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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
|
Actually, it is the opposite. Scientists that reject the possibility of a higher intelligence as the designer of the Universe, do not follow the scientific method. If one removes a possibility from the probability of out comes, they create holes in their conclusion.
"...Whenever all other possibilities have been ruled out, the improbable, however unlikely, must be the truth "
Well, they have been wrong before. Many times, in fact!
That the complex web of life is too improbable otherwise. That camel's already in your tent, btw. See Roger Penrose's books. He has done the calculations.
Perhaps someone should spend more time looking at the quotes from many of teh best scientists in the world - including Albert:
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."
"God does not care about our mathematical difficulties. He integrates empirically."
"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts." (Sign hanging in Einstein's office at Princeton)
Enoough said. There are many. many more great minds who at LEAST believe in intelligent design, if not the God of Christian understanding.
"Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]"
Like the THEORY of evolution DOES?
As I wrote on another thread, Americans need several hundred lawsuits filed in strategically-located school districts for teaching a theory as scientific fact. Talk about defrauding the taxpayers and the students.
"That the complex web of life is too improbable otherwise. That camel's already in your tent, btw. See Roger Penrose's books. He has done the calculations."
Math is not science.
Try again: what falsifiable statement does ID make?
"Well, they have been wrong before. Many times, in fact!"
Unlike the church, which of course has never been wrong...ummm.
The fact that all have been wrong is why we have a scientific method - if you’re going to make a claim, offer some evidence and offer a hypothesis that can be tested.
The question of origins is largely a matter of history—not the domain of applied science. Contrary to the unilateral denials of many evolutionists, one’s worldview does indeed play heavily on one’s interpretation of scientific data, a phenomenon that is magnified in matters concerning origins, where neither repeatability, nor observation, nor measurement—the three immutable elements of the scientific method—may be employed. Many proponents of evolutionism nevertheless persist in claiming exclusive “scientific” status for their popularized beliefs, while curtly dismissing (if not angrily deriding) all doubters, and spurning Darwin’s advice. http://www.trueorigins.org/
I never said that. Nor would I. ...ummm.
There are also hundreds of Scientist who believe in creationism.
Maybe not, but certain sections of ‘the church’ use past mistakes by scientists as a stick to beat science with (as you are doing), but then choose not to follow the rules that scientists do use now in order to minimise mistakes.
Show one hypothesis of evolution that can be tested.
"There are also hundreds of Scientist who believe in creationism. "
Name them. Then compare that to the 99% who are evolutionists.
For instance? And you can also tell me what science has proven regarding evolution? NOTHING!! So what did the church beat up a scientist with a stick over?
Which Penrose book are you referring to? Penrose is not a biologist, he's a physics professor.
Name your 300. Prove 99% are evolutionists. You're the one making all these claims. I WILL locate a list shortly backing mine.
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.