The Kitzmiller vs. Dover trial has some doozies in the cross-examination of Michael Behe, one of the proponents of intelligent design (from the transcripts:
Q Telling the readers of Pandas that you were a critical reviewer of that book is misleading, isn’t it?
A I disagree. As I said, that’s not the typical way that the term “critical reviewer” is used, but nonetheless, in my opinion I don’t think it is misleading.
And a little bit later
Q And Mr. Dembski, who is the author of Design of Life, described you as a co-author of the book, correct?
A That’s what he does, yes.
Q That’s false, isn’t it?
A Again, I am not an author of the book, but William Dembski, several years ago, asked if I would contribute. And I explained to him that I did not have the time to do so. And he says well, perhaps, you know, in the future he could solicit material from me and then I would be one of the authors of the book. So, that’s correct.
Q So that makes you a co-author right now, Professor Behe?
A I certainly would not have listed myself now as a co-author, however, I think that he was anticipating my future participation in the project.
Q So that’s a true statement, Professor Behe, that you’re a co-author?
A It is not now a true statement but it might be in the future.
Q The statement that you’re an author, and Mr. Dembski’s statement is false too, isn’t it?
A That’s not what it says on the screen, sir. It says, “Who are the authors of Design of Life as you understand it?” And the way I read that is that he’s seeing into the future and seeing when this actually will be published and anticipating that I will participate in the publication of the book at that point.
Q Seeing into the future is one of the powers of the intelligent design movement?
And another one:
Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?
A Yes, that’s correct.
From the next page:
Q Starts “Among Organisms,” and going to the second sentence it says, “Design proponents have a realistic and more cautious approach to the use of homologies. They regard organisms which show great structural differences, such as starfish and chimpanzees, as having no common ancestry.” Correct.
A Yes, that’s what it says, but again, I read that as the fact that while other theories such as Darwinisms might make a commitment to common ancestry, a theory of intelligent design can live with what the data shows on that respect, because a theory of intelligent design does not speak to that; it just speaks to the effects of intelligence. So I see this as an accommodating sentence rather than as something that is required.
Also, this gem:
Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?
A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.
Q. Okay. And then you go on to say that you still think — well, I’ll leave that. Your argument is that, even if the type III secretory system is a pre-cursor to the bacterial flagellum, is a subset, the bacterial flagellum is still irreducibly complex because that subset does not function as a flagellum?
A. That’s correct, yes.
Q. And, therefore, the bacterial flagellum must have been intelligently designed?
A. Well, again, the argument is that, there is — that when you see a purposeful arrangement of parts, that bespeaks design, so, yes.
He calls himself a scientist?
Q. Okay. And you said again that the strength of the inference is quantitative, but again you haven’t quantified it.
A. I have not put numbers on it, but one can kind of do intuitive judgments about these things.
(This is mostly a note-to-self in case I ever need to refer to these things. But I hope my readership enjoys it!)