Then what of the "IOW, Behe lied" comments? The judge never said Behe lied.
My comments were meant as a light-hearted paraphrase of Jones' remarks. Jones couldn't say, "he lied" because there are legal implications to that. What he did imply was Behe was either being disingenuous or he's just ignorant. Take your pick.
It's through a philosophical presupposition that it is dismissed from science, not the evidence.
Philosophical presupposition? I call it a definition. Science is about the natural, religion is about the supernatural. If you bring religion into science, you've changed the definition of science. You may be OK with counting astrologers among scientists, but I'm not.
the fact of the matter is that science was building up steam, and that steam was there because of ID scientists such as Newton, etc... The scientific process as we know it wouldn't even exist without belief in God!
That's a bit of a stretch. Just because the history of science includes many relgious people doesn't mean the scientific process couldn't have been developed without those beliefs. How do you know it wouldn't have happened sooner in the absense of those beliefs?
If there were so many ID scientists doing the foundational work, and if ID is correct, what happened? Why did ID disappear? Newton's ID told him that even though his laws of gravity explained simple planetary motion, it's all so fabulous that god must be directly responsible for putting the solar system in motion. Now we know better. Behe says that certain biological systems are so fabulous (complex) that god must be directly responsible for putting them together. Most of us know better, even if we don't yet have all the answers to meet his "unreasonable burden of proof."
What you are saying is that evidence for evolution can't also support ID and vice versa. That's a dualism, i.e. entering an excluded middle.
The evidence can't support both because the definition of ID in this instance is mainly a negative argument against evolution. Behe's claim was that the possibility of a certain feature evolving experimentally was sufficiently low enough to infer it couldn't happen, therefore it had to be ID (his dualism). He was forced to admit that using real-world numbers would make a natural explanation not only statistically possible, but even likely. You can't have it both ways on this one.
You have still failed to prove your assertion (no matter your denials now as to making the assertion) that Behe lied.
Well, he either (1) lied to the court, (2) is lying to himself, or (3) is too stupid to comprehend the various facts presented to him. I'm pretty sure #3 isn't likely, but I'll keep an open mind on it.
Liar or Fool?
Then what of the "IOW, Behe lied" comments? The judge never said Behe lied.
My comments were meant as a light-hearted paraphrase of Jones' remarks. Jones couldn't say, "he lied" because there are legal implications to that. What he did imply was Behe was either being disingenuous or he's just ignorant. Take your pick.
It's through a philosophical presupposition that it is dismissed from science, not the evidence.
Philosophical presupposition? I call it a definition. Science is about the natural, religion is about the supernatural. If you bring religion into science, you've changed the definition of science. You may be OK with counting astrologers among scientists, but I'm not.
the fact of the matter is that science was building up steam, and that steam was there because of ID scientists such as Newton, etc... The scientific process as we know it wouldn't even exist without belief in God!
That's a bit of a stretch. Just because the history of science includes many relgious people doesn't mean the scientific process couldn't have been developed without those beliefs. How do you know it wouldn't have happened sooner in the absense of those beliefs?
If there were so many ID scientists doing the foundational work, and if ID is correct, what happened? Why did ID disappear? Newton's ID told him that even though his laws of gravity explained simple planetary motion, it's all so fabulous that god must be directly responsible for putting the solar system in motion. Now we know better. Behe says that certain biological systems are so fabulous (complex) that god must be directly responsible for putting them together. Most of us know better, even if we don't yet have all the answers to meet his "unreasonable burden of proof."
What you are saying is that evidence for evolution can't also support ID and vice versa. That's a dualism, i.e. entering an excluded middle.
The evidence can't support both because the definition of ID in this instance is mainly a negative argument against evolution. Behe's claim was that the possibility of a certain feature evolving experimentally was sufficiently low enough to infer it couldn't happen, therefore it had to be ID (his dualism). He was forced to admit that using real-world numbers would make a natural explanation not only statistically possible, but even likely. You can't have it both ways on this one.
You have still failed to prove your assertion (no matter your denials now as to making the assertion) that Behe lied.
Well, he either (1) lied to the court, (2) is lying to himself, or (3) is too stupid to comprehend the various facts presented to him. I'm pretty sure #3 isn't likely, but I'll keep an open mind on it.