Kevin R. McCarthy, Equivocator Extraordinaire
Kevin just can't help himself. Even though I have been correcting him for years he still refuses to get it. Kevin's latest folly is found in his article titled Hypocrisy- which is strange because he is one of the biggest hypocrites around. In that piece of diatribe Kevin sez:
There’s one more example and I’m not sure if it’s hypocrisy or just stupidity. That is, the creationists. Even in trials, they keep declaring that they are just following the evidence. Yet, they have no idea what the actual evidence is. I’m referring here to Michael Behe’s famous claim that he hadn’t read those 50 or so books and papers on the “evolution of the immune system”, but it doesn’t matter because he knows that they don’t describe the evolution of the immune system.No, moron. There isn't anything in those papers pertaining to the evolution of the immune system via BLIND and UNDIRECTED CHEMICAL PROCESSES. There wasn't at the time of the trial and there still isn't. The following is what Dr Behe said about that:
(11) In fact, on cross-examination, Professor Behe was questioned concerning his 1996 claim that science would never find an evolutionary explanation for the immune system. He was presented with fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system; however, he simply insisted that this was still not sufficient evidence of evolution, and that it was not “good enough.” (23:19 (Behe)).
Several points: 1) Although the opinion’s phrasing makes it seem to come from my mouth, the remark about the studies being “not good enough” was the cross-examining attorney’s, not mine.
2) I was given no chance to read them, and at the time considered the dumping of a stack of papers and books on the witness stand to be just a stunt, simply bad courtroom theater. Yet the Court treats it seriously.
3) The Court here speaks of “evidence for evolution”. Throughout the trial I carefully distinguished between the various meanings of the word “evolution”, and I made it abundantly clear that I was challenging Darwin’s proposed mechanism of random mutation coupled to natural selection. Unfortunately, the Court here, as in many other places in its opinion, ignores the distinction between evolution and Darwinism. I said in my testimony that the studies may have been fine as far as they went, but that they certainly did not present detailed, rigorous explanations for the evolution of the immune system by random mutation and natural selection — if they had, that knowledge would be reflected in more recent studies that I had had a chance to read (see below).
4) This is the most blatant example of the Court’s simply accepting the Plaintiffs’ say-so on the state of the science and disregarding the opinions of the defendants’ experts. I strongly suspect the Court did not itself read the “fifty eight peer-reviewed publications, nine books, and several immunology textbook chapters about the evolution of the immune system” and determine from its own expertise that they demonstrated Darwinian claims. How can the Court declare that a stack of publications shows anything at all if the defense expert disputes it and the Court has not itself read and understood them? In my own direct testimony I went through the papers referenced by Professor Miller in his testimony and showed they didn’t even contain the phrase “random mutation”; that is, they assumed Darwinian evolution by random mutation and natural selection was true — they did not even try to demonstrate it. I further showed in particular that several very recent immunology papers cited by Miller were highly speculative, in other words, that there is no current rigorous Darwinian explanation for the immune system. The Court does not mention this testimony.Bring that same shit to the next trial and the evos will be eating it in front of everyone. The issue here is that evoTARDS, like Kevin, are equivocating and bluffing cowards that can only fight against strawmen of their own creation.
This is why the next ID trial, if anyone in my school district even challenges me, will be about the fact that Darwin argued against a strawman and that neither Intelligent Design, nor the creation model of biological evolution, ie baraminology, are anti-evolution, as both accept a change in allele frequency over time, ie evolution, that natural selection occurs, ie evolution and that there is descent with modification, ie evolution.
So equivocating cowards beware- the public will soon be onto your cowardly antics.
Whether Intelligent Design is Science A Response to the Opinion of the Court in Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District By Dr. Michael J. Behe