Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]
Sioux City Journal ^ | 29 September 2005 | Staff

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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; beatingadeadhorse; crevolist; crevorepublic; dover; enoughalready; evolution; itsbeendone; onetrickpony; played; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561 next last
To: exDemMom
Your TOE does not discredit the Bible, however, the Bible discredits your TOE. Creationists who claim literal 24/7 days of the creation, ignore the rest of the book. IIPeter 3 the whole chapter lays out exactly what is. It is one of many places that describes an OLD heavens and earth called "that was".

IIPeter 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lust,

4 And saying, "Where is the promise of His coming?

for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as the were from the beginning of the creation."
5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6. Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:


7 But the heavens and the earth which are NOW, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

8 But, beloved, be NOT ignorant of this one thing,

that one day is with the LORD as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.


Doesn't matter what you believe or claim to be, will not change what has already been established TOE or no TOE.

I know very well there are thousands of writings on TOE, it is a vast business/religion and that is what this paralyzing fear is over that government might require a bit of taxpayer dollar sharing, or even worse yet careers might get their feeding plugs pulled.

Hey conservatives are all about competition and evolutionists are NOT. I am up close and personal with a liberal evolutionists researcher and there is nothing more in this world he despises more is one who believes in God and worse yet anyone who has the nerve to question his TOE.

So the hand wringing, swinging the intellectual 2x4's, preening as gods does not phase me. Talk about a bunch of chicken Little's claiming the sky is about to fall if their TOE is not saved.

I am very well aware of the cash cow evolution has become to a FEW, alllll off the taxpayers backs.
541 posted on 10/01/2005 4:00:11 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 529 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Talk about a bunch of chicken Little's claiming the sky is about to fall if their TOE is not saved.

I am very well aware of the cash cow evolution has become to a FEW, alllll off the taxpayers backs.

Perhaps the smiting of the sacred evolution cash cow is what has the Chicken Littles up in arms, yes?

542 posted on 10/01/2005 4:35:27 PM PDT by KMJames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
";... funding for non-medical biology ... accounts for only 3 percent of all federally supported life science funding."

That $600 million is broken down into Molecular and Cellular Biosci, Integrative Biology & Neurosci, Environmental Biology , Biological Infrastructure, Emerging Frontiers, Plant Genome Research. That seems to be all non-medical (and presumably, even creationists don't object to medical research). Here's a table with a breakdown of those expenditures by category:

I wonder exactly how the line is drawn between medical research and non-medical biological research. On the extremes, I guess there's a clear difference, but in the middle, it all runs together. In any case, you're correct--none of that money is going towards ID or creationism research.

543 posted on 10/02/2005 10:12:16 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If there really are all that many, why have they collectively not been able to fill in the gaps in the ToE?

They're only publishing thousands of articles on the subject every year. The thing about science is that every question answered raises a new question that needs an answer. Thus, there are always gaps to be filled. The existence of gaps in scientific knowledge in no way invalidates that knowledge.

Or, to put it in everyday terms, if I know that my neighbor is six feet tall, with light blond hair and green eyes, but I don't know his weight, does that gap in my knowledge in any way make the rest of what I know about him false?

544 posted on 10/02/2005 10:20:05 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 508 | View Replies]

To: Liberal Classic
That supposed "scientific scholarship" is a bunch of nonsense! If their goal is to strengthen Christianity, they'd better rethink their methods, because they can't validate the Christian faith by promoting transparent lies!

Yeah, yeah, I realize that their goal is to make money, and the end justifies the means. Charlatans.

545 posted on 10/02/2005 10:27:25 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 520 | View Replies]

To: metmom

Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo were not biologists, and, therefore, were unlikely to have made the observations that would have led to the development of the TOE. Those observations were being made by others.


546 posted on 10/02/2005 10:37:51 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 537 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
As I said before, if you want to refute the TOE, you MUST be as familiar with it as any scientist. So far, you have not demonstrated any familiarity with the theory. It is only by being absolutely familiar with it, and understanding it completely, that you can come up with an alternate explanation of the facts. Unless the Bible is a comprehensive scientific resource, you can't refute the TOE simply by quoting from the Bible.

I am up close and personal with a liberal evolutionists researcher and there is nothing more in this world he despises more is one who believes in God and worse yet anyone who has the nerve to question his TOE.

