Intelligent Design

Larry Moran Gets it Right on Behe’s Dover Testimony

Spread the love

In Did Michael Behe say that astrology was scientific in Kitzmiller v. Dover?  Moran actually excerpts the testimony and then concludes:

I mostly agree with Behe. Astrology was an attempt to explain human behaviors by relating them to the position of the Earth on the day you were born. There is no connection. So today we think of astrology as bad science. It’s not true that the stars determine your behavior and whenever we make this claim to an astologist we make sure to point out that the evidence is against it.

(footnote excluded)

We compliment Dr. Moran on his analysis as well as on his often-expressed willingness to buck the conventional wisdom of his “side” of the debate.

 

 

33 Replies to “Larry Moran Gets it Right on Behe’s Dover Testimony

  1. 1
    News says:

    Yes indeed, the evidence IS against it. But there was no way of knowing so in antiquity, or even in the early modern period.

    The stars and the other planets were assumed to be higher, better, and more powerful than Earth. What more logical than that they should exert compelling influences?

    As an English poet wrote, in jest, but referring to a common belief,

    Shut, shut the door, good John! fatigu’d, I said,
    Tie up the knocker, say I’m sick, I’m dead.
    The dog-star rages! nay ’tis past a doubt,
    All Bedlam, or Parnassus, is let out:
    Fire in each eye, and papers in each hand,
    They rave, recite, and madden round the land.

    [People were thought to be more likely to go crazy when Sirius (the dog-star) was more visible.]

    It was one of those odd situations where the observed facts were largely correct but the reasonable conclusions drawn did not turn out to be.

  2. 2
    Robert Byers says:

    Science is fust people figuring things out. Why is there a excuse for error on astrology back in the day.
    Did a serious thoughtful methodology take place in understanding astrology. ?
    no!
    they say science started with Newton. It didn’t but the point is that it must be something or its nothing.
    The best it can be IS a high standard of investigation that can demand confidence in its conclusions. Not case closed but confidence. Science is behind our use of drugs. its gotta have credibility.
    I say astrology was never a scientific study.
    they didn’t do a high standard of investigation into its claims.
    in fact early science is about tiny numbers of men . Very few people investigating nature at q high standard.

    ID is science simply because its obvious its a high standard of investigation into what it studys.
    its not in any way a religious investigation. its absurd for anyone to say or think so.
    especially lawyers in black robes. (famous judge bork quote)

    you says iD wasn’t a solid investigation? On what grounds?
    Is evolution a solid investigation? i say NO if its on BIOLOGICAL science.
    not a high standard.
    take ’em to court

  3. 3
    bornagain says:

    Someone who believes that unguided material processes can create brains that are far more complex than the entire Internet combined is correcting an astrologer on ‘science’ by pointing to evidence? 🙂

    The Atheist Doctor (Denial of Evidence) – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRQzQpnYhKI

    What They Really Teach Students In A Evolutionary Biology Class – cartoon
    http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-96cp.....e%2BNo.jpg

    I wonder when Darwinists will be reasonable and admit that they have been wrong? – picture
    http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix.....64x531.jpg

    Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) – October 2011
    Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.”
    When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.,,, Just two weeks before the (re)lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
    http://www.darwinthenandnow.co.....nce-irony/

  4. 4
    Larry Moran says:

    Astrology is bad science. It’s basic premises are not supported by evidence.

    ID is bad science. It’s basic premises are not supported by evidence.

    You should not believe either one if you have any respect for science as a way of knowing.

  5. 5
    bornagain says:

    Dr. Moran, You yourself, in your short post, just provided evidence for ID. (Meyer – presently acting cause known to produce the effect in question)

    Namely, in your short post, you just produced more information than anyone has ever seen being produced by unguided material processes. (Axe, Gauger, Behe)

    In fact, just one instance of unguided material material processes being observed producing non-trivial information would falsify ID. (Dembski, Marks, Abel)

    On the other hand, evolution has no such rigid falsification criteria. (Behe)

    And since there is no empirical observation that could potentially falsify evolution, then evolution is not even considered a proper science in the first place. (Popper)

    Moreover, if someone were to ever figure out how to get unguided material processes to generate non-trivial information, that discovery could potentially net them a 3 million dollar prize. (Marshall)

  6. 6
    Virgil Cain says:

    Earth to Larry Moran- Unlike your position at least ID has a methodology and again, unlike your position, it makes testable claims.

    Your position isn’t even science and it owes science an apology.

  7. 7
    J-Mac says:

    “Astrology is bad science. It’s basic premises are not supported by evidence.

    ID is bad science. It’s basic premises are not supported by evidence.

    You should not believe either one if you have any respect for science as a way of knowing”

    Unfortunately for you Dr. Moran, the modern evolutionary theory isn’t even bad science. It is a fairy-tale you’ve been bullying others to believe. Now, all you have to do to prove me wrong is provide evidence that the modern evolutionary theory is bad science before you can move on to the next level.

  8. 8
    George Edwards says:

    Arguing that ID is not science is simply not correct. It is as much science as alchemy and phrenology. And just as valid.

