. Given the testimony of an expert witnesses's own personal experiments which was directly presented before him, it is incredible that Judge Jones could write "ID has not been the subject of testing or research."
This is what ID and other scientific proofs of the supernatural depend on; the fact that someone who holds a scientific title and has published in scientific journals does something. The details of what they did, the other opinions of equally credentialed people, the data that supports the counter opinions, the results of others repeating the research done, none of that matters. All of that was presented in the course of the trial discussed here, but all of it is omitted from this webpage.
I believe that is called "expert testimony" (backed by scientific proofs) Ken Miller's credentials are impeccable.
Kenneth Raymond Miller (born July 14, 1948) is an American cell biologist and molecular biologist who is currently Professor of Biology and Royce Family Professor for Teaching Excellence at Brown University.[2] Miller's primary research focus is the structure and function of cell membranes, especially chloroplast thylakoid membranes.[2] Miller is noted as a co-author of a major introductory college and high school biology textbook published by Prentice Hall since 1990.[3] Miller, who is Roman Catholic, is particularly known for his opposition to creationism, including the intelligent design (ID) movement.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_R._Miller
The other side could not even claim that Miller has an atheist biased view. But the scientific evidence he presented was persuasive to the court, whereas Behe (et al) could not present reliable scientific evidence for ID
Behe's claims about the irreducible complexity of essential cellular structures have been rejected by the vast majority of the scientific community, and his own biology department at Lehigh University published an official statement opposing Behe's views and intelligent design
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe
IOW, Behe's own colleagues deny ID. Is it wonder that the court ruled against ID ?
Frankly, i give a dime about Ken Millers credentials. what counts, is the science, and he has done a tremendous disservice to the guillible public, that blindly believes the pseudo scientific nonsense, he published.
Irreducible complexity is a undeniable fact, proven for twenty years, and no oponent has been able to refute the argument.
Irreducible complexity is a undeniable fact
http://reasonandscience.heavenforum.org/t1468-irreducible-complexity#2133
Irreducible complexity keeps being a unsurmountable problem for the ones that propose unguided evolution and natural mechanisms to explain the origin of life and biodiversity in general. No attempt to refute and successfully debunk the argument has been brought forward so far. Eyery attempt, no exception, has failed. Why ? Because IC is a undeniable FACT, no matter what. And this FACT becomes obvious to the unbiased mind when we envision biological systems as complex molecular machines, that operate similar to man made machines, but far far more complex. Individual parts have no function by themself. This is a important point to highlight. What use does the wing of a airplaine have alone? None. The engineer has to envision a function for the wing, used as essential part of the design of the airplane as a whole in order to fly, and its use once the airplane is fully built with all parts in place. The wing must be made with the right specifications, size, materials, form, and placed and mounted at the right place in the right way. And the wing itself requires complex machines to be made. The right materials must be transported to the building site. Often these materials in their raw form are unusable. Other complex machines come into play to transform the raw materials into usable form. All this requires specific information. The precise same thing happens in biological systems. Even the most simple cell useses inumerous parts, that have no use by their own. For what reason would natural mechanisms create these parts , if there were no use for them individually ? This is a problem that stretches through all biology, from the simplest to the most complex. Biological systems do only achieve specific tasks, once a number of individual parts are made upon specific complex instructions, frequently through other specific machines or even factories and assembly lines, that have no other tasks than to build these specific parts, and all this through the instructions of the blueprint in the genome, and then other specific instructions provide the information of how, when , and where to mount the parts to form the complex machine. Same as done when building human made machines. And all these processes must be strictly controlled, with error check and feedback mechanisms, and if something is not build upon the right specification, complex repair machines fix the problem. These checking and repair systems must be fully operational from day one, otherwise, the organism dies. And energy in usable form must also be provided ,and the make of energy requires also complex machinery which by itself requires energy to be made ( chicken-egg problem ). Furthermore, internal and external communication networks must be established. Also all these machines are made to self replicate , which adds a hudge amount of further complexity into the picture. Self replication is far from simple. It demands the most complex molecular machinery, which works in a astonishing , beautyful, orchestrated , regulated and controlled manner. Why at all would natural unguided, non-intelligent chemical reactions have the need to produce living biological systems, and keep them existing through self replication?