Tuesday, October 25, 2005

Steve Fuller Testimony

Here is the Washington Post report on the testimony by Steve Fuller. It includes this:

Fuller said intelligent design hasn't been extensively promoted in the scientific community because the process by which articles are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals tends to favor established, mainstream approaches.

"It seems to me in many respects the cards are stacked against radical, innovative views getting a fair hearing in science these days," he said.

Fuller testified earlier that intelligent design is a scientific, not religious, concept because its proponents have used observation to describe biological phenomena. He cited in part the work of Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, a leading intelligent design advocate and prior trial witness.

It seems that this case could come down to the credibility of the expert witnesses. This may be a an oversimplification in itself, but it seems that the plaintiff experts rely on simplistic generalizations, stereotyping and conspiracy theories to make their case, while the defense experts are more broadminded and sophisticated in their analysis. For this and other reasons, the defense witnesses seem more credible. We will see if the trial judge agrees.


At October 25, 2005 5:05 PM, Anonymous RA said...

I would think a dozen biological / inert elements to life examples would be enough to atleast raise a reasonable doubt about the specious claims of evolutionists.


Post a Comment

<< Home