Re: [asa] Denyse's advice

From: <Dawsonzhu@aol.com>
Date: Sat May 05 2007 - 18:15:31 EDT

Richard Blinne wrote:

> I agree the spin is unfair and I believe both you and the anti-ID crowd are
> reading too much in to the judge's opinion here. What Behe's definition does
> do is to make astrology science while the NAS definition does not. This
> raises the question of the usefulness of Behe's definition in light that it
> included what everyone agrees is not science. A definition is useful both by what
> it admits and what it denies and this is why I believe the NAS definition is
> superior. Thus, I don't believe the judge erred here.
>

To perhaps be charitable here, Behe may have goofed in how he
had set up his definition, and gotten railed in the trial.
The court is a different world from what most of us scientists
are accustomed to. I suspect when things go to trial, rarely
is frank discussion the highest standard upheld. The aim in
a trial is to win a legal victory.

This goes both ways of course, and the ID camp was certainly
trying to use the court to win that victory for themselves. So in
this sense, they forced the situation and received the ruling.
As collateral damage, because the judge felt he had to find a way
to rule and define a line of demarcation, science may have been
forced to take on a narrow _legal_ definition (not decided by
scientists who are the ones who actually do the science).

At any rate, I'd hesitate to judge Behe because I can imagine that
I would have to be a lot more careful (and strategic) about what I said if
I were testifying as an expert witness in a court of law. It seems largely
a very different world.

by Grace we proceed,
Wayne


To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat May 5 18:16:13 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat May 05 2007 - 18:16:13 EDT