Posted on 10/05/2005 3:53:39 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
HARRISBURG, Pa. - A philosophy professor and two science teachers were expected to testify Wednesday in a landmark trial over a school board's decision to include a reference to "intelligent design" in its biology curriculum.
Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, is being called as an expert witness on behalf of eight families who are trying to have intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum. The families contend that it effectively promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
Forrest's testimony was expected to address what opponents allege is the religious nature of intelligent design, as well as the history and development of the concept, according to court papers filed by the plaintiffs before the trial.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was also expected to hear testimony from Bertha Spahr, chairman of Dover High School's science department, and biology teacher Jennifer Miller.
Under the policy approved by Dover's school board in October 2004, students must hear a brief statement about intelligent design before classes on evolution. It says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Intelligent-design supporters 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.
The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is being defended by the Thomas More Law Center, a public-interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Mich., that says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.
The trial began Sept. 26 and is expected to last as long as five weeks.
Wouldn't it be exciting to be the scientist to "prove" the existence of God? They'd be more famous as Einstein.
It's strange that the Discovery Institute doesn't have such a program. I wonder why they aren't trying to find real affirmative evidence of God? Maybe they have no faith they will succeed?
I'm Not impressed.
In the real world competence is based on what gets done, not how they feel.
If by 'religion' you mean 'a belief that the natural processes and systems that we can observe, measure and test are consistent and can explain the past and future behavior of the world around us', then you can call it that if it pleases you.
And no, I don't believe in the literal truth of the bible.
I hate to be the one to tell you, but she will not be the only expert witness called.
Philosophy has much to say about, and contributions to make to, science - it just doesn't control it.
Much better layout! If you want I can make you a sized DC logo (96x96?) that doesn't go all pixel-ish and hard to read.
Here are two questions they will probably have to answer, under oath.
Their answers are not likely to make creationists happy.
Biology is not a soft science; sociology is though.
You misunderstand ID. It argues that organisms are so complex and the various functions of parts of organisms are so complex, evolution cannot possibly be the explanation. ID is a rejection of the false assumptions of evolution. It is the complete rejection of 'chance'.
Actually, it is quite logical. ID actually makes observations and reaches a conclusion. Evolution, on the other hand, uses premises to reach conclusions and then tries to find evidence to prove the premises/conclusions.
I find it interesting that the evolutionists rejects ID as science because, in their words, it cannot be "falsified", but evolution can be falsified. It seems pretty clear to me that the IDers have falsified evolution and the falsification is based on scientific observation. While it doesn't 'prove' ID, it certainly does tend to disprove evolution.
I suppose if one wanted to distinguish creationists from IDers, it would be fair to say, generally: 1. All creationists are IDers, and thus, reject evolution on the basis of faith and/or science. Don't think anyone would dispute this statement.
2. IDers reject evolution because the scientific improbabilities associated with evolution based on observation. One does not have take this position based on any religious faith.
The defense of the school board seems to be based on #2. The claim of the plaintiff is that ID=creation. Logically speaking, it is not true.
It does not appear to me that you've had enough exposure to teachers to make a considered judgment about them.
Please read some of my later posts. In short, ID is a rejection of evolution. Never said it proved ID, other than that if evolution is not true, can you propose other alternatives to consider?
So it is speculation.
ring species
Do you believe God created species through evolution?
The latest is that even evolutionists are reconsidering this concept. There was an article linking in a evo/ID thread several weeks ago.
In biology, at least, professors tend to get promoted to that position by publishing well recognized research papers in peer reviewed journals.
IOW "them as can, teach (often as little as they can get away with)
Don't know how it works in the fuzzy studies.
I doubt that many of those scientists would care to cast in the same light as evolutionists. After all, they can actually establish a degree of proof that evolution cannot, nor likely ever will even come close to establishing. To associate evolution with the high degree of credibility in mathematics and physics is an insult to those sciences.
That's funny, I read somewhere giant letters had appeared in the sky spelling out 'Genesis: it's allegory, fools!'
Can't remember where I read that, either.
Bull. I do quantum mechanics for a living. Evolution is every bit as credible as q.m. (both are 99+%)
You have misunderstood. The data stand, with only an occasional possible exception. There are dozens, probably hundreds of similar examples, especially among plants where regional differences tend to multiply more easily. Not all are rings, some are clinal.
Odds are that the source was a creative interpretation by literal creationists.
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.