Wesley R. Elsberry
Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002
|
Jones didn't say no peer-reviewed papers of any sort for IDC.
Jones relied on Behe's sworn testimony:
| Quote |
[173]Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?
[174]A. That is correct, yes.
[175]Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?
[176]A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.
|
Here's what Jones said:
| Quote |
The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications. Both Drs. Padian and Forrest testified that recent literature reviews of scientific and medical-electronic databases disclosed no studies supporting a biological concept of ID. ([193]17:42-43 (Padian); [194]11:32-33 (Forrest)). On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." ([195]22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. ([196]21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), [197]23:4-5 (immune system), and [198]22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."^[199]17 ([200]21:62, [201]22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. ([202]28:114-15 (Fuller); [203]18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).
|
Jones wasn't looking for just any peer-reviewed paper by an IDC advocate; he was looking for peer-reviewed papers on IDC that made a positive case for IDC. The DI's own people testified that they didn't have any. It's a bit late for Casey to call them liars, and besides, Casey would be wrong. The Meyer 2004b paper is not about making a positive case for IDC, and neither are the rest of what he flashed on screen.
--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
|
