http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...tml#day12am490

cross examination of Behe

The lawyer apparently thinks that 10³⁰ is roughly double 10¹⁶. oops.

And there's a long exchange starting at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...ml#day12am1087. Too much to quote, but I can't figure out the lawyer's point. I don't think he knows what his own point is. He ends up saying, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dove...ml#day12am1197:

He might not be mistaken if doubling the amount of soil squares the number of prokaryotes for some geometric reason.

ETA Actually reading the transcript there makes it clear it probably doesn't! ;)

I imagine, if you are a proponent of ID as scientific, that those .pdf transcriptions would be damn pesky.

Then again, converting them to html isn't going to help in that respect....

It can be found in this damaged .pdf file, much of which is legible.

I can't copy it but read the first Q&A on p. 73 wherein Dr. Behe uses Science Fiction as a rationale.....odd man.

Finally, someone who agrees with me that Star Trek Design Theory should be taught in the classroom!

Another fun article on the trial:

http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/10/11/65535

~~ Paul

In following a link concerning tax protesters I found this quote which is particularly germane, I think:

Has anyone ever nailed Behe on his stupid mountain/Mt. Rushmore nonsense?

"So the mountain range wasn't designed? The designer didn't make these mountains? Oh he did make the mountains? How can you tell?"

I thought this might be relevant. If not, its still funny.
http://www.uclick.com/client/wpc/nq/

Thanks for that, Corey--I thought the same when I read it this morning.

I know it's a little off topic, but:

I think we can all safely say (except for hammy), that evolution qualifies as science whether or not you personally believe it.

It has all the componants of the scientific method.

I'd like to ask hammy again, can he point out how ID is science? Or rather, who has ever demonstrated that it is?

A laundry list of nitpicky complaints against a robust scientific theory doesn't make ID science.

Well, ID isn't really any more than this itself. The basic argument seems to be "If Darwinian evolution doesn't explain this, it must have been designed." See Behe's first answer in this recent interview, for example:

I wonder if anyone ever said something along the lines of "if Lamarck's theory of evolution by inheritance of acquired characteristics doesn't explain it we're left with no other explanation than maybe it really was designed."

I've just noticed that Talk Origins has transcripts of days 13 to 15 (Nilsen and Fuller) and a damaged pdf of day 16 am (Buckingham).

Fuller's cross includes: :D

I am being serious but why has he been put forward? The man seems incapable of answering questions even in his area of expertise.

(ETA)

I guess he's the best they can manage.

Most of their other "experts" seem to have run away.

And the judge has a great sense of humour:

:D

I'm meant to be doing some work but...

A little aside
 

I've been having a conversation with an ID proponent via email. The usual cruft, but we've also been discussing Schneider's Ev program (she contacted me because of Ev). She asked a question that prompted me to run a different sort of model, and I thought the results were interesting.

Romans 8:1 Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

STOP! STOP! MY HEAD IS EXPLODING!!

This is pure torture...(of a perversely funny kind...)

In his redirect examination, Fuller and the School board's lawyers are employing the "persecution" fallacy: We also have Fuller trying to turn the whole thing on its head and saying that ID should be taught because it isn't a properly developed scientific theory: They really ought to try to make up their minds...

In other words, if we could indoctrinate a bunch of high school kids into ID, they might go to college and do research on it. That way we could get more research done.

I propose we do the same thing for Flying Spagetti Monsterism. It needs research, doesn't it?

~~ Paul

At least it needs some of this grated Parmesan cheese...mmmmmm, Parmesan :D

Sorry it took so long to get back to you on this. Been a busy weekend. I've heard it a few places, here's one source:

http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives...er_oath_in.php

I'm not a lawyer, so don't quote me, but perjury charges resulting from civil suits are exceedingly rare, mostly because the only alternative is they be ridiculously common. Most civil suits are a matter of one party's word against the other, so obviously only one can be telling the truth in court; the upshot of this is that, logically, every party who loses a civil suit could be charged with perjury, and it's generally thought that that would be excessive.

