From the trial:

==========================================================

A. That's correct, they are not. But they certainly try to base
themselves on what their audience would consider plausible within the
genre, so they can offer useful illustrations at some points, for some
points.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
==========================================================

Ouch.

From the trial:

==========================================================
Q. Now that's another thing that the intelligent designer, the little
dug out bowl, that's another thing we then attribute to the designer?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. If you ruled out humans, you're saying this little dug out bowl is,
you would then attribute it to the --

A. No, I'm saying if an archaeologist ruled out the most likely
designers around the object that he was examining or she was examining,
and if it was sufficiently complex that he was confident that it was
designed, then he would look to other designer, perhaps some other
civilization, some nomadic people coming through or some such thing. If
it was complex enough what he would not do is conclude that since the
subjects, the human subjects in the area could not do that, that it was
not designed.

Q. But in any event this is another difference, we can test whether
humans could make these archaeological objects, but even with modern
technology most biological systems we cannot recreate in a lab, right?

A. Yes. They are beyond our ability to design.

Q. So if the strength of an inference depends on the similarities, this
is a pretty weak inference, isn't it, Dr. Behe?

A. No, I disagree completely. Again if something showed strong marks of
design, and even if a human designer could not have made it, then we
nonetheless would think that something else had made it. Lots of
science fiction movies are based on scenarios like that, and again the,
I think the similarities between what we find in designed objects in
our everyday world and the complex molecular machinery of the cell have
actually a lot more in common than do explosions we see on earth such
as cannon balls and so forth and the explosion of an entire universe,
and that induction seems to have been fairly successful in trying to
explain some features of the world. So I think it's not at all uncalled
for to make a similar induction in this case.

Q. Science fiction movies are not science, are they, Professor Behe?

A. That's correct, they are not. But they certainly try to base
themselves on what their audience would consider plausible within the
genre, so they can offer useful illustrations at some points, for some
points.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
==========================================================

Ouch.

From the trial:

==========================================================
Q. Now that's another thing that the intelligent designer, the little
dug out bowl, that's another thing we then attribute to the designer?

A. I'm sorry?

Q. If you ruled out humans, you're saying this little dug out bowl is,
you would then attribute it to the --

A. No, I'm saying if an archaeologist ruled out the most likely
designers around the object that he was examining or she was examining,
and if it was sufficiently complex that he was confident that it was
designed, then he would look to other designer, perhaps some other
civilization, some nomadic people coming through or some such thing. If
it was complex enough what he would not do is conclude that since the
subjects, the human subjects in the area could not do that, that it was
not designed.

Q. But in any event this is another difference, we can test whether
humans could make these archaeological objects, but even with modern
technology most biological systems we cannot recreate in a lab, right?

A. Yes. They are beyond our ability to design.

Q. So if the strength of an inference depends on the similarities, this
is a pretty weak inference, isn't it, Dr. Behe?

A. No, I disagree completely. Again if something showed strong marks of
design, and even if a human designer could not have made it, then we
nonetheless would think that something else had made it. Lots of
science fiction movies are based on scenarios like that, and again the,
I think the similarities between what we find in designed objects in
our everyday world and the complex molecular machinery of the cell have
actually a lot more in common than do explosions we see on earth such
as cannon balls and so forth and the explosion of an entire universe,
and that induction seems to have been fairly successful in trying to
explain some features of the world. So I think it's not at all uncalled
for to make a similar induction in this case.

Q. Science fiction movies are not science, are they, Professor Behe?

A. That's correct, they are not. But they certainly try to base
themselves on what their audience would consider plausible within the
genre, so they can offer useful illustrations at some points, for some
points.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: I have no further questions, Your Honor.

In <pan.2006.01.03.02.09.42.705563@nowhere.com>, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com>
wrote:

It sounds like Behe must have had a really hard day, testifying in
Kitzmiller v DASD:

From Judge Jones' opinion, page 81:

(Discussing the idea that complex purposeful arrangement of parts implies
design):

In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts,
we know the desinger and its attributes and we have a baseline for human
design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor
Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of
disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.

Still works in what?

Oh to have been a fly...

In <pan.2006.01.03.02.09.42.705563@nowhere.com>, MarkA <toor@nowhere.com>
wrote:

It sounds like Behe must have had a really hard day, testifying in
Kitzmiller v DASD:

From Judge Jones' opinion, page 81:

(Discussing the idea that complex purposeful arrangement of parts implies
design):

In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts,
we know the desinger and its attributes and we have a baseline for human
design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor
Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of
disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.

Still works in what?

Oh to have been a fly...

In article <pan.2006.01.03.02.09.42.705563@nowhere.com>,
MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:

It sounds like Behe must have had a really hard day, testifying in
Kitzmiller v DASD:

From Judge Jones' opinion, page 81:

(Discussing the idea that complex purposeful arrangement of parts implies
design):

In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts,
we know the desinger and its attributes and we have a baseline for human
design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor
Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of
disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.

I read hat and laughed out loud. I bet that if the stuff he said in the
trial got out to the general public, the chemistry department at Leheigh
would experience a general exodus of professors and students.

Who would want to work with such an idiot?

In article <pan.2006.01.03.02.09.42.705563@nowhere.com>,
MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:

It sounds like Behe must have had a really hard day, testifying in
Kitzmiller v DASD:

From Judge Jones' opinion, page 81:

(Discussing the idea that complex purposeful arrangement of parts implies
design):

In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts,
we know the desinger and its attributes and we have a baseline for human
design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor
Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of
disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.

I read hat and laughed out loud. I bet that if the stuff he said in the
trial got out to the general public, the chemistry department at Leheigh
would experience a general exodus of professors and students.

Who would want to work with such an idiot?

In article <pan.2006.01.03.02.09.42.705563@nowhere.com>,
MarkA <toor@nowhere.com> wrote:

It sounds like Behe must have had a really hard day, testifying in
Kitzmiller v DASD:

From Judge Jones' opinion, page 81:

(Discussing the idea that complex purposeful arrangement of parts implies
design):

In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts,
we know the desinger and its attributes and we have a baseline for human
design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor
Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of
disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.

I read hat and laughed out loud. I bet that if the stuff he said in the
trial got out to the general public, the chemistry department at Leheigh
would experience a general exodus of professors and students.

Who would want to work with such an idiot?