Joined: April 2005
|You’re right, it was all about the book, it had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Behe admitted under oath that in order for ID to be considered “science”, the definition of science had to be REDEFNIED to include supernatural explanations. |
Comment by jon nickles — January 29, 2006 @ 2:15 pm
Hey Jon, if you're reading this, at the bottom of page 30 of the Dover decision:
Behe admitted no such thing. He said astrology, 600 years ago when astrology and astronomy were the same art, would be science under his definition. If you care to argue he said something more than that feel free to provide a quote from the court transcript. Otherwise put a sock in it. ...[DaveScot]
Perhaps Dave should be counseled to "put a sock in it".
|Defendants’ expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a|
supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means “not designed by the laws of nature,” and that it is “implausible that
the designer is a natural entity.” (P-647 at 193; P-718 at 696, 700). Second,
Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules
of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.
(38:97 (Minnich)). Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID’s
project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural. (Trial Tr.
vol. 28, Fuller Test., 20-24, Oct. 24, 2005). Turning from defense expert witnesses
to leading ID proponents, Johnson has concluded that science must be redefined to
include the supernatural if religious challenges to evolution are to get a hearing.
Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.