yeah...thats certainly a part of it.
Oh no...here come the ID'ers!!!
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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
Ha! I know one Steve - and he's not on the list. Very suspicious.
Here's the whole "fraud" catalogue, out of hundreds of thousands -- or is it millions? -- of fossils that support evolution:
Piltdown Man. Science (not creationism) uncovered the fraud.
Nebraska Man. NEW Also: Nebraska Man in Textbooks? It wasn't much of a fraud.
Peppered Moths. Another non-issue.
Haeckel's Embryos. Yet another.
Ichneumon's Discussion of Haeckel's embryo drawings. A FreeRepublic post (#62).
Archaeopteryx. Despite howls from creationists, it's not a fake.
Archaeoraptor. A crude fake, publicised by Nat'l Geographic, then quickly exposed.
Lucy. The "fraud" claim is actually a creationist fraud.
Presenting a scientific theory in a science classroom is not fraud. But representing a faith-based explanation as a scientific theory is fraud.
Faith is not an alternative to science, nor science to faith. They can be complimentary, as they have been for many distinguished scientists and church scholars.
Scientific theories do not purport to contain absolute or metaphysical truths. They are not based on faith. They are models which help explain and account for phenomena. The models undergo continuous improvement. Some are disproved and thrown out. Others survive scientific scrutiny and skepticism. Thus, Einsteinian gravitation improves upon Newtonian. It doesn't make Newton a fraud.
Science is based on skepticism, not faith. The models get better because they are tested and forced to change and are improved. If they were based upon absolutes of faith, then they could not ever be improved or thrown out.
ID does not belong in the science classroom.
I was only thinking of fossil frauds, which is why I didn't mention Haeckel's embryos. I don't consider Archeraptor to be a "fraud" because there was no deliberate attempt to present a known fake as evidence for evolution.
Should have been "flapjaw"
You want evidence?
Go to your nearest University. Read the Journal of Molecular Evolution - start with the oldest ones to build a base. After about your 10th haircut, start on the next Evolution Journal. Take home the texts on Evolution and read them at night. If you have enough years left, and when you finish you will have read maybe 1-5% of the total information known, so don't stop there!
FR's computers aren't large enough to hold all the evidence supporting evolution and you know it. The fact that you choose to spout false claims and ignore the evidence does nothing but illuminate the paucity of your knowledge and the real aim of your side.
The Death of Science and the birth of a Theocracy in America.
When your usual style of posting is "casual illiterate," and you suddenly pop up with a long, abjectly inaccurate but linguistically impeccable dissertation, people immediately know you are a plagiarist.
But the others routinely show up on those intellectual toxic waste dumps known as creationist websites, so I thought I'd cut 'em off at the pass and list them all.
************
It's just a typical evo thread, then.
I actually see little wrong with what the Dover Board did. Per the article, they aren’t teaching creationism, they are mentioning ID. I have a school-age textbook that mentions that evolution is not universally accepted, citing belief in Genesis-style creation as an alternative. If that’s all that happens, I see little problem.
Heck, maybe creationist arguments should be mentioned more in school, so the science teacher can point out the blatant flaws in most of them!
But the not unfounded suspicion is that there will be mission creep on the part of creationists. First ID gets a mention, then it’s taught as a full-blown competing theory in a science class. That is not acceptable for scientific teaching unless ID can come up with a theory that follows the scientific method.
I gave my links in the first 50 comments if you bothered to read.
Actually, the science teacher's probably so bad he wouldn't recognize a flaw if it ran up his nostrils.
"I gave my links in the first 50 comments if you bothered to read."
Well, I saw one link, to answersingenesis, in the first 50 comments.
That's not sufficient, you see. In order to prevent charges of plagiarism, you need to put quotation marks around text you copy and paste, and provide a link to the site and page where you found that text, along with the author's name.
Otherwise, you're just plain stealing someone else's words and attempting (very badly) to pass them off as your own. There's nothing wrong with quoting authorities, but you do have to give credit to those who are smart enough to be quoted, don't you think. To do otherwise is dishonest, you see. To even omit a credit for someone else's text is stealing, and I believe there's a rule against that in your scriptures.
Trust me...it's not hard to give credit to those smart enough to deserve quoting. It even lends credibility to your posts...demonstrating that you understand what plagiarism is.
You might think about it.
Thanks for the ping!
yeah...thats certainly a part of it.
Oh no...here come the ID'ers!!!
I also don't know what the flap is about. Many evo's on these threads say that ToE is inadequate or unable to address the issue of "origins" - and yet, there certainly has to be an "origin(s)".
Why should there not be some mention of this limitation of science to understand the natural world?
Perhaps this should have been worded: Why should there not be some mention of this limitation of evolutionary science to understand the natural world?
But as I say it’s not unfounded. The vast majority of ID’rs who are actually _pushing_ to get ID into science class are actually Genesis-style creationists (care to disagree?). If so, it’s no surprise that people are wary of their agenda.
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.