Background:

The school board of Dover, Pa. made a decision last year to include a four paragraph statement concerning the position of 'intelligent design'in the context of the teaching of 'scientific biology.'
This position statement does not imply deism, although many believe that an intelligent designer may rightly be referred to as God. All it states, in the simplest terms, is that scientific reductionism cannot explain certain biological phenomena; biological events are too complex to be reduced to ultimate simples; they are more than the sum of the parts. Eleven parents sued the school board over this decision.

The Issue:

The aggrieved parents think that school children should only be exposed to strictly 'scientific' biology in high school biology classes. According to Eric Rothschild, one of the plaintiffs,"intelligent design is an inherently religious doctrine that is a modern form of creationism, and this shell game has to end." He claims, utilizing the commonplace of imposition, "The board wanted to trash evolution, not to teach it. It wanted to impose religious views on others."

The Rebuttal:

School board spokeswonk Patrick Gillen stated that "the next big paradigm shift in scientific thinking includes the position of intelligent design." Adding, "we only want to teach our kids how to think," he sees the tension between strictly 'scientific' and 'the next paradigm' as provocative of good thinking practices.

The Judge:
U.S. Judge John E. Jones III will rule next month.

The Professor:

In the midst of this tussle is Dr. Michael J. Behe, author of the book _Darwin's Black Box_ (1996) This text has sold about a quarter million copies. I'm hard pressed to determine what kind of influence those numbers reveal.

My purpose here is to render a preliminary assessment of Behe as rhetor. Things I look for are influence in the courtroom process; standing in the media; reports about his character and his research; level of involvement with social movements; and capacity for articulating issues in such a way that it makes sense to the broadest reaches of the public. So, how does the professor rate as rhetor?

According to Josh Getlin's report in the L.A. Times Professor Behe did not acquit himself well: "After two grueling days on the stand, Behe looked drained. He was also unbowed." Why would someone who is involved in controversy look drained? Taking the stand because you have a stand to take is what being a rhetor is all about. For someone whose testimony is "crucial" to showing that Darwinism is not the final word, "drained" is the wrong signal to send.

His opponents have stated that his detailed presentation of the position of intelligent design might have scored points by lending it credibility.
Providing credibility for a position is a very important function for the rhetor.

Michael Ruse, a Florida State University professor, observes that Behe is "genial, a personable guy...and he comes across as a very serious man. You can't dismiss him as a crank; he is a real scientist."

Some of Behe's own statements:

"I'm not a member of the inner club when it comes to mainstream science. I probably never will be."

"Until you have tenure," he tells undergraduate and graduate students alike, "until you're protected, keep your mouth shut and your head down."

Commenting on a book by a law professor critical of Darwinism: "(it) was very dismissive...they didn't address his arguments."

He claims that scientists who do research in his field of biochemistry and evolutionary biology "think I went bad. They've had a chance to show what a dope I am, and in my completely unbiased view, they've failed."

Comments: Behe grew up Roman Catholic. He earned an education at excellent non-Catholic institutions. Perhaps it is this tension between his own upbringing and his education as a scientist that makes being Behe a problem? Perhaps it is these two dynamic energies in our society which he is trying to navigate?

Judgment: High marks for seriousness; high marks for capacity to make detailed presentations; low marks for dealing with the courtroom venue and the media; low marks for his incapacity to resist the urge to play the victim; middle marks for establishing credibility only on the logical level; low marks for his inability to articulate the relevant norms in this situation; high marks for avoiding the label 'crank.'
Behe is, in my opinion, a slightly above average rhetor: C+

Observation: In our current situation, it is important that one not be thought of as eccentric, a crank, or an outsider. Behe strikes me as a conflicted man who is navigating the tensions that come whenever social forces push against one another. His unique position in this tug of war makes him an unlikely spokesperson: too scholarly to play the media game, too civilized to inspire passion, he lacks emotional appeal--how many people form their opinions by referring to expert testimony in our nation's courtrooms? His remarks about colleagues and how to build a career I find lacking in pathos, but there is a dose of prudence there: you want to earn the respect of your audience; it's better to wait than plunge head long into the vortex.

MGGreer