Posted on 09/27/2005 9:05:12 AM PDT by laney
The opening shots were fired on Monday in the first court trial to scrutinise the Intelligent Design movement. ID proposes that life is so complex it cannot have emerged without the guidance of an intelligent designer - it is seen as a religion-friendly alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution.
“It is going to be the role of the plaintiffs to argue that ID is a form of religious advocacy,” says Eugenie Scott of the US National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which is advising the plaintiffs. “The defence will argue that ID is actually science and is valid. We will argue the opposite.”
Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiffs in the civil case are 11 parents who believe their high school’s board is encouraging children to consider ID as an alternative to evolution because of their evangelical Christian motivations. It is unconstitutional to teach anything in US schools that does not primarily have a secular motive and effect on pupils.
The plaintiffs’ attorneys are deploying a double-barrelled strategy, aiming to show that ID is not science and highlighting its similarities to creationism. Following a Supreme Court ruling in 1987, it is now illegal to teach creationism in schools.
In his opening statement, Eric Rothschild, attorney for the plaintiff, said: “ID is not new science, it’s old theology. There is no controversy in the scientific community.”
Book review The plaintiffs then called their first expert witness to the stand, biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, Rhode Island. He criticised the content of a book Of Pandas and People, which promotes ID and was recommended by the Dover School Board for students.
Miller used several examples to argue that it inaccurately interprets Darwin’s theories, e.g. that apes and humans share a common ancestry, and omits scientific research in order to denigrate the theory of evolution. He also said that ID could not be considered as science because it is incapable of providing testable hypotheses.
He explained the process of peer review - through which scientists critique each other’s work - and the process by which hypotheses are generated and then tested by experiment. These approaches have been employed for evolution, elevating it from hypothesis to theory, but not for ID, he said.
A defence attorney cross-examined Miller, asking him to admit that evolution is “just a theory” and that there are “gaps” in Darwin’s theory. Miller only partially agreed to modified versions of these statements, but defence lawyer Richard Thompsonclaimed at the end of the day that Miller had agreed to these statements. The case continues.
Trial time line • Monday 26th September 2005: opening statements
• First week: testimony from plaintiffs’ expert witnesses, including scientists Kenneth Miller of Brown University, Robert Pennock of Michigan State University and Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, followed by John Haught a theologian at Georgetown University
• Next two to three weeks: continuation of plaintiffs’ case - more expert witnesses including Brian Alters at Harvard University and Kevin Padian at the University of California, Berkeley.
Last two to three weeks: defence’s case, including expert witnesses such as scientists Michael Behe, Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho and Warren Nord of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Also, Dick Carpenter of US Evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family and sociologist Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick, UK.
Being that the leftist pukes and God haters everywhere always are sooooo concerned about the little guy, the minority, they would stand up for the Intelligent design being taught, at least one day be givin to it. But no, no, that would be too much, just like abortionists oppose anything that teaches people about their children and protect the right to ignorance with all they have. So to the all knowing repugnant and hypocritical science as god crowd will not stand for even the least bit being taught outside of their theology.
the "first shots" need to be AT the lawyers and their MASTERS in black robes!
If we did not have them, this country would be beautiful to live in - as it is, with them - we live in "1984"
The little guy in this case are the eleven parents whose kids are being taught religious ideas in the guise of biology.
"The defence will argue that ID is actually science and is valid"
That's going to be an extremely hard argument to make, considering that ID requires one to throw the scientific method out the window....
The old "just a theory" attack again. Sigh.
He obviously didn't read PatrickHenry's List-O-Links.
One day would be too much for a science class. There's no science in ID. It is actually a perversion of science, and seeks to destroy the scientific method.
Do you feel that one can not belive in evolution and God at the same time?
The creationists version of ID is unscientific, but the basic concept of ID isn't. We should be teaching ID as something that MIGHT have had some role in the development of life on Earth, and that will DEFINITELY have a role in the development of life on planets -- with humans being the intelligent designers. For a few million bucks, I'm quite sure that bioengineers could cook up simple one-celled organisms that could survive and evolve on Mars, within a few months. That is intelligent design. We could do it, and we very well may do it. And a billion years from now, when Martians are debating the origins of life on their planet, they'd do well to consider the possibility that it started with intelligently designed organisms that were dropped off there by the designers. Because if they utterly exclude the concept from scientific education and inquiry, they'll never get the right answer.
No, the basic concept of ID is still unscientific.
It asks for one to presuppose something that cannot be tested, proved or disproved. It asks for one to substitute belief for evidence.
It's just not scientific. It's faith, and deserves to be taught in a religious context. It has no place at all in science classes.
All science presupposes things that can't be tested, proved, or disproved. Cuurent science presupposes that the unfathomable original creation of all the energy/matter/time we analyze "just happened", without the participation of some purposeful intelligence. This cannot be proven, and science has not even come close to advancing a testable theory for how it could have happened. Neither can the participation of a purposeful intelligence be tested or proven, but the presumption that there was no such purposeful intelligence is no more valid. Personally, I think it is quite possible that the energy/time/matter we now deal with WAS created by some purposeful intelligence -- a highly evolved entity or group of entities that came about in an entirely different universe. That only takes us back to the question of how that universe got started, and what it's nature was, but it is far from clear that the "original cause" was within our current universe, and thus findable/understandable by analyzing only our current universe.
I didn't realise they were being taught Darwinism.
They were being taught creationism, from a textbook in which, in its final draft, the word 'creationism' was replaced with 'intelligent design', and the rest left intact.
The issue of what's science and what's religion is stare decissis.
Er... the thing is, ID is demonstrated in the evolution of dogs, cats and farm animals. We pick characteristics to breed for and eliminate the culls and eventually the critter is the way we want it.
So if we work the way the world works, then ID is the proven mechanism of evolution and the notion that evolution also happens by chance is faith. You've got it exactly backwards.
Nonsense.
Show me the slightest bit of scientific evidence that there is a Designer. Not feelings or emotions, not wishful thinking, but evidence. You can't, and that's what makes it un-scientific.
There is plenty of evidence that evolution and natural selection occur in the world. That's what makes evolution scientific.
The creationists' Orwellian attempts to redefine words is truly frightening.
If you really want to claim that Darwinism is any less religious, dogmatic, or rooted in philosophical and theological presupposition than 'creationism', I've got some fantastic real estate in Louisiana to sell you.
Oh, you want me to take the view of the radical leftist secularists on the American courts as an independent and unbiased authority? Can I interest you in some fine "waterfront" properties in New Orleans? Anyone?
No. Just as the law of the land.
You are blinded by your faith in mankind.
Why isn't it possible that evolution is the way God created everything?
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.