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

_{November 14, 2007

Biology, Courts, Darwinism, Education, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

More than 50 years ago two playwrights penned a fictionalized account of the 1920s Scopes Trial called “Inherit the Wind” that is now universally regarded by historians as inaccurate propaganda. Last night PBS aired its “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design” documentary, which similarly promotes propaganda about the 2005 Kitzmiller trial and intelligent design (ID). Most of the misinformation in “Judgment Day” was corrected by ID proponents long ago. To help readers sift the fact from the fiction, here are links to articles rebutting some of PBS’s most blatant misrepresentations:

Comments

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_{December 1, 2007
December
12
Dec
1
01
2007
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT}

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_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

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_{November 17, 2007
November
11
Nov
17
17
2007
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
11:46 PM
11
11
46
PM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
12:23 PM
12
12
23
PM
PDT}

Behe's final response is in http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/103-0047538-2939066bornagain77_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
11:24 AM
11
11
24
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
10:10 AM
10
10
10
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
10:01 AM
10
10
01
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
09:14 AM
9
09
14
AM
PDT}

Really? Then I'd like you to explain exactly how this example refutes Behe's main arguments put forth in EoE.Patrick_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
08:42 AM
8
08
42
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
07:43 AM
7
07
43
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
07:11 AM
7
07
11
AM
PDT}

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_{November 16, 2007
November
11
Nov
16
16
2007
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

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.htmlLarry Fafarman_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
10:23 PM
10
10
23
PM
PDT}

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_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:44 PM
7
07
44
PM
PDT}

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_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

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_{November 15, 2007
November
11
Nov
15
15
2007
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply