same stuff and have totally different takes on it. I say Dr. Behe has held his own quite well and has not been refuted...I see quibbling ove minor details, whereas evolutionists need conclusive proof for evolution. You say,,, "Just look at it from this angle and squint your eyes,,,there there...tilt your head...OK NOW, DO you see it? You see I told you so. Evolution is as clear as day and you are all IDiots for not believing me!! I'm sorry Stanton...I just don't buy it..I want some clear cut hard scientific proof! How about transmuting "evolving" any micro-organism of your choosing to a new microorganism or even Phyla if evolution is so clear cut and easy to see? How about showing us a new species to suddenly appear in the fossil record since man suddenly appeared? Why have all recorded sub-speciation events involved loss of information? But I guess all this is besides the point for you since you already know for sure evolution is true! bornagain77

Stanton,

I might add, for those who might consider me an ID heretic, that if we compare Dr. Dembski’s rigourous mathematical concepts vis CSI and such ideas as the Upper Probability Bound to Behe’s pathetic handwaving and goalpost shifting, it becomes clear–at least to me–that Behe comes up empty.

Oh give me a break. We have spent hours debating the peer review literature with scientists about Behe's book Edge of Evolution on this blog. Behe's position was an easy to defend slam dunk every time. You clearly don't understand the science at issue and choose to believe any bit of anti-ID hyperbole that issuess out of the camp of the hard-core Darwinists. You fall for any literature bluff that is issued, assuming it to be true. Even though critics like Miller and Caroll have been caught lying repeatedly to try to make Behe look bad. Answer me this, if Behe's work is so bad, why do the critics need to lie in order to give him a negative review? If you care to debate any actual scientific issue in the Edge of Evolution, I guarantee you will lose pathetically. But my hunch is you want to stick to the hyperbole and not discuss the actual evidence. Jehu

Really? Then I'd like you to explain exactly how this example refutes Behe's main arguments put forth in EoE. Patrick

It seems that some want Behe to be a god and not make any mistakes. In a way they are actually deifying him by finding only minutiae to criticize him on. I wish I was 1/3 that good. jerry

I've read Behe's Amazon comments (where Behe has disabled comments on all except one post)and I've read Edge and DBB, etc., etc. The fact that Behe claims that Smith's and Musgrave's contention are "unimpressive" to him is irrelevant (and sadly comical) to anyone who's perused the material with an open mind. Your mileage may differ, of course, but I still say that DBB and Edge prove nothing relevant to the discussion, and that contention is buttressed by the fact that Behe stopped doing science a long time ago, apparently content in his new role of blind man leading the blind. Stanton Rockwell

Did you bother to read the Amazon blog? Behe even shows how this example fits into the context of his book:

At this point I should perhaps remind Dr. Musgrave that the title of my book is The Edge of Evolution. In it I explain that Darwinian processes can do some things, but not others, and I try to find a rough dividing line. As I emphasize, that means one has to make distinctions between categories. A virus like HIV, with its small genome size and much greater mutation rate, has to be considered differently from cells with their larger genome sizes and lower mutation rates. As a rule of thumb, HIV can acquire two specific point mutations as easily as a cell can acquire one. And with its great population size, it would be child’s play for HIV to alter many signaling sequences. To answer Dr. Musgrave’s question, I wouldn’t list this as a new binding site, not because it doesn’t bind a cellular protein, but because, as I explicitly state in the book, I place viral protein-cellular protein interactions in a separate category. My book concerns cellular protein-protein binding sites (or new viral-viral sites).

The only true objection to EoE that can be stated is that it did not include these examples, since Behe was not aware of such examples (which was not the focus of the book in the first place). So Behe was WRONG to say that such potential examples did not exist and he even readily says so! If a revision is released I'm sure Behe would discuss it...and the main points of the book would remain unchanged. Darwinists are claiming that somehow Behe being "wrong" in this instance somehow has relevance to his main arguments. Darwinists are doing the goalpost-moving, not Behe. Patrick

Patrick, your ad hominem observations are noted. It's not a question of whether the points Behe makes are important to ID or not (and that itself is questionable), but the fact that Behe made unequivocal statements in Edge to the effect of "X doesn't happen," and he was shown (in part by a grad student) that X does indeed happen. This is undeniable and plain for anyone to see. If anything is clear, it's that Behe just didn't understand what he was on about, and apparently didn't care. Now hee predictably engages in goalpost-moving, just as he did after DBB. Many ID supporters seem to have taken the tack of supporting whatever anyone says in favor of ID, no matter how ridiculous it might be. This does our cause no good. If we're going to have anything resembling credibility in the effort to have ID gain its rightful place in refuting Darwinism, we have to be better than that. Stanton Rockwell

