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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
Thanks.
In this business, you have to take your thrills where you can.
durn it, you are making me hungry.
I haven't had prime rib au jus in quite a while.
okers - here's a chestnut for you, then: why does freshly applied polyurethane varnish smell notably like fresh pumpkin guts?
I don't know, and would like to.
ah... the work of the FSM in His guise as the Great Pumpkin.
I see, I see.
-Ramen-
I suspect most of them couldn't care less about the evolution v. creation/ID debate. If there really are all that many, why have they collectively not been able to fill in the gaps in the ToE?
That's just nonsense. The theory of evolution posits that all life on earth came from a single common ancestor, and that the multitude of species developed through mutation and natural selection. Where that first life came from is not part of the theory. Darwin himself wrote that the first organism from which all others descended was "breathed by the Creator." (Origin of Species, last page.)
You claim I read:"there were gaps in the ToE..."
You: "discovery of currently unknown fossils..."
You claim I read: "including a lack of a fossil record supporting transitional forms."
If there was ever a distinction without a difference, this is it.
And just how did I misread what you wrote? Seems to me, I simply restated what you wrote and did not change the meaning of anything you wrote.
I stated there are gaps in the fossil record.
I stated that future discoveries will fill some of the transitional slots predicted by the ToE.
You read that to indicate that there is currently NO fossil evidence supporting evolutionary transition.
again: You must read the statement "I have some gaps in my teeth" as meaning "King Prout HAS NO TEETH."
If you do not, you demonstrate that you are applying arbitrary standards of interpretation on paralell syntactic structures. This would demonstrate that you are aware that you are practicing misrepresentation. This imputes deliberate dishonesty.
The choice of how to proceed out of the hole you have dug for yourself is yours to make.
It is a non-debate among scientists. Biologists take it as a given due to the tremendous amount of data that support it.
why have they collectively not been able to fill in the gaps in the ToE?
What gaps would those be? The fossil record is strong enough to stand on its own. The genetic evidence is so overwhelming one would have to be either wilfully ignorant or a member of the OJ jury to not accept it.
Catch phrase of the Discovery Institute.
King Prout: I stated there are gaps in the fossil record.
Have you two met?
Also, Miller, the lead witness for the plaintiff's, admitted there were gaps in the ToE.
You are the one digging the hole for yourself.
I note you have chosen to evade addressing the problem your analytical technique (if I may so improperly dignify it) has set up.
typical.
My analytical skill are excellent. Can't say the same about yours.
either your analytical skill is deeply flawed, or your analytical skills are deeply flawed.
either way, keep shoveling.
and you *still* have not addressed the problem you created for yourself.
Buddy Davis is nearing the completion of his work on the 40-foot Tyrannosaurus Rex model he is creating for the museum! When you walk into his workshop and come face to face with this beast it inspires frightening memories of movie scenes with people running from the ferocious, apparently starved, giant. However, we know from the Bible that God created all animals, including dinosaurs, to be vegetarians. It was only after sin and the resulting curse were introduced that animals began to eat each other. Before that there would have been no reason to fear a 40 long, 12 tall T-Rex!
Here's yet another example of the kind of scientific scholarship available from Answers In Genesis:
Dinosaur kinds loaded onto Noahs Ark: Its easy to explain how we fit on the Ark. It was the size of an ocean liner and the average size of dinosaurs were the size of sheep. Even the few big guys were most likely young adults (of average dinosaur size) when they boarded the Ark.
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.