That said, Buckingham is arguably lying under oath concerning actions performed in his capacity as a public official (namely, an elected member of a school board), so there's a case to be made that it would be in the public interest to investigate him for perjury. After all, if a public offiicial feels he needs to dissemble about his performance, it's a safe bet he hasn't been doing his job properly, and the public deserves to know.

My understanding is also that they're incredibly difficult to prosecute. As I read the various reported details, although I certainly get the idea and the impression that Buckingham is a lying cheese-weasel, I don't think I can actually prove that any given statement is a lie. Almost everything he says is attributed to simple mis-remembering, backed up by an acknowledged and provable drug problem.

Do I believe that it's likely that he really has that poor a memory, while still being able to function in normal society? No. Can I prove it to the standards required in a criminal trial? Probably not? Would prosecuting him for perjury be seen as unnecessarily vindictive? Probably so. Would I recommend it if I were the local DA? Almost certainly not.

Would such a prosecution be in the best interests of justice? Possibly so -- at the very least, if he were tried, convicted, and sent up the river for a few years, that would definitely send a message to any other school boards that are thinking of lying their way out of the Lemon test. But the benefit is so small, and the chance of it happening it so remote -- and the chance of the local citizens putting up with it before voting the DA out of office -- are such that I doubt it will, or should, happen.

I couldn't agree more with your assessment, drkitten, with the exception that, as an owner of a highly adorable ferret who will eat damn near anything he sees humans eat (he's kind of dog-like that way), I object to your characterisation of Buckingham as a "cheese weasel" on the grounds that this insulting to mustelids.
But other than that, spot on!

I just found how the Discovery Institute is presenting the Dover trial, and it's rather interesting.

The ACLU is presenting all the testimony (in rather broad terms; they are not especially quick off the block, and some of the transcripts are garbled). The DI, by contrast, is specifically presenting only the direct examination of their own witnesses, and only the cross-examination of the plaintiffs'. They're also presenting the text of their various amicus briefs, not bothering to tell anyone that one of the briefs was rejected, and they're presenting Dembski's expert witness report, without bothering to mention that Dembski is no longer testifiying, and is therefore irrelevant.

If anyone wants to know just how dishonest the DI is, this may be a good way to show it....

Unfortunately, if DI's regular readers are anything like my relatives, they are regular readers because DI presents only what they are looking for, the affirming view, which appeases their discomfort with dissent. They will be suspect of any claims of DI's dishonesty and will accept any spin DI puts on such claims.

http://www.orlyowl.com/orly.jpg

Thanks for that, Dan. It's always good to have the facts at our fingertips. In light of this information, Buckingham's confused testimony makes a lot more sense.

I have to ask, though... why couldn't he take the 5th?

Because it's a civil trial, and the Fifth Amendment states that on person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

Seems logical enough then that perjury is right out in a civil trial.

Does the phrase "There are some things Man is not meant to know" ring a bell with anyone?
That, to me, is the thrust of ID. GODDIDIT, so there is no reason to investigate further. Let's stop meddling in "Things man is not meant to know"

"saints preserve us!":D

or, my favorite bumper sticker: "Lord, protect me from your followers"

He couldn't take the fifth unless the questions were couched in such a way that a truthful answer could be used to convict him in a criminal trial. Since nothing he's done is a crime per se there is no protection under the fifth.

I think the smart thing to do would be to have the defense call the witness and severely limit the lines of questioning. Isn't cross examination limited to subjects covered under direct? Maybe I'm thinking of re-direct...I'm no lawyer either, but I've seen one on TV.

It appears that Dover school board member Alan Bonsell got into a little trouble with the judge yesterday: http://ydr.com/story/doverbiology/92434/

And here's Mike Argento's take on Bonsell's testimony.

Another transcript to look forward to.

Beautiful, just beautiful :D