Actually, Stanton, all you did was illustrate that you didn't understand Behe's argument in the first place (or have you ever read Behe's book?). As I just said "In his Amazon blog Behe is perfectly fine with conceding this data point since it does no harm to ID." It also does not do any damage to his argument in EoE, unless you think it's a successful counter-argument to conflate the circumstances of viruses with eukaryotic cells and higher organisms? I'm sure others like Sal would say there's no reason to concede the point at all (read the previous discussion to see why) but I'd say that it's pointless to continue arguing over something that is irrelevant. Really, the only ones who should be embarrassed are those propping up Abbie Smith. Read her comments. She calls people retarded and tells them to piss off when her arguments come under scrutiny. She wishes death on people and "[fantasizes] about them all driving off a cliff a la 'Billy Madison'." And that's just some of her nicer moments. Patrick

Ellazimm asked:

Has anyone looked at Ian Musgrave’s criticisms? I can’t get anyone to help me consider them.

Now Behe has admitted that he had not considered significant aspects of his argument, but true to form, waves them away as "unimpressive." The fact is that Musgrave and Abbie Smith have explicitly shown where Behe's basic premise in Edge are wrong. If nothing else, it indicates that Behe failed to have someone competent review his work before publication, which is very telling. The ID movement needs to acknowledge that Behe has become an embarassment, disassociate itself from him, and move on. The fact that Behe continues to argue via false premises, and continues to be celebrated in the ID community is not good for us. Stanton Rockwell

Larry, thanks for the reference. Now you might want to look up what "received as exhibits" means. A hint for your future legal research endeavors: You can't always assume that what you read in the law may be taken absolutely literally. Stanton Rockwell

Has anyone looked at Ian Musgrave’s criticisms? I can’t get anyone to help me consider them.

You could just read Behe's discussion directly: http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_blog Smith herself briefly came onto UD. Short version is that assuming you accept the assumptions surrounding Smith's hypothetical scenario (which many on UD did not) this example still falls in line with the main points of EoE. In his Amazon blog Behe is perfectly fine with conceding this data point since it does no harm to ID. I made this point back then:

1. A bundle of assumptions seems to be substituted for hard data. Reconstructing a speculative Darwinian pathway is not hard data. It would be best to stick to observed evolution known to have been caused by unguided Darwinian processes rather than perceived/inferred evolution. 2. Behe only made an ESTIMATE for a generalized “edge of evolution” that can apply in all circumstances. I don’t see why this “edge” could be expanded a bit further under fortunate circumstances. Obviously I’m doubtful observation will expand this “edge” enough to save Darwinism but if there is a minor expansion everyone (especially Darwinists) needs to keep in mind that potentiality won’t hurt ID. So the current estimate need not be defended overly much by ID proponents. I for one will say right now that I think the estimate too low.

Also, it has not been ignored. bornagain77 made this comment on it several days ago:

On page 138 of Dr. Behe’s Edge of evolution,, As one study put it “Each and Every possible single-point mutation occurs between 10^4 and 10^5 times per day in an HIV-infected individual.” (HIV population dynamics in vivo Collin J.M., 1995). Every double point mutation, where two amino acids are changed simultaneously, in each person once a day. (This means a chloroquine-type resistance mutation-where two particular amino acids had to appear before there was a net beneficial effect-would occur in each aids patient every day. Not that’s mutational firepower!) In fact, just about every possible combination of up to six point mutations would be expected to have occurred in an HIV particle somewhere in the world in the past several decades-double the number that could occur in the slower mutating P. falciparum. In addition to all those point mutations, enormous numbers of insertions, deletions, duplications and other sorts of mutations would occur as well. An exactly what has all that evolution of HIV wrought? Very little. Athough news stories rightly emphsize the ability of HIV to quickly develop resistance, and although massive publicity makes HIV seem to the public to be an evolutionary powerhouse, on a functional biochemical level the virus has been a complete stick_in_the_mud. Over the years its DNA sequence has certainly changed. HIV has killed millions of people, fended off the human immune system, and become resistant to whatever humanity could throw at it. Yet through all that, there have been no significant basic biochemical changes in the virus at all… In my opinion this is powerful proof that evolution is not capable of generating the complexity that would be required to change a mammal into a whale or a monkey into a man for that matter…. I expected this one point of Dr. Behe’s book to be attacked vigorously by Darwinists. Since HIV is one of their strongest proofs that evolution appears to be occurring. Yet the only major rebuttal of this crucial point of HIV stasis came from a Grad student, named Abbie Smith, on, of all places, Pandas Thumb. His defense of her rebuttal, as well as all other rebuttals that have been levied against his book, are clear, concise, and in fact, the attempts at rebuttals, of his book, actually turn out to make Dr. Behe’s position all the stronger, since he is allowed to clearly illustrate the insurmountable problems with Darwinism to the nTH degree. ... This reply is interesting in that, Dr. Behe, is pointing out that the (destructive) protein/protein binding site ERV claims as novel is actually a conserved function across ape and humans. Thus it appears her claim for even destructive protein/protein binding is in jeopardy of being overturned. There are three more responses that Dr. Behe is going to issue in the next day concerning this on his amazon blog. It seems the “Edge of Evolution” might be getting a little tighter for evolutionists from what I can gather.

