No interest in discussion over the trial...just a chance to feel evo good.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
Here's the complete fossel record.
http://www.mainetoday.com/elections/2004/news/040609senate20.shtml
OK, Nathan. If you are going to quote long passages from web sites, please reference the web site. It is obvious that you did not write the post yourself, so you need to tell us where you got this text. To do otherwise is to plagiarize.
So, which web site did you copy and paste that from?
See my post 83. :-)
It's classic Hovindia, or more precisely, one of Dr. Dino's stable of authors:
http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79
Dang, beat me to it ;)
Thanks. I saw it after I posted. Still, I was hoping that Nathan would attribute his own copy and paste jobs. That's only honest, I'd think.
I mean, it's obvious to me that someone who can't spell "fossil" did not write a pseudo-scientific paper, but he should at least give credit where credit is due, don't you think?
Spelling has nothing to do with people taking you seriously, and if it matters to small minded people, it just don't matter to me what they think.
Maybe, but there are biologists publishing original research supporting evolution, and none publishing original research supporting ID.
Check out the reason the Discovery Institute isn't particilating on the trial. Read what they have to say about the state of ID research.
"You know what? Go preach the spelling crap to someone else. I'm not your student, you're not a teacher, and I really don't care if I make spelling mistakes. "
OK. It was just a suggestion, anyhow. Of course you're free to take it or not take it. I just find that folks who don't take the time to try to spell correctly on Free Republic get taken less seriously than those who do.
It's entirely up to you, Nathan. I do wish you'd provide links to the sources of your longer screeds, though, so I could visit the web site from which you copied them. It would make life much easier for me. I wouldn't have to use Google to find where you got your information.
Middle author too. It usually means he wasn't the guy directing the research, and he wasn't the guy leading the research. If I have a grad. student who collects some data for a project, and analyzes it, but the major work was done by someone else, I usually include them as a middle author.
Ok. I'll play along. Let's pretend you are right, that there is no evidence supporting evolution. Now, in your words, "list the evidence" supporting ID.
Nor do most of the particle physicists I know buy into ID.
I like it. I'll add it. Thanks.
wild guesses, grouping >fossals< that don't belong together prove nothing. Many of these mistakes have been discovered. The Hobbit bones is in reference to what was an alleged new species of human which evolutionists named Homo floresiensis which turned out to be the remains of an ordinary sickly kid, a modern human who had a brain-shrinking disorder called microcephaly. Much hoopla was made about this discovery, which is yet another of a long list of frauds.
No interest in discussion over the trial...just a chance to feel evo good.
Revelation 4:11Intelligent Design
See my profile for info
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.