Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]

Sioux City Journal ^ | 29 September 2005 | Staff

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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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

[doc30]

My response to GretchenM involved her comment that a theory should not be taught as scientific fact. That statement, taken at face value, means all of science cannot be taught. That is anti-science at it's most arrogant. The problem, I suspect, is that GretchenM doesn't know that all of science is based upon theories. Theories are the predictive explanations for observed facts. Theories are what explain observations. The observations are the facts.

Pertaining to ID, there is no scientific theory. In order to make ID a scientific theory, you have to change what science is and does. That means you must remove the objectivity from science so supernatural explanations can be proposed. That is 100% anti-science.

Your satement, "Nothing blew up and created everything- by chance. Then everything evolved." again shows you do not know what evolution means. What you say has nothing to do with evolution. Let me ask you this very simple question. What is evolution? In other words, what does it cover and what is beyond its scope? Every scientific theory has limitations that are known by scientists in those fields. Can you tell me what is scientifically out-of-bounds for evolution?

[doc30]

LOL! Sometimes I wonder if dark matter is in these people's minds. That would explain the difficuklty in opening them - too much gravity in there!

[RadioAstronomer]

You might want to credit you source so I will do so for you:

http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=79

Hmmmm...Dr. Dino. BTW, you missed the supporting arguments that claim the Earth's magnetic field is only 10,000 years old as well.

Here are some pages you may enjoy:

http://www.c14dating.com/ - PH, you might like this one for your list -o- links. :-)

http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/Anth3/Courseware/Chronology/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html

http://www.radiocarbon.org/ (I have this journal in my personal library)

[RadioAstronomer]

ROFL! :-)

[RadioAstronomer]

Off to the lab. See you in a while.

[Nathan Zachary]

That was written by William B. Tripp, Ph.D, D.Th.

And yes, Dr. Dino also carries those articles, as well as a thousand other places.

[Dimensio]

That the complex web of life is too improbable otherwise.

Demonstrate this complexity.

See Roger Penrose's books. He has done the calculations.

From where did he derive the initial conditions?

[doc30]

Your misinformation on C14 dating is staggering. First of all, C14 is only useful to about 50,000 years into the past. You vapor canopy is total nonsense and could not have existed and provided the properties described in the creationist literature. The formation of C14, is proportional to the amount of C02 in the atmosphere. The ratio is constant, regardless of absolute C02 levels.; That's basic physics and chemistry. You quotes about the magnetic field are only partly correct. The magnetic field oscillates. Even at ull strength, it is not a perfect shield against radiation. The polarity of the radiation is important so statistically, 50% of incident radiation gets through. However, over the 50,000 year span of C14 usefulness, the change in the field is not that important. Also, C14 is not used to date fossils. Scientists know this and don't use C14 for that reason. There are other radiological decay paths that can be used for dating that use half lives considerably longer than C14. You should check those out. You do need to do some actual science reading.

[FostersExport]

Dr Dino…what a joker. Someone (a supporter, in fact) asked him on a radio phone in how it was the sun could burn, because combustion needs oxygen and there’s no oxygen in space. He couldn’t answer!

Highly qualified scientist there, not having heard of nuclear fusion.

[Dimensio]

There is NO fossel record which proves evolution.

1) It's spelled "fossil". When you consistently spell it incorrectly it calls into question your knowledge of the subject.

2) Absolutely no theory in science is ever proven. Claiming that a given line of evidence (and the fossil record is evidence -- your denial of its existence does not make it go away) is not "proof" only demonstrates that you do not comprehend the scientific method.

No hobbit bones, Nothing.

Why would you expect to find "hobbit bones"? Be specific.

[Nathan Zachary]

credit this source then:

http://www.rdpministry.com/view/?pageID=124811 And this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/Anthropology.asp

[PatrickHenry]

Ichy[can’t remember the rest of his username] has the best demonstration of the fossil record I’ve seen. I will have to do some Googling to find something that demonstrates it nearly as well.

We're here to help:

Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record. What the fossil record is all about.
The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Cuffey. Great collection of information.
Cladograms: what they are, how to read them. Ichneumon's post 230.

Another service of
Darwin Central
The conspiracy that cares

[Nathan Zachary]

"When you consistently spell it incorrectly it calls into question your knowledge of the subject."

Right, good spelling means your a frickin' GENIUS!!

If that's all you got, I pity you.

[Dimensio]

Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God, there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale.

This is a total strawman. Evolution says nothing whatsoever regarding the existence of any gods, and evolution makes no claims of "achievement" whatsoever, much less a claim that man is an "achievement" of some sort.

You need to learn what evolution actually states before you can make claims about it -- for or against -- that carry any credibility.

[Dimensio]

If that's all you got, I pity you.

That isn't "all I got". I posted more in reply to you, but you chose to ignore that. Why did you ignore it and then pretend that I offered nothing more than a comment on your spelling when anyone who looks at my posting can clearly see that I said more than that?

[js1138]

Not only were most of your scientists dead before Darwin published, but nearly all of them were dead or very old before genomes were decoded and the the evidence of common descent examined.

As for your current scientists, the ones I googled seem mostly famous for being on your list. They don't seem to have published any actual science relevant to evolution.

I checked some of this once before and found that guys who had published peer reviewed science relevant to evolution were actually supporting evolution in their professional work. Who cares what they believe on Sunday?

Here's an example of what appears to be legitimate research by one of your guys.

Mason JM, Drummond MF, Bosanquet AG, Sheldon TA. "The Disc assay: a cost-effective guide to treatment for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia?"

The guy (Bosanquet) runs a routine medical lab that test the effectiveness of cancer drugs on tumor samples. Legitimate stuff, but hardly original research related to evolution.

[MineralMan]

"fossel"

Just a suggestion: You may find that people take your arguments more seriously if you spell the word correctly. The first time, I took it as a typo. The second time you misspelled it, I realized that you did not know how to spell the word properly.

It's FOSSIL.

[RadioAstronomer]

Here ya go - "infinite wire" :-)

http://www.pa.msu.edu/~duxbury/courses/phy294H/lectures/lecture22/lecture22.html

[RadioAstronomer]

Got any peer reviewed papers we can peruse that support your argument?

[RadioAstronomer]

And yes, I just had to check in once more before I poofed to work. Hmm... FR addiction I guess. :-)