Patrick

Stanton Rockwell said (comment #56)--

Larry: At what point did Rothschild ask for the literature to be entered as exhibits?

Attorney Rothschild told Behe, "Professor Behe, what I have given you has been marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 743." -- from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day12pm.html Also, one online dictionary defines "exhibit" as "a document or object shown to the court as evidence in a trial." One of the definitions in another online law dictionary is "a document or object (including a photograph) introduced as evidence during a trial." So even if Rothschild had not called the literature an "exhibit," he was in fact presenting it as an exhibit.

There is a difference between holding up a magazine or journal and using a statement from it as evidence.

-- which is exactly my point. Holding up a magazine or journal is presenting it as an "exhibit," and FRE Rule 803(18) says that in this situation (bringing a learned treatise to the attention of an expert witness in cross examination) it may not be received as an exhibit. However, FRE Rule 803(18) says that a statement from the magazine or journal may be read into evidence. Behe himself said, "How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the defense expert disputes it and the Court has not itself read and understood them?" -- from http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/08/judge-jones-fell-for-bad-courtroom.html Larry Fafarman

Larry: At what point did Rothschild ask for the literature to be entered as exhibits? Please also note that the rule you're misunderstanding refers to "statements contained in published treatises, periodicals..." and not to the treatises and periodicals as a whole. There is a difference between holding up a magazine or journal and using a statement from it as evidence. Stanton Rockwell

Gil Dodgen said (comment #12) --

Behe kept getting journals and books dumped on him showing that normal scienctists have done the research to find evidence for things that he said were impossible for evolutionary biologists to explain.

- - - - - - - - - - The cheap trial stunt was a giant literature bluff, a favorite tactic of Darwinists. See my essay on this topic. Rule 803 (18) of the Federal Rules of Evidence says,

Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule, even though the declarant is available as a witness: -- - - - - (18) Learned treatises. To the extent called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination or relied upon by the expert witness in direct examination, statements contained in published treatises, periodicals, or pamphlets on a subject of history, medicine, or other science or art, established as a reliable authority by the testimony or admission of the witness or by other expert testimony or by judicial notice. If admitted, the statements may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits.(emphasis added)

-- from http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803 The literature that attorney Eric Rothschild dumped on Behe was "learned treatises . . . called to the attention of an expert witness upon cross-examination." FRE Rule 803 (18) above says that statements that are admitted from such literature "may be read into evidence but may not be received as exhibits." Rothschild was trying to have the literature received as "exhibits," contrary to FRE Rule 803(18) above. Larry Fafarman

Stanton Rockwell said in 44: “Jerry, here’s what your quote said: …he [Behe] discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial… Behe, so far as the transcript shows, discussed nothing with Miller during the trial. Answering questions about Miller’s testimony is not equivalent to having a discussion with him.” Stanton, I think you’re nitpicking big time. You asked for what Behe discussed with Miller and Jerry provided it to you. Who cares if they “had a conversation” or not? They did what you do in a courtroom yes? shaner74

Stanton Rockwell, Well I guess I was technically wrong. I quoted a person who summarized Behe's talk at Kansas and the person I quoted did say that. So, I plead guilty to being confused. When I presented Behe's testimony there was no implication he was having a discussion with Ken Miller. Do you feel better now? Does it make any difference? Behe is still the best thing ID has and he is out on the front line all the time with good stuff people can understand. jerry