Being an atheist and being a scientist are two completely different issues. Maybe he tries to use science to justify (and try to force on you) his atheistic beliefs, but that only makes him no different than the literal creationists who try to use the Bible to justify not understanding or knowing science while they try to stamp out science education. Nothing about choosing a career in science precludes having religious faith; nothing about being a faithful Christian (or any religion) precludes having a career in science. I myself have seen life scientists with decades of research experience attending church. And yes, they accept the TOE. There's too much evidence at this point not to.

547 posted on 10/02/2005 10:54:40 AM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 541 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
They're only publishing thousands of articles on the subject every year. The thing about science is that every question answered raises a new question that needs an answer. Thus, there are always gaps to be filled.

Thousands of articles a year and the same gaps continue to exist. You are right about one thing, there will always be gaps in the ToE. How about a few big ones, such as evidence one species can, in one generation produce an offspring of another species.

The idea that it occurs over many generations is a fraud oeroetuated on the common man. For that to be true, a member of the animal kingdom would have to be transformed to a different species during its lifetime.

No one will ever find a fossil record of a transitional life-form because they can't possibly exist. if there was one, why wouldn't that transitional form simply be another species in the first place?

Anyone who believes in evolution should have no problem believing the Bible. After all, there is tones of evidence that the history found in the Bible is true via secular historians, archeological evidence, and eyewitness accounts; infinitely more evidence than available to prove evolution.

Also, if the quantity of articles/books written on evolution is evidence of it,; there is far more written about the Bible every year. To suggest articles and books about the Bible exceed those about evolution by 50-100 fold may not be out of line, although I don't have actual numbers.

548 posted on 10/02/2005 11:43:29 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 544 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
Being an atheist and being a scientist are two completely different issues.

If that is the case, you should have no problem with the proposition that Christianity and Intelligent Design are two completely different issues.

549 posted on 10/02/2005 11:46:34 AM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

Good point.


550 posted on 10/02/2005 5:29:12 PM PDT by Liberal Classic (No better friend, no worse enemy. Semper Fi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 545 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom; tallhappy
I myself have seen life scientists with decades of research experience attending church. And yes, they accept the TOE. There's too much evidence at this point not to.

Do either of you know any scientists who don't accept the TOE as the comprehensive explanation for biodiversity?

551 posted on 10/02/2005 5:41:56 PM PDT by Tribune7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 547 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom

I understand that. What I was responding to was the comments made by some on this and previous threads that not believing in, or having a proper understanding of, the ToE would indicate that one is incapable of using the scientific method properly and being so hopelessly out of touch with reality, that one's scientific conclusions would be suspect. The point I was trying to make was that these men were able to make great contributions to science while still believing in creation. Of course they couldn't have believed in it as it didn't exist at the time. I wouldn't expect their observations to lead to the development of the ToE but they didn't seem to lead them to question creation either, as far as I understand. Did that help clarify what I was saying? Sometimes it's hard to get your thoughts into words properly.


552 posted on 10/02/2005 6:51:17 PM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 546 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Do either of you know any scientists who don't accept the TOE as the comprehensive explanation for biodiversity?

Nope, I don't.

553 posted on 10/02/2005 8:14:57 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 551 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
If that is the case, you should have no problem with the proposition that Christianity and Intelligent Design are two completely different issues.

That's a complete non sequitur. Science and religion ARE completely independent of each other; you can't say that about intelligent design and Christianity. We all know that ID is creationism renamed to sound more scientific; literal creationism is a belief of a subset of Christians.

554 posted on 10/02/2005 8:24:28 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Thousands of articles a year and the same gaps continue to exist. You are right about one thing, there will always be gaps in the ToE.

Please reread my post #544 more carefully. I did not say that gaps exist in the TOE; I said that gaps exist in scientific knowledge. That means ALL scientific knowledge. That's the nature of science, ALL science. Otherwise, we would know everything and we wouldn't need to spend tens of billions of dollars on research every year.

How about a few big ones, such as evidence one species can, in one generation produce an offspring of another species.

Huh? Who ever said that speciation occurs in one generation? That's scientifically nonsense, and that's not what the TOE predicts.

The idea that it occurs over many generations is a fraud oeroetuated on the common man. For that to be true, a member of the animal kingdom would have to be transformed to a different species during its lifetime.

You're contradicting yourself. You think that in order for evolution to occur over a long period of time, an animal must suddenly change species during its lifetime??? What the????

