Albatrossity2
Posts: 2780 Joined: Mar. 2007
|
Quote (Ftk @ Oct. 02 2007,10:00) | ?????????????? It's like trying to talk to someone who doesn't speak your own language!
Dave, can you not see from our conversation that what you are accusing Behe of is not what he was talking about at the trial?
Please, *please* re-read our *entire* conversation again. I'm not sure how I can be any clearer. I do not see where Behe has lied, so you'll have to specifically point it out to me.
If you can point to the information from that "stack of books" that provides empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive in regard to the evolutionary pathways that are responsible for the evolution of the immune system, please do so.
That was his point! We cannot assume that something is correct if it is merely based on "might have", "could be", "we suspect" *speculative* information. Those books and papers did not provide conclusive evidence that we understand the evolutionary pathways of the immune system! Even the 2005 paper stated that what is being explored in this regard is speculative, so how on earth would those older papers have provided anything other than further research on the subject rather than conclusions based on unquestionable empirical data.
There was absolutely no need to "lie", the evidence is not there, and that is exactly what he said. |
FtK
I did read it. I do understand that Behe has a quibble about being misquoted re what he said at the trial. But, as I said before (did you read that?), that is a red herring. Do you seriously believe that Behe thinks that the evidence supporting our current hypotheses about the evolution of the immune system is adequate? Or do you think he would say something like "No, that's not enough". If the latter, does his quibbling about the exact sentences he uttered at Dover matter to anyone except those who wish to be distracted from the real issues?
So let's review. In Behe's words (not your paraphrasing), what did he say in DBB? From the previously quoted decision in the case, with citations (I don't have DBB here at work, so I hope that this is sufficient). Quote | Professor Behe wrote that not only were there no natural explanations for the immune system at the time, but that natural explanations were impossible regarding its origin. (P-647 at 139; 2:26-27 (Miller)) |
Note that this is NOT the same thing as saying that he desired "empirical evidence that has been tested and found conclusive" (your words).
So those are the goalposts. Behe wrote something in 1996, and reiterated it on the stand in 2005, to wit, "There are no natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system; it is irreducibly complex."
That is demonstrably wrong. Without going into the thousands (not just 58) of peer-reviewed papers that document that, you are just going to have to take my word for it, and the word of the authors of those papers, and the word of the rest of the scientific community, and the word of Judge Jones. There are natural explanations for the evolution of the immune system. They are, like all scientific explanations, tentative (not conclusive). To demand otherwise, as you seem to be doing, is not scientific. And it is hypocritical, since ID/creationism cannot prove their case with any level of detail, or with even one testable hypothesis.
So how did Behe lie? He was on the stand as an expert witness. He wrote two books about evolution. By his very presence there he was claiming to be an expert on evolution. Yet he claimed that there was "no natural explanation" in a pile of papers that he admitted he had not read. One of those things is false. Either he is not an expert, or he is deliberately misleading people when he says that there is "no natural explanation". Since he is still saying it to this day, one would have to assume he still believes it (at least for the purpose of selling books).
So if you think that the "evidence is not there", you are incorrect, as is Behe. If you think that the evidence needs to be conclusive, you are not being scientific. When Behe does it, he is lying about science; he should know better. And to demand a higher level of proof for one theory, while engaging in hand-waving about the lack of mechanistic details in your own pet theory, is hypocrisy.
hope this helps.
-------------- Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind Has been obligated from the beginning To create an ordered universe As the only possible proof of its own inheritance. - Pattiann Rogers
|