I love this quote from Behe at Doer. "On the next slide is a short summary of the intelligent design argument. The first point is that, we infer design when we see that parts appear to be arranged for a purpose. The second point is that the strength of the inference, how confident we are in it, is quantitative. The more parts that are arranged, and the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design. The third point is that the appearance of design in aspects of biology is overwhelming. The fourth point then is that, since nothing other than an intelligent cause has been demonstrated to be able to yield such a strong appearance of design, Darwinian claims notwithstanding, the conclusion that the design seen in life is real design is rationally justified." A lot of good stuff there. jerry

jerry, Are we not in Kansas anymore? Please look at #46, and what you said. Stanton Rockwell

Stanton Rockwell, I never said Behe had a conversation with Miller at Dover. He does address Miller's testimony in several places. That was what I thought you wanted. And he does say that he has had discussions with Miller several times previously to Dover. They presented to audiences together. I do not know the content of any actual conversation they had with each other since that is considered hearsay and not admissible as testimony. Anyway Behe is great as I continue to read his testimony. jerry

Scuba, you are right. Witnesses don't have conversations with each other during trials. BarryA

Scuba, It was Jerry who said that there was a conversation between Behe and Miller during the trial; see #40 above:

In the trial, he [Behe] referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision.

Stanton Rockwell

Stanton, Having watched lots of Matlock and Law and Order re-runs, I can't recall a scenario that would allow two witnesses, particularly witnesses for opposing sides of the case, to have a conversation on the record during the trial. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean for us. The Scubaredneck The Scubaredneck

Jerry, here's what your quote said:

...he [Behe] discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial...

Behe, so far as the transcript shows, discussed nothing with Miller during the trial. Answering questions about Miller's testimony is not equivalent to having a discussion with him. Stanton Rockwell

"If you can point me to the place in the Dover transcripts where Behe discussed anything with Kenneth Miller, I’d appreciate it." From the examination of Dr. Behe at Dover "Q. And you're aware that Dr. Miller has criticized several sections in this book? A. Yes, I heard him. Q. Do you intend to address his claims in your testimony today? A. Yes, I intend to, yes." Later on this is a brief bit "Q. Now Plaintiffs' experts, including Dr. Miller, testified that they have yet to see a positive argument for design advanced by intelligent design proponents. I believe we have a slide from his actual testimony here. A. Yes, that's a photocopy of his testimony. And on the next is a transcription of a portion of that testimony. And he was asked about the argument, and he said that the design argument is in every respect a completely negative argument. If one combs the pages Of Pandas and People, or for that matter, if one looks at Dr. Behe's book, or if one looks at the writings of other people who -- that one can't find such an argument. And he goes on to say, quote, I have yet to see any explanation advanced by any adherent of design that basically says, we have found positive evidence for design. The evidence is always negative, and it basically says, if evolution is incorrect, the answer must be design, close quote. Q. How do you respond to that criticism? A. Well, in two ways. First of all, let me just say that, of course, I think it's a mischaracterization. But on the second, it's kind of understandable, because Professor Miller is looking at the evidence through his own theoretical perspective and can only see things that seem to fit with his own theoretical perspective. So this, I think, shows the importance of being able to look at data from different points of view so that one can see, can see it from different perspectives. But additionally on the next slide, in order to help him see, I would direct him to read more closely Chapter 9 of Darwin's Black Box, the chapter entitled Intelligent Design, where I explain exactly how one perceives design and explains why the biochemical systems that I discussed earlier in the book are good examples of design. I would further direct him to go and look at the structures of the machinery found in the cell without Darwinian spectacles on and see the very, very strong appearance of design, which everybody admits to, David DeRosier, Richard Dawkins, and so on, which is easily perceived even by a lay people in the figure of the flagellum, and also to read such material in the professional scientific literature, as I refer to in the journal Cell, the special issue on molecular machines." I haven't time to read it all but this is an examle of how he does answer Ken Miller. So far I found this extremely interesting. For those who doubt Dr. Behe's value and underrstanding of the issues, I suggest you read the testimony at Dover. jerry

Reynold Hall said (comment #18) --

to professorsmith: A further point about who’se villianizing whom here… You complained about the villianization of the ID people. Did you not notice the way the ID people acted after the trial? The name-calling that Buckingham did to the judge, or Dembski having a flash animation with farting noises (that he later took out)?

Well, just look at the comments that Judge Jones' Kitzmiller opinion made about the defendants: "breathtaking inanity," "activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board," and "The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources." "Breathtaking inanity"? "Activism"? A lot of people don't realize that court decisions against two other evolution disclaimers, Selman v. Cobb County and Freiler v. Tangipahoa Parish, came close to being overturned. The book "Monkey Girl" also recorded a swipe that Buckingham took at Judge Jones (page 336):

"If the judge called me a liar, then he's a liar." He added, "I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state. We didn't lose; we were robbed."

