More hope than Scopes

The Kitzmiller panda trial continues. This week Professor Michael Behe took the stand, and there were some fun moments during his cross-examination.

Q: But you actually were a critical reviewer of Pandas, correct; that's what it says in the acknowledgments page of the book?
A: That's what it lists there, but that does not mean that I critically reviewed the whole book and commented on it in detail, yes.
Q: What did you review and comment on, Professor Behe?
A: I reviewed the literature concerning blood clotting, and worked with the editor on the section that became the blood clotting system. So I was principally responsible for that section.
Q: So you were reviewing your own work?
A: I was helping review or helping edit or helping write the section on blood clotting.
Q: Which was your own contribution?
A: That's -- yes, that's correct.
Q: That's not typically how the term "critical review" is used; would you agree with that?
A: Yeah, that's correct.
Q: So when the publishers of Pandas indicate that you were a critical reviewer of Pandas, that's somewhat misleading, isn't it?

More transcripts from the trial can be found at this blog, and lots of commentary is available through the Panda's Thumb. I especially enjoyed this link, which ends like so:

...And remember, the core of Behe's entire argument for ID is that irreducibly complex systems cannot evolve. Yet what does he admit under oath that his own study actually says? It says that IF you assume a population of bacteria on the entire earth that is 7 orders of magnitude less than the number of bacteria in a single ton of soil...and IF you assume that it undergoes only point mutations...and IF you rule out recombination, transposition, insertion/deletion, frame shift mutations and all of the other documented sources of mutation and genetic variation...and IF you assume that none of the intermediate steps would serve any function that might help them be preserved...THEN it would take 20,000 years (or 1/195,000th of the time bacteria have been on the earth) for a new complex trait requiring multiple interacting mutations - the very definition of an irreducibly complex system according to Behe - to develop and be fixed in a population.

In other words, even under the most absurd and other-worldly assumptions to make it as hard as possible, even while ruling out the most powerful sources of genetic variation, an irreducibly complex new trait requiring multiple unselected mutations can evolve within 20,000 years. And if you use more realistic population figures, in considerably less time than that. It sounds to me like this is a heck of an argument against irreducible complexity, not for it.

Uh yeah, you could say that. :-)