Professor, teachers to testify in intelligent-design trial [Dover, PA, 05 Oct]

Times Leader ^ | 05 October 2005 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[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.

[Right Wing Professor]

What is it with the double posts?

[b_sharp]

Baseball is nothing but a religion.

[Thatcherite]

What is it with the double posts?

[Right Wing Professor]

To-oo-oo mu-uch co-co-fee-fee may-may-be.

[Right Wing Professor]

Baseball is nothing but a religion.

Yes, and my religion tied for first (too bad about last night, though, must have been one of those spiritual crises)

[b_sharp]

"ID is actually based on lots of observable evidence and facts. The main argument for intelligent design is based on scientific observation. The conclusion of IDers is, that after observing the facts, evolution does not and cannot reasonably account for life as it currently exists; including specific parts of the bodies of various non-plant life forms.

Doesn't ID say that evolution occurs and the earth is 4.5_byo?

ID is based on the assumption that complexity can only come from intelligence. When confronted with their inability to show that a designer is limited to complex design and that nature is limited to simple design, they point to the construct of 'specified' complexity. What they will not admit is that without knowing the intent of the designer, specificity is impossible to recognize.

[MineralMan]

"That's what I was taught in a Southern Baptist Church camp sometime around 1972."


Funny. I heard that in a Presbyterian church camp. I guess the Presbyterians and Southern Baptists aren't "true" Christians according to the YECcers. I clearly remember one of the speakers at that camp (back in 1961) explain Genesis as an allegory, linking the various verses to the science of the day (before black holes, BTW.)

It's so funny that the denominationalism of Christianity has led to such wide gaps in basic understanding. Even the Roman Catholic Church rationalizes evolution with its teachings.

I'm afraid that we're in a discussion with a tiny minority that takes Genesis as an actual account of the day-to-day creation of the universe and all that is in it. I've always been puzzled by that belief. At the time Genesis was first written down, its audience was herding sheep across a desert. It was a simple story, told to people with simple understanding of the world around them. It must have made sense then.

Now, we understand a few more things than those nomads did, and its allegorical message is pretty obvious. Oddly, it's not all that difficult to link it, still, to scientific knowledge, if you are inclined to do that.

For me, the beauty of Genesis is in how well it explains the inexplicable to both the nomads of its day, while retaining some sense a many centuries later.

[connectthedots]

I think my post #95 addresses you questions. If not, I will try to clarify.

[connectthedots]

Maths OTOH is qualitatively different from *all* the natural sciences, because it doesn't have to cope with the natural world so it can deal with concepts like "axioms" and "proofs". Natural sciences cannot do that.

I am not the one who claimed that evolutionism is comparable to mathematics; quite the opposite.

[b_sharp]

Love the new format, Junior.

Bring back ModernMan and SeaLion.

[longshadow]

Festival of the Walking Dead Troll

[MHalblaub]

"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'."

So you admit that there is a possibility that evolution can explain it? And what is 'complex'? Is it just to complex for Behe, Dembski and you? What is 'chance' for you? To survive an hurricane in New Orleans and afterwards get shot by looters? What assumptions of the theory of evolution are false? Only animals reaching a procreative age may have children? Offsprings are different from their parents?


"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."

The only observation ID makes is: "We are to brainless to know!" The conclusion is that someone else must have a brain - the intelligent designer.
By the way, what premises are used by the theory of evolution?


"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."

The observation that we don't know everything is neither scientific nor does it disprove something else.

Is it possible to falsify ID? Compare it with a weather forecast. On Fox they tell you "Saturday we will have heavy rains!" On Saturday day we have a bright sun shiny day. You probably are going to flame the studio for canceling a barbecue. What consequences does ID have (except the fact to steal time)? None!

Evolution on the other hand made sometimes even bad predictions. The prediction that the bird flu is very likely to recombine with an human virus is one. Is ID capable of some kind of predictions?

[connectthedots]

I don't think the ACLU would want you as a witness at this trial. ;-)

[b_sharp]

"But, how can you prove a forest exists if one of the trees is unaccounted for?

Try to run through it with your eyes closed. Then show doubters the bruise.

[MineralMan]

"Ok. But if evolution, which is capable of evolving intelligence is false, then where did your "intelligence" come from that created species? If there is a mechanism other than evolution for forming complex structures with "intelligence", then what is it?"

---

Ah, here is where you need the services of a metaphysician. You have wandered into the realms of philosophy, rather than science. And at the heart of your statement is the reason that ID is not a science, unless metaphysics can be considered a science.

The answer, of course, is that the designer is not bound by the laws of nature, nor by time. The designer cannot be described in terms of existence. The designer simply IS. It is the basic premise.

And, of course, the designer cannot be studied by humans, since it is outside of nature. You cannot refute the designer, because you cannot study the designer. You cannot see the designer, touch the designer, or even really conceive of the designer. The designer is indescribable, invisible, and unfathomable.

So there! I win! You can't prove that there's no designer, and I claim there is one. I win! Ha! Ha! You lose! Neener...neener...neener!

[anguish]

No matter if you want/need it or not, here's a 100x100 version of the DC logo:

<img src="http://www.geocities.com/anguished75/dc100x100.gif" width="100" height="100">

[connectthedots]

Doesn't ID say that evolution occurs and the earth is 4.5byo?

IMO, estimates about the age of the earth are largely speculative.

ID is based on the assumption that complexity can only come from intelligence.

ID concludes, not assumes, that such complexity can only come via intelligent design.

[PatrickHenry]

Suitable for a lapel pin! The Grand Master is pleased.

[Thatcherite]

IMO, estimates about the age of the earth are largely speculative.

Your opinion must be uninformed. Numerous independent lines of evidence give broadly similar results for the age of the earth.

[js1138]

No table. That's part of the torment.