IMO there should be court rules giving litigants the opportunity to add short comments -- maybe 500 words max -- to judicial opinions, and judges should have the opportunity to add short responses to those comments. These additions would become official parts of the opinion. Obviously Darwinism was not going to be proven in a two-hour TV program. I feel that the program should have concentrated on the legal issues instead of the scientific issues. As is evident from the post label list in the sidebar, my blog "I'm from Missouri" has dozens of articles about the Kitzmiller case, Judge Jones, and related subjects, but the overwhelming majority of those articles are about the legal issues rather than the scientific issues. Judge "true religion" Jones' comments in the PBS NOVA program were another violation of his stated policy of not publicly commenting about specifics of the Dover case. I thought that his participation in the program would consist of just reading excerpts from the written opinion. Larry Fafarman

I might add, for those who might consider me an ID heretic, that if we compare Dr. Dembski's rigourous mathematical concepts vis CSI and such ideas as the Upper Probability Bound to Behe's pathetic handwaving and goalpost shifting, it becomes clear--at least to me--that Behe comes up empty. Stanton Rockwell

Behe's original contention, once again, was that there was no evidence, not that there was no evidence that he accepted. If you can point me to the place in the Dover transcripts where Behe discussed anything with Kenneth Miller, I'd appreciate it. The may-haves, etc., are all based on empirically observed processes that are known to have taken place, so they are not just idle speculation. They are what Behe originally claimed didn't exist, and no amount of dancing around it will change that. Behe is an embarrassment to the ID movement, and every time someone blindly accepts his claims as good science just because his "conclusions" jibe with their beliefs, the ID movement takes a step backwards. Stanton Rockwell

Stanton Rockwell, You just made my day. You did not present any information about the immune system. The pattern is so excruciating consistent. As a Christian and ID supporter, I find Behe a breath of fresh air and the best thing going for ID. He puts himself out there all the time and defends himself with good scientific information and logical arguments. Here are his reactions to the literature dump "The Immunology Literature Dump: "As far as the 'stack of books and articles' presented at the trial, Behe took it as bad courtroom theatre. ... Behe said that current studies do not provide evidence that the immune system has been explained by evolutionary mechanisms, so he was certain that this older material piled up in front of him did not contain anything that would explain it either. In the trial, he referenced the most current 2005 standard view of the immune system and he discussed this in depth with Ken Miller during the trial, but this information was not referenced in the Jones decision. He said the 2005 article on the immune system used words like 'may have', 'appears to be', 'probably', 'might have', etc. etc. It was speculative information, and if that were true in 2005, then obviously earlier papers wouldn’t have added anything more pertinent to the discussion. The papers in question do not address how random processes explain evolution of the immune system... they simply assume that they do." jerry

jerry said,

If the pile of articles had specific evidence to support the claim why is it not discussed and all that is presented is the pile of articles. Where is the beef? What is the specific evidence supporting the evolution of the immune system.

I think the evidence is discussed, Jerry, if nowhere else than in the literature Behe admitted that he hadn't read. Behe made a specific claim--that evolution of the immune system was not supported by evidence. He didn't say that he didn't accept the evidence; he said there wasn't any, and made this claim while simultaneously admitting that he wasn't familiar with the relevant literature. Behe had to have known that his contentions would be questioned at trial, so it should have been his duty as a scientist to refute the evidence, rather than just ignore it and claim victory. I don't mind saying that as both a Christian and an ID adherent, I consider Behe to be an embarrassment and an obstacle to ID's aspirations to gain ascendancy in science. Stanton Rockwell

I notice something familar in the arguments here. It is claimed by some that Behe does not understand the evidence that supports the evolution of the immune system. So what is it the Behe does not understand. If the pile of articles had specific evidence to support the claim why is it not discussed and all that is presented is the pile of articles. Where is the beef? What is the specific evidence supporting the evolution of the immune system. Again the classic example of the dog barking in the night. The dog did not bark and those who say there is evidence don't present the evidence, just references. When will a Darwinist present anything specific? jerry

ellazimm, see my comment 29. BarryA

Scubaredneck said,

The notion that a person be required to have read every book or article on a particular view before they can challenge it is a bit absurd, actually. According to this standard, the scientists who received the Nobel for showing that ulcers are caused by bacteria and not stress should reasonably have been expected to have read each and every book and article asserting that stress causes ulcers before they could be confident that bacteria and not stress caused ulcers.