No one will ever find a fossil record of a transitional life-form because they can't possibly exist. if there was one, why wouldn't that transitional form simply be another species in the first place?

Of course, countless thousands of "transition" form fossils have been found. Do you look different from your mother and father? Different hair or eye color, maybe? Then you, too, are a transition form.

Anyone who believes in evolution should have no problem believing the Bible.

I have no problem believing the Bible is a moral guidebook. None at all.

After all, there is tones of evidence that the history found in the Bible is true via secular historians, archeological evidence, and eyewitness accounts; infinitely more evidence than available to prove evolution.

I have no doubt that the writers of the Bible knew what was going on in their lifetimes, and recorded it accordingly. Just because there is actual verifyable history recorded in the Bible along with the moral lessons, does not mean it is a definitive science textbook or reference.

Also, if the quantity of articles/books written on evolution is evidence of it,; there is far more written about the Bible every year. To suggest articles and books about the Bible exceed those about evolution by 50-100 fold may not be out of line, although I don't have actual numbers.

Feel free to conduct a PubMed search on the keyword "evolution." Mine turned up 10,241 articles published in 2005, over 167,000 indexed in all. Not all articles discussing aspects of evolution will have the keyword "evolution", so most articles dealing with the subject aren't indexed as such. I do not know how many books or articles are published each year on the Bible, but what I do know is that every scientific article published is the result of original research. Scientists do not like to duplicate each other's work, and they all want to add to existing knowledge. Science is the process of discovering something that has never been known before. OTOH, no matter how many books and/or articles there are published on the Bible, or on Christianity, or whatever, it is unlikely that any of them reveal anything new. Millions of people have read the Bible; there is no possible interpretation or insight anyone can make about it that has not been made before.

555 posted on 10/02/2005 9:06:26 PM PDT by exDemMom (Now that I've finally accepted that I'm living a bad hair life, I'm more at peace with the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 548 | View Replies]

fossel PM


556 posted on 10/02/2005 11:19:18 PM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Antonello
Firstly, the link is to an article regarding the hysterical reaction of the scientific (and advocacy) community to the attempt to explicitly state that evolution is a theory. It is actually very relevant.

As to your charge of equivocation: it is you who is flitting between the general, the specific, and the academic meaning of terms as you see fit. What we are discussing here is public policy and these discussions rightfully take place in the lexicon of the general public, not academic jargon which to outsiders appears to say one thing while meaning another.

Like it or not, to the public, evolution means natural selection & mutation as the only cause of change and spontaneous generation. If you don't like this association don't complain to me.

The proposition that science can state exactly why change occurred in the remote past is absurdly unprovable and that fact is not altered by bundling it together with other more provable notions and calling it a package deal.

Since I was racing to get OOO get me explain my reaction to your assertion that evolution could be "rocked" by anything. I agree with you if by "rocked" you mean surprise twinged with professional embarrassment followed by glee at the prospect of more research funding. But not if by "rock" you mean collapse.

For example, if a new life form was found which could not be related to any other, what would happen? Well, someone would postulate that since/if life spontaneously arose once, there was no scientific reason it could not have happened twice. Throw in dual descent and presto - evolution has been saved! It is totally predictable.

You pretend that science is completely rational, has no ulterior motives, and that even a lousy answer from "science" is better than anything else. This sort of reasoning may be popular in faculty lounges and with radical secularists but the public knows better.
557 posted on 10/03/2005 11:03:32 AM PDT by Ford4000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 494 | View Replies]

To: Ford4000
Screw it. You win. I hope all Creationists get their wish and all their kids disbelieve evolution. More good jobs for my kids. Yours can dig ditches; the world needs them, too.
558 posted on 10/03/2005 12:12:31 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 557 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
> "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"

That Ann Richards, what a card she was!

Miriam "Ma" Ferguson.

559 posted on 10/03/2005 12:24:55 PM PDT by dread78645 (Sorry Mr. Franklin, We couldn't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 368 | View Replies]

To: exDemMom
That reminds me of when I took physics, and we kept talking about an electric field around an infinite wire. I know it was presented that way in order to simplify the mathmatics, but I got so hung up on the impossibility of an infinite wire that I couldn't grasp the mathmatics.

I had the good fortune to have an excellent physics professor. He talked about "an ecectric field around a wire, while for the moment, neglecting end effects."
560 posted on 10/04/2005 7:21:49 PM PDT by NonLinear (He's dead, Jim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 501-520521-540541-560561 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson