Posted on 09/29/2005 3:36:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- The concept of "intelligent design" is a form of creationism and is not based on scientific method, a professor testified Wednesday in a trial over whether the idea should be taught in public schools.
Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy at Michigan State University, testified on behalf of families who sued the Dover Area School District. He said supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea.
"As scientists go about their business, they follow a method," Pennock said. "Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science."
Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.
In October 2004, the Dover school board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and that natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.
Eight families are trying to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it promotes the Bible's view of creation.
Meanwhile, a lawyer for two newspaper reporters said Wednesday the presiding judge has agreed to limit questioning of the reporters, averting a legal showdown over having them testify in the case.
Both reporters wrote stories that said board members mentioned creationism as they discussed the intelligent design issue. Board members have denied that.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.
"They're testifying only as to what they wrote," said Niles Benn, attorney for The York Dispatch and the York Daily Record/Sunday News, the papers that employed the two freelancers.
The reporters were subpoenaed but declined to give depositions Tuesday, citing their First Amendment rights. A lawyer for the school board had said he planned to seek contempt citations against the two.
The judge's order clears the way for the reporters to provide depositions and testify Oct. 6.
I am very well aware of the cash cow evolution has become to a FEW, alllll off the taxpayers backs.
Perhaps the smiting of the sacred evolution cash cow is what has the Chicken Littles up in arms, yes?
That $600 million is broken down into Molecular and Cellular Biosci, Integrative Biology & Neurosci, Environmental Biology , Biological Infrastructure, Emerging Frontiers, Plant Genome Research. That seems to be all non-medical (and presumably, even creationists don't object to medical research). Here's a table with a breakdown of those expenditures by category:
I wonder exactly how the line is drawn between medical research and non-medical biological research. On the extremes, I guess there's a clear difference, but in the middle, it all runs together. In any case, you're correct--none of that money is going towards ID or creationism research.
They're only publishing thousands of articles on the subject every year. The thing about science is that every question answered raises a new question that needs an answer. Thus, there are always gaps to be filled. The existence of gaps in scientific knowledge in no way invalidates that knowledge.
Or, to put it in everyday terms, if I know that my neighbor is six feet tall, with light blond hair and green eyes, but I don't know his weight, does that gap in my knowledge in any way make the rest of what I know about him false?
Yeah, yeah, I realize that their goal is to make money, and the end justifies the means. Charlatans.
Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were not biologists, and, therefore, were unlikely to have made the observations that would have led to the development of the TOE. Those observations were being made by others.
I am up close and personal with a liberal evolutionists researcher and there is nothing more in this world he despises more is one who believes in God and worse yet anyone who has the nerve to question his TOE.
Being an atheist and being a scientist are two completely different issues. Maybe he tries to use science to justify (and try to force on you) his atheistic beliefs, but that only makes him no different than the literal creationists who try to use the Bible to justify not understanding or knowing science while they try to stamp out science education. Nothing about choosing a career in science precludes having religious faith; nothing about being a faithful Christian (or any religion) precludes having a career in science. I myself have seen life scientists with decades of research experience attending church. And yes, they accept the TOE. There's too much evidence at this point not to.
Thousands of articles a year and the same gaps continue to exist. You are right about one thing, there will always be gaps in the ToE. How about a few big ones, such as evidence one species can, in one generation produce an offspring of another species.
The idea that it occurs over many generations is a fraud oeroetuated on the common man. For that to be true, a member of the animal kingdom would have to be transformed to a different species during its lifetime.
No one will ever find a fossil record of a transitional life-form because they can't possibly exist. if there was one, why wouldn't that transitional form simply be another species in the first place?
Anyone who believes in evolution should have no problem believing the Bible. After all, there is tones of evidence that the history found in the Bible is true via secular historians, archeological evidence, and eyewitness accounts; infinitely more evidence than available to prove evolution.
Also, if the quantity of articles/books written on evolution is evidence of it,; there is far more written about the Bible every year. To suggest articles and books about the Bible exceed those about evolution by 50-100 fold may not be out of line, although I don't have actual numbers.
If that is the case, you should have no problem with the proposition that Christianity and Intelligent Design are two completely different issues.
Good point.
Do either of you know any scientists who don't accept the TOE as the comprehensive explanation for biodiversity?
I understand that. What I was responding to was the comments made by some on this and previous threads that not believing in, or having a proper understanding of, the ToE would indicate that one is incapable of using the scientific method properly and being so hopelessly out of touch with reality, that one's scientific conclusions would be suspect. The point I was trying to make was that these men were able to make great contributions to science while still believing in creation. Of course they couldn't have believed in it as it didn't exist at the time. I wouldn't expect their observations to lead to the development of the ToE but they didn't seem to lead them to question creation either, as far as I understand. Did that help clarify what I was saying? Sometimes it's hard to get your thoughts into words properly.
Nope, I don't.
That's a complete non sequitur. Science and religion ARE completely independent of each other; you can't say that about intelligent design and Christianity. We all know that ID is creationism renamed to sound more scientific; literal creationism is a belief of a subset of Christians.
Please reread my post #544 more carefully. I did not say that gaps exist in the TOE; I said that gaps exist in scientific knowledge. That means ALL scientific knowledge. That's the nature of science, ALL science. Otherwise, we would know everything and we wouldn't need to spend tens of billions of dollars on research every year.
How about a few big ones, such as evidence one species can, in one generation produce an offspring of another species.
Huh? Who ever said that speciation occurs in one generation? That's scientifically nonsense, and that's not what the TOE predicts.
The idea that it occurs over many generations is a fraud oeroetuated on the common man. For that to be true, a member of the animal kingdom would have to be transformed to a different species during its lifetime.
You're contradicting yourself. You think that in order for evolution to occur over a long period of time, an animal must suddenly change species during its lifetime??? What the????
No one will ever find a fossil record of a transitional life-form because they can't possibly exist. if there was one, why wouldn't that transitional form simply be another species in the first place?
Of course, countless thousands of "transition" form fossils have been found. Do you look different from your mother and father? Different hair or eye color, maybe? Then you, too, are a transition form.
Anyone who believes in evolution should have no problem believing the Bible.
I have no problem believing the Bible is a moral guidebook. None at all.
After all, there is tones of evidence that the history found in the Bible is true via secular historians, archeological evidence, and eyewitness accounts; infinitely more evidence than available to prove evolution.
I have no doubt that the writers of the Bible knew what was going on in their lifetimes, and recorded it accordingly. Just because there is actual verifyable history recorded in the Bible along with the moral lessons, does not mean it is a definitive science textbook or reference.
Also, if the quantity of articles/books written on evolution is evidence of it,; there is far more written about the Bible every year. To suggest articles and books about the Bible exceed those about evolution by 50-100 fold may not be out of line, although I don't have actual numbers.
Feel free to conduct a PubMed search on the keyword "evolution." Mine turned up 10,241 articles published in 2005, over 167,000 indexed in all. Not all articles discussing aspects of evolution will have the keyword "evolution", so most articles dealing with the subject aren't indexed as such. I do not know how many books or articles are published each year on the Bible, but what I do know is that every scientific article published is the result of original research. Scientists do not like to duplicate each other's work, and they all want to add to existing knowledge. Science is the process of discovering something that has never been known before. OTOH, no matter how many books and/or articles there are published on the Bible, or on Christianity, or whatever, it is unlikely that any of them reveal anything new. Millions of people have read the Bible; there is no possible interpretation or insight anyone can make about it that has not been made before.
fossel PM
Miriam "Ma" Ferguson.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.