Before you can refute an idea, you have to be familiar with its adherents and their data. If you think that Miller et al were not familiar with the current literature on GI disease, or could have achieved what they did without understanding the content of the current literature, you're simply wrong. Being a Christian myself, I'm very sympathetic to ID theory, but I can't understand for the life of me why Behe is so vigorously supported when it's become clear that he is simply wrong, and continues to make a fool of himself in the face of such potent arguments. Behe admitted that he was not familiar with any of the current literature dealing with evolution of the immune system, but still waved it off as being inadequate. That alone should be enough to make us realize that we shouldn't be hitching our wagon to his pathetic claims for IC. Add to this the fact that both Minnich and Behe are on record as having proposed experiements that would falsify IC, but have chosen not to do them and you must realize that they are not really interested in doing science. Stanton Rockwell

Erasmus Bar that! I think BarryA is right; you're just a troll. Now you're making our side look bad. I hope that's not the point. Reynold Hall

Reynold I am afraid that you cannot see the truth, perhaps it is your materialist blinders. I was the one who suggested that Lil Ms Prissy Potty Mouth was a wiccan. I stand by that, for she has not shown us any fruits other than her divisive spirit and antagonistic aggression to support a corrupt and bankrupt worldview that is propped up on the back of the tax paying public and denies any science that goes against the preachings of the high priests of the cult of darwinism. You just don't get it. ID predicts that AIDS will outrun our attempts to control it, all the while remaining a virus and not turning into a carrot or a labrador retriever. We are well justified in inferring that this is the design of the organisms, which matches exactly with the historical fact of G*D sending plagues on Egypt and bears to smite the rebellious children mocking prophets. You should exercise more caution when blaspheming. Erasmus

sorry carl where I come from if someone calls you a darwinist they are basically saying that you are a communist or french. I am neither and I resent those remarks. I don't understand why there is so much divisiveness underneath the big tent. Erasmus

"i'm no darwinist, i'm american." ??? Carl Sachs

I'll ignore your ad homo-nem comments and focus on the science. i'm no darwinist, i'm american. and further i'm a christian first. so suffice it to say that it's between me and G*D. If ID predicts, as BA77 has deftly pointed out many times, that ID predicts that we can never fully understand what makes biological organisms tick (since we can't know the plans and intentions of the designer empirically), then we are well-supported with the inference that AIDS is designed to outrun our capacity to manage it (Behe seems to agree that AIDS is intelligently designed, no?) So, it is up to the materialists to prove this is not true by conquering AIDS. Of course, if they do so it will be confounded by two things: it takes intelligence to design counterattacks, and there is a large amount of prayer going into defeating AIDS. how do the materialists account for this? they don't, they say we are wasting our time in our prayer closets. I personally don't see how communion with the designer is a waste of time but it is all based on your worldview. materialism can't handle the fact that prayer works, so they deny it outright. Erasmus

Actually tyke, now that I've read several of his posts, Erasmus appears to be a Darwinist shill. Ignore him. BarryA

And by the way, ID predicts that AIDS will outrun any attempts to cure it since it is a curse sent upon sinful humanity.

Eh, what? Are you serious? ID doesn't even predict GOD (yes, there's an 'O' in the middle), let alone some sick and twisted idea that AIDS is some sort of divine punishment. Seriously, you appear not to know the first thing about what ID is about. tyke

and by the way, ID predicts that AIDS will outrun any attempts to cure it since it is a curse sent upon sinful humanity. I don't know if you have read the bible but it is abundantly clear that although G*D is just merciful and loving, he does not suffer a witch to live. and as far as I can tell the pottymouth is very likely a Wiccan. Erasmus

poachy, no moreso than calling fossils of extinct organisms 'species'. your worldview and presuppositions are showing. Was jesus an ape? I think the NOVA program will be great for ID, even though I haven't seen it yet I'm sure that your average American can see through the atheist/liberal/materialist lies that the intelligent educated segments of our society are using to wage war against those of us who know that G*D is intelligent and designed the world. The ball is in the Darwinists court. I say that things look designed, they say it doesn't. Prove It. Erasmus

find Dr. Behe very knowledgeable in HIV, and although that is not his specific area of specialty, He seems not to be handicapped in the least in stating the facts clearly on what is actually happening in HIV. Anyone want to take a wager who will contribute more to the cure for AIDS, Dr. Behe or that potty-mouthed grad student? poachy

"I know that when it comes to HIV Behe isn’t all that active at least. Check out her first link" I though Mike made a pretty good point in his reply to her claims. And I must say, her reply to being called a "mean girl" seemed only to emphasize the accuracy of the original comment. Jason Rennie

