Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Transcripts

Thought some of you might enjoy reading the transcripts.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover.html

I am currently reading the cross of Dr. Kenneth R. Miller. Interesting stuff.

 

http://www.grisda.org/origins/21091u.htm </font>[/QUOTE]Well, this link seems to undermine itself completely.

He claims that two assumptions are being made. The first is "that the pseudogene sequences actually have no function." Of this assumption he says that it is "consistent with most of the data" so no argument against said assumption. It is more or less accepted.

He says that the second assumption is that "God would not create similar non-functional sequences in humans and chimps." Of this assumption he says that it is "theological and ... [t]heological arguments should not be relied on unless well supported by Scripture."

This is where he attempts to shed the burden of proof and ask that his oppenents prove something that really is impossible to prove. In reality, the burden of proof is upon Gibson to show that creating nonfuctioning sequences in different species is actually consistent with what the Bible has to say about God.

Assuming that such non-functioning sequences are an indication of common descent is really a scientific assumption that does not need to address theological implications because science does not address the theological.

On the other hand, claiming that God might have deliberately put such sequences IS a theological argument and therefore it is Gibson's burden to show in Scripture support for such actions. There is none and so there is no basis for such a theological statement. He loses by his own criteria.

He further states explicitly that "scriptures do state clearly that God does not deceive us." He is free to come back and continue his argument when he has the scriptural support for his assertions, since he is the one claiming they are needed, and when he has a reasonable explanation of why faking evidence for common descent would not constitute deception.

 

No defense of your previous link? I can't blame you, it is indefensible.

So now you want to go to Behe's testimony, eh. OK.

So Behe takes something that is supposed to be IC and he claims, he himself is making this claim, that this IC system could evolve in a short period of time with none of the intermediate stages being useful and from a very small population and without most of the normal evolutionary mechanisms in play.

Like your previous link, this one destroys itself.

 

You might also be interested in Miller's testimony on IC since he destroys Behe.

 

"I'm not sure what the point of your long quote was or what you are trying to prove with it. What do you mean by IC, anyway - Intelligent Creation?"

You post on Behe but do not even know what IC is?

That is classic. No wonder you don't get the point of the Behe cross examination quote. He shows himself to be wrong.

 

Miller just reveals himself to be another neo-Darwinist racist and facist demi-god when it it comes to molecular and genetic theories of human evolution from African monkey and ape ancestors. Witness his following remarks:

"When we take this complex multi-part system, which is the bacterial flagellum, the prediction made by Dr. Behe from irreducible complexity is when we break the parts apart, we should have no useful functions. Anyone missing a part is, by definition, non-functional. We follow that up. We do break it apart. And lo and behold, we find -- actually, we find a variety of useful functions, one of which I have just pointed out, which is type III secretion."

Type III secretions are as useless to a cell as bacterial flagellum are without type III secretions.

Behe exposes and reduces Miller to a scientific charlatan and politically anti-religious academic imperialist. </font>[/QUOTE]You do not even understand the logic of the guy, Behe, that you quoted above, do you?

Let's try to explain it. Behe says that certain systems must be fully assembled before they will work. He says that these systems will not work if all of the parts are not already there. He says that this means that any intermediate stages would not be useful and therefore would not be able to be acted upon by selective pressures to build said system. They must be made all at once to be useful and are therefore IC.

The response is too show that said IC system can actually function with fewer parts. One way this has been done is to show that some flagellum use fewer parts than in Behe's example. So that means that his example is not really IC if it can still function with some parts missing.

The second and more important flaw is to show that various combination of the parts can havea useful function without the others. This allows for selection to choose these parts even before they are all together to make the part he calls IC. In the case of the flagellum, the TTSS has many fewer parts but still is useful. This shows us that often times in evolution, selection acts upon other uses before finally putting together the parts for a new use.

 

"Maybe monkeys were created by God for the sole purpose of making monkeys and apes out of people like you and I, Bunyon.

Knowing God, I wouldn't put it past Him, would you?"

What god do you believe in that is the author of confusion?

The God that most of us here believe in is not the author of confusion.

 

One last thing on Behe...

What do you think of his opinion that he accepts common descent including that of humans and the other apes? You introduced him as your expert. Do you accept this opinion of his? If not, how do you pick and choose which of his opinions that you accept?