why, she sure does!!:
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.
Not exactly an upper tier university. Guess they couldn't get someone with better credentials; and just what does philosophy have to do with science?
Read the link in post #17. It's primarily speculation, with lost of 'probablies' and 'possibles'. 'Evidence' that is based on speculation is not real evidence.
"...and just what does philosophy have to do with science?"
Which is exactly the question scientists NEVER want to be brought up in 'science' class.
"Your info at your link is laced through and through with the words 'probably' and 'possible; "
It's also laced through and through with solid evidence and transitional forms. But, if you wish to keep your hands over your eyes you are certainly free to do so.
Evolution, with tons of facts and over a century of scientific research, with gaps pieced together with scholarly speculation, and every new piece of discovered information predictably filling one of those gaps vs. ID with no science and pure speculation based on blind faith in a few bronze age scrolls (while ignoring tons of other bronze age creation writings) and a lot of superstition.
"Read the link in post #17."
That's post 18 :)
thanks for that
It's primarily researched facts. You're ignoring the forest because you think there's a (speculated) tree missing in there somewhere.
It would be, if it were science at all.
Evolution is good science?
Yes, as good as we've got in a soft science like biology.
Maybe I jsut don't udnerstand evolution, could you explain to me how man evolved? From the beginning till now.
That isn't an honest question. It's a bait. Eat your own bait. Or answer your own question.
I won't play games with you. It's called self-respect.
You are welcome. For some odd reason, the Leftist Darwinists have incredible traction here at FreeRepublic. So, when an apologist for Darwinism is an overt leftist, as ALL of them I have encountered so far seem to be, I figure, hey, such folks just LOVE to be famous.
I figured she'd see to it she is all over the net. Sure enough, google is a friend in this case. Chances are she keeps track and counts of all mentions of her and her work on google. Fame is a really important elixir to a leftist - the hunger for eyeballs is insatiable.
Many thanks. Reading through her list of 'accomplishments', you just have to wonder how much of it is making it into the courtroom, so that the 'expert' witness is revealed for being an .... oh, this term is not too strong: an AGENT.
Now, here's the most important question: who is her Dad, and just how rotten did he treat her as a kid? You average leftist chick really, really has misgivings about the whole 'Father' concept.
why, she sure does!!:
Here is what M. Cavanaugh had to say about ther book:
"This book is chilling. It lets one see how totalitarian religious thought can begin to take hold even of a multi-cultural free society. We already knew that religious fundamentalists and many evangelicals think teaching evolutionary principles is not only erroneous, but evil. We knew they objected to teaching evolution in the schools. We knew they had concocted various intellectual constructs to deny the truth of evolution, and we knew that the most recent of these constructs, "Intelligent Design," was subtle and sophisticated enough to attract the attention of many ordinary citizens.
Since 1954, with the founding of the Institute on Religion in an Age of Science (of which I am the current president), many scientists and religion scholars have countered such claims by enthusiastically accepting mainstream science and exploring the implications for a modern understanding, for example in journals like Zygon: Journal of Religion & Science. Our effort has been to affirm the advances of science while preserving the ethical and philosophical insights of traditional religious traditions. And we thought we were doing our part at helping keep the society on track {how ...noble}.
And then comes this book. It shows what we did NOT already know, namely that there is a concerted and organized plan, "The Wedge Strategy," whereby this putative "scientific" construct called Intelligent Design seeks to give itself a patina of respectability, thereby to make politicians look more credible when they try to remove legitimate science from our schools. But there is no mistaking the true goal of this movement—the Discovery Institute, through its Center for Science and Culture, seeks to "renew" American culture through the enshrinement of evangelical religious doctrines as public policy. This is a development that every person interested in the science/religion dialogue needs to be aware of and needs to give serious thought to. It is not just the general wedge strategy that needs to be understood, but the detailed tactical maneuvers as well; thus, this is a book that must be read thoroughly, and not just skimmed. Fortunately it is easy and compelling reading, and many of us will want to put copies in the hands of those in a position—whether academically or politically or otherwise—to make a difference in the future of science education. "
But funny, strange, he, Michael Cavanaugh, wrote a book call 'Biotheology'.
Cavanaugh's book argues God can be fully described simply by looking at natural life. And this leads to Howard Dean, Chairman of the Demonrat Communistic Atheistic Party (excerpting from http://www.gcc.edu/news/faculty/editorials/throck_dean_1_09_04.htm) who said according to LA Times:
..."From a religious point of view, if God had thought homosexuality is a sin, he would not have created gay people."
Now let’s see what chapter and verse of Holy Writ did Dr. Dean consult to arrive at that conclusion. Genesis? No, that’s where Adam and Eve were created. No gay people there. Leviticus? No, don‘t want to go there. The New Testament? Nothing promising there either. So what’s the basis for Dr. Dean’s theological views?
Here is the argument: if homosexual identity is determined by one’s genes, God must have planned it that way and actually approves it. I’ll evaluate such thinking momentarily but let me pause to note that this premise adds another title to Dr. Dean’s long resume’: biotheologian.
According to Michael Cavanaugh, author of Biotheology,
“in a sentence, biotheology synthesizes biology and theology by deriving the study of God from the study of life…biotheology rejects supernatural explanations.”
. In harmony with this description, biotheologian Dean gleans God’s thoughts on the subject of homosexuality via his interpretation of biology and genetics.
So, connecting dots: leftist Barbara is in court today as an 'expert' about science. She writes a screed against I.D. and loves short haircuts. Her book is given an enthused thumbs up by a Biotheologian, Cavanaugh, who then enshrines leftist thinking about ... oh yes, the gay agenda, and that leads straight to