Reynold Hall, I find Dr. Behe very knowledgeable in HIV, and although that is not his specific area of specialty, He seems not to be handicapped in the least in stating the facts clearly on what is actually happening in HIV. http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_blog Dr. Behe comments on his specific research: "My current research involves delineation of design and natural selection in protein structures." To me that line of research would seem to require a complete mastery of molecular biology, not just a specific area. bornagain77

You complained about the villianization of the ID people. Did you not notice the way the ID people acted after the trial? Do you dispute that it is factually inaccurate to, instead of Federal Judge, to refer to John Jones as the former head of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board? poachy

Mr. Hall, Buckingham came right out and said point blank what he felt. That is much better than lying about the other side's position and misrepresenting them, as well as the subtle clues and cut shots used. That you can compare the two befuddles me. As to the literature bluffing, it's not enough to throw together any fanciful ideas and claim that they represent possible pathways for evolution. These pathways must be backed by some sort of evidence that shows they are possible, not just assertion. If evolutionists want to assert that such and such a pathway is possible, it is up to the evolutionist to prove their point. Evolution is not held true by default until the IDist can disprove it to the satisfaction of the evolutionists. professorsmith

"Therefore, it is very much to the point that Behe was shown articles about how undirected evolution of the immune system could have happened — such models and theories should, if they are valid, lead us to revise our estimation of the relevant probabilities." It depends on the substance of the articles. Mike didn't seem to think that the articles demonstrated what they claimed to demonstrate. Unless they get down to specifics that are testable they are really just so much hand waving. Jason Rennie

Uh, guys, I already saved this page after I had posted my last two comments. Reynold Hall

to professorsmith: A further point about who'se villianizing whom here... You complained about the villianization of the ID people. Did you not notice the way the ID people acted after the trial? The name-calling that Buckingham did to the judge, or Dembski having a flash animation with farting noises (that he later took out)? The last point I'm going to make is about that "literature dropping". Statistically, what are the chances that Behe would not have read most of those journals and books "dropped" on him in the trial, if he was actually active in researching the stuff they were talking about? I know that when it comes to HIV Behe isn't all that active at least. Check out her first link Reynold Hall

In re: (8)

The only problem with your assertion is that none of the books and articles in the pile actually explained the evolution of the immune system (the point in question) but merely pontificated on how it might have happened.

So far as I can tell, the positive argument for design theory isn't that undirected evolution didn't happen, but that it almost certainly couldn't have happened. That's the point behind the probabilistic arguments advanced by Dembski and Behe -- to show that the probability of undirected evolution is vanishingly small. Therefore, it is very much to the point that Behe was shown articles about how undirected evolution of the immune system could have happened -- such models and theories should, if they are valid, lead us to revise our estimation of the relevant probabilities. (I say "the positive argument" as distinct from "the negative argument", that is, criticisms along the lines of "but undirected evolution hasn't yet explained this!") Carl Sachs

Did anyone else notice the subtle things that the actors playing the IDists threw in there to make them look sinister or clueless? The extra glances and sneers? What a pathetic stunt to try and villainize the IDists. professorsmith

Yep, the Darwinistas fill libraries full of papers and books. Doesn’t mean we have to read it to know that it’s all atheist, materialistic crap. Amen, brother. There are probably 10s of thousands of papers full of Darwinism published every year. And to what end? We only need a few ID papers to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions. poachy

This is the stuff about educating children. It forms their worldviews. It forms their sense of identity and it forms their sense of morality and ethics. I live in Kansas City (Johnson County, KS). After this propagandaist broadcast the local PBS affilliate aired a question and answer session. It was honestly a fair program. The station did not bring in a pastor or some unqualified representative of ID to be slaughtered. It was quite civil. http://www.kcpt.org/localprograms/evolution.shtml What was most surprising to me, assuming that the biology teachers answered viewers' questions honestly, most parents never bother to question whether or not Darwinism is a legitimate explanation of origins ( A sad commentary on the efficacy of the US Educational system to teach students to think critically). There is no doubt that ID has the task of unseating this reigning orthodoxy. Hopefully the day will arrive when the alleged elite will surrender their materialistic presupposition to acknowledge other legitimate points of view. toc

Yep, the Darwinistas fill libraries full of papers and books. Doesn't mean we have to read it to know that it's all atheist, materialistic crap. The good Dr. Behe is a better man than I. I would have smacked any lawyer that suggested that a bunch of books knew more about evolution than Dr. Behe does. Nochange

Behe kept getting journals and books dumped on him showing that normal scienctists have done the research to find evidence for things that he said were impossible for evolutionary biologists to explain.