  9. 9
    Virgil Cain says:

    George Edwards doesn’t know anything about science…

  10. 10
    Jack Jones says:

    The cultural marxist George says “Arguing that ID is not science is simply not correct. It is as much science as alchemy and phrenology. And just as valid.”

    “In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history’s inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike “harder” scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
    Jerry Coyne Evolutionary Biologist.

  11. 11
    Virgil Cain says:

    Intelligent Design makes testable claims pertaining to many things we observe. These claims can be either confirmed or refuted. If that isn’t a hallmark of science, what is?

  12. 12
    Mapou says:

    Moran is just a troll. Why pay attention to him at all? His opinions on this topic are useless and worthless.

    Somebody should ban Moran and his ilk. 😀

  13. 13
    Virgil Cain says:

    Moran is not only a hypocrite, but he is a hypocrite with credentials (all evolutionists are hypocrites). And it is well worth the effort to continually point out and expose his (their) hypocrisy.

    It also entertaining watching him shove his feet in his mouth and act as if nothing happened.

  14. 14
    Jack Jones says:

    @4 Larry Moran

    Still waiting for you to tell me which chemical elements you teach your students are free?

  15. 15
    RexTugwell says:

    @10 Jack Jones: Jerry Coyne is right and wrong in the same paragraph. He’s right insofar as evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom of science’s pecking order. However, he’s wrong when he states that these same biologists cannot “observe” or “resolve” issues with a simple experiment.

    What is Richard Lenski’s experiment if not “evolution in action”? Almost thirty years on and we’ve learned nothing? Chloroquine resistance is evolution in action but it hasn’t quite given the spectacular results for which our Darwinist friends hope: merely point mutations in a single protein. Sickle cell disease is their textbook example of evolution’s awesome creativity. No wonder they’re usually more crass than cordial; they’ve got little to offer.

  16. 16
    George Edwards says:

    Virgil: “George Edwards doesn’t know anything about science…”

    The difference between you and I is that I have been fooling my employers, staff and customers for over thirty years, and you are fooling nobody.

  17. 17
    Jack Jones says:

    “The difference between you and I is that I have been fooling my employers, staff and customers for over thirty years, and you are fooling nobody.”

    He doesn’t need to George, he has you sussed.

    You are fooling yourself though George, Your faith in unintentionalism provides no basis for presuppositions of science, such as lawfulness can be discovered in the working of the universe and that the mind of man can understand and figure out the workings.

    Believing the universe came about unintentionally and that mans thinking apparatus came about by dumb chance provides 0 grounding for scientific investigation.

    When you chirp about science then you are being inconsistent with your faith in unintentionalism. If you were consistent then you would be arguing against science from your position of faith.

    You can’t be consistent George.

  18. 18
    Jack Jones says:

    @15 I agree with you Mr Tugwell.

    They are a waste of space.

  19. 19
    George Edwards says:

    JJ: “He doesn’t need to George, he has you sussed.

    Hey, somebody got a dictionary for Christmas!! Does this mean that you will be able to have more intelligent discussions in the future? Maybe you should look u the definitions of Scare Quotes and Consistency. When you have done that, get back to me.

    P.s., Joe/Virgil can’t suss the concept of not using work computers to post threatening comments. Good thing he had toaster repair to fall back on.

  20. 20
    bFast says:

    Larry Moran (4) “Astrology is bad science. It’s basic premises are not supported by evidence.” Agreed. There are many ways in which astrology could be possible. The planets could actually control us, or the planets and us could be receiving their guidance from the same source. However, in my opinion the definitive falsification of astrology is the many twin studies that have been done. Medical and psychological sciences have studied twins, contrasting monozygotic and dizygotic twins for a very long time. They find that dizygotics behave very like siblings, whereas monozygotics have strongly parallel behavior. This would suggest that any astrological forces are vastly overpowered by genetics, to the point where the astrological forces are irrelevant/undetectable.

    “ID is bad science. It’s basic premises are not supported by evidence.”

    Unlike astrology, I have not found a smoking gun that confirms your position. Show me the gun, show me the smoke, and I’ll switch sides. (I have found a smoking gun for common ancestry, however. That gun is the fact that both humans and chimps contain identical disease producing point mutations.)

    More importantly, naturalistic evolution appears to be bad science to me. There are about a dozen different cases that point away from naturalistic evolution. The example I choose today is the example of reports of quite a lot of de novo genes. If I understand the theory correctly, de novo genes should be: extremely rare, small, of tertiary, or at least secondary value to the organism. Evidence presented on this site points otherwise.

  21. 21
    George Edwards says:

    bFast: “Unlike astrology, I have not found a smoking gun that confirms your position. “

    Nor a smoking gun that ID is good science. I think that the fact that very little science has been produce by ID is very telling.

    (I have found a smoking gun for common ancestry, however. That gun is the fact that both humans and chimps contain identical disease producing point mutations.)”

    I don’t think I understand your point. Are you suggesting that chimps and humans sharing identical disease producing point mutations is a smoking gun against common ancestry, or for it? As far as I can see, it would be evidence for it. But maybe I am missing something.

  22. 22
    Virgil Cain says:

    Georgie Edwards:

    The difference between you and I is that I have been fooling my employers, staff and customers for over thirty years, and you are fooling nobody.

    I wasn’t trying to fool anyone, George. It is obvious that you don’t know anything about science.

    What science has been produced by evolutionism, George? How can test the claim that any bacterial flagellum evolved via natural selection, drift and neutral changes? Do tell or you will prove my point.

  23. 23
    George Edwards says:

    Virgil: “I wasn’t trying to fool anyone, George.”

    That’s good to hear. Then you have succeeded. You haven’t fooled a anybody.

  24. 24
    Jack Jones says:

    George says ” I think that the fact that very little science has been produce by ID is very telling.”

    Incorrect. It was a form of ID that we have to thank when it comes to the birthing of science.

    Physicist Paul Davies ” “Science began as an outgrowth of theology, and all scientists, whether atheists or theists . . . accept an essentially theological worldview”

    The underlying presuppositions of science were borne of and are consistent with a worldview of Design.

    Science was borne of a design world view and the underlying presuppositions of science that were birthed of a design worldview, underpin science today.

    Science is inconsistent with your faith in dumb chance.

    “Maybe you should look u the definitions of Scare Quotes and Consistency. When you have done that, get back to me”

    Oh I know about your excuse for your use of the term “Evil” Georgie.

    It’s not a literal evil is it Georgie, it is evil as “subjective objective right and wrong”

    hahahaha

  25. 25
    Jack Jones says:

    @ Mr Cain.

    “I wasn’t trying to fool anyone, George. It is obvious that you don’t know anything about science.”

    He is an ignoramus when it comes to science and the presuppositions of science.

    Maybe we shouldn’t call him Georgie but call him Moe or something.

    We already have Larry posting, he might be his brother Moe.

    hahahahaha

  26. 26
    Virgil Cain says:

    Georgie Edwards:

    That’s good to hear. Then you have succeeded. You haven’t fooled a anybody.

    And you are still a fool. Good luck with that. 😛

  27. 27
    Virgil Cain says:

    Jack- It is only people like George who try to fool people. George even admits to it. If only all evolutionists were so honest. 😉

  28. 28
    bFast says:

    George Edwards, “Are you suggesting that chimps and humans sharing identical disease producing point mutations is a smoking gun against common ancestry, or for it?” For it, yes. While it doesn’t confirm common ancestry through the cambrian, it provides very compelling support for common ancestry between human and chimp. If the “common design” crowd can make a compelling case that explains this data, I will be surprised.

    I guess that what I am trying to say is that I am compelled by specific “smoking gun” arguments, rather than by some general “multiple strands of data point to …” type arguments. I am compelled by specifics more than by generalities.

  29. 29
    George Edwards says:

    bFast, thank you for clarifying. I agree that it is compelling evidence for (not proof) of common descent.

  30. 30
    Virgil Cain says:

    bFast:

    If the “common design” crowd can make a compelling case that explains this data, I will be surprised.

    “This data” refers to : (I have found a smoking gun for common ancestry, however. That gun is the fact that both humans and chimps contain identical disease producing point mutations.)

    Take two DNA sequences that are similar due to a common design. Would we not expect those two DNA sequences to behave similarly to changes? Two similar proteins getting the same function altering change should cause similar issues.

  31. 31
    Virgil Cain says:

    Common descent needs a mechanism to account for all of the physiological and anatomical transformations required- all of the new body plans and body parts. Badda-bing, badda-boom, doesn’t cut it in science.

  32. 32
    Robert Byers says:

    Larry moran.
    i’ll address you here as , I think, i’m in a species of banned at your blog. AND ITS CHRISTMASS. Except in mayor Bloombergs New York i heard. now censoring christmas trees. Isn’t he Jewish.
    anyways.
    Your wrong to agree astrology was scientific back in the old days. not just bad science but NOT science.
    Science must mean something if its something other then mere conclusions on subjects.
    It is about methodology.
    Science is about backing up its conclusions with a clear adherence to a particular methodology.
    Astrology never did this. Newton did.
    if these subjects are just about people figuring things out then admit science doesn’t exist worthy of being a special method of knowing.

    ID does apply the method of science. Astrolohy never did or claimed too. Still don’t.
    Why is this confusing for everyone?
    I know why.
    Its just people figuring things out and trying/claiming they were careful in the investigation.
    OKAY. if so then being wrong doesn’t nullify it being science.
    If so methodolgy is king.
    Being wrong is not being bad science either. Just wrong.
    Evolutionism strives to say its right JUST because its science. So they have to say ID/YEC is not science. They have too.

  33. 33
    Phinehas says:

    I have a difficult time understanding how anyone who believes in abiogenesis has grounds to criticize astrology.

    In the end, the atheist must believe in that which is capable of performing like God, even though they prefer to use a different label. Materialists merely call God “chance” and are comforted by the self-delusion that they’ve managed to put distance between themselves and any concept of God. Their faith goes even a step beyond believing that God created all we see to believing that nothing created all we see.

Leave a Reply