If you read Behe you'll find that he has done exhaustive searches of the literature looking for explanations or even attempts to explain the evolution of these systems by incremental Darwinian means. The cheap trial stunt was a giant literature bluff, a favorite tactic of Darwinists. See my essay on this topic. GilDodgen

"Behe kept getting journals and books dumped on him showing that normal scienctists have done the research to find evidence for things that he said were impossible for evolutionary biologists to explain." Actually I talked to Mike about exactly this claim when I interviewed him for Darwin or Design (http://darwinordesign.com). He stated that the claims made go beyond the evidence. Such has been the case when i've looked at such things in the past. Why, when it has been standard practice to make claims beyond what the evidence shows in the past when people are "refuting ID", should they be given the benefit of the doubt ? Literature bluffing is unfortunately a standard tactic for those defending the dying paradigm. Jason Rennie

Stanton, The notion that a person be required to have read every book or article on a particular view before they can challenge it is a bit absurd, actually. According to this standard, the scientists who received the Nobel for showing that ulcers are caused by bacteria and not stress should reasonably have been expected to have read each and every book and article asserting that stress causes ulcers before they could be confident that bacteria and not stress caused ulcers. Indeed, they were scorned and ridiculed by their peers for years for making what was considered a patently absurd claim. And yet they received the Nobel. Stephen J Gould analogously asserted that there was no good gradualistic explanation for the range of body plans found among animals today. Do you suppose that he came to this conclusion by having read each and every book and journal article attempting to provide a gradualistic explanation for the development of new body plans? Of course not. He made this assertion based on his knowledge of the problem and his beliefs about its tractability. In other words, were Dr. Gould in a similar situation as Dr. Behe, how would you judge him as he peered from behind a pile of books and articles that he had not read on the evolution of body plans by gradualistic means? Notice also that the trial lawyer never once asked Dr. Behe to evaluate a specific argument from one of these books or articles. Rest assured that if one of these books actually claimed to have provided an adequate explanation for the evoluton of the immune system that he would have been specifically questioned about it. Instead, the lawyer resorted to a cheap theatrical stunt. As any trial lawyer will tell you, you only resort to stunts when the evidence is against you or you don't have a good argument. The Scubaredneck The Scubaredneck

The only problem with your assertion is that none of the books and articles in the pile actually explained the evolution of the immune system (the point in question) but merely pontificated on how it might have happened.

And I suppose that you came to this conclusion the same way Behe did, which was by not reading the material. Stanton Rockwell

Reynold, The only problem with your assertion is that none of the books and articles in the pile actually explained the evolution of the immune system (the point in question) but merely pontificated on how it might have happened. In the end, it was merely a cheap trial stunt that proved nothing and served no purpose except to impeach an expert witness (which is the point of a cross-examination). It said nothing about the actual point in question: is there a good explanation for the evolution of the immune system. Dr. Behe asserted that there is not a good explanation and the lawyer challenged that assertion. Judge for yourself who is more qualified to evaluate the evidence... The Scubaredneck The Scubaredneck

poachy According to the trial transcripts and the text of the judges decision, your advice Seriously. They really ought to spend some time in the lab rather than just cranking out textbooks full of their unsupported assertions. The whole world would be better off it they’d just do some science. would be better geared to the cdesign proponentists than to the "darwinists". Behe kept getting journals and books dumped on him showing that normal scienctists have done the research to find evidence for things that he said were impossible for evolutionary biologists to explain. Reynold Hall

Yes, exactly. Sorry for the clutter. poachy

Is that more what you had in mind, poachy? (See edited post #3.) The Scubaredneck The Scubaredneck

Oops. Sorry. I was responding to Jason about Darwinists politicizing science. Note to self: Look at the preview. poachy

Of course, if they want to present it as science then that might be a problem. Unless of course it is ok to politicise science in this fashion. Darwinists seem to think so.

Seriously. They really ought to spend some time in the lab rather than just cranking out textbooks full of their unsupported assertions. The whole world would be better off it they'd just do some science. poachy

Don't be too hard on PBS. If you have an agenda to push and the facts get in the way then you just need new facts. You can't really blame them for adopting the tried and true approach to such things. Of course, if they want to present it as science then that might be a problem. Unless of course it is ok to politicise science in this fashion. Darwinists seem to think so. Jason Rennie

You mean they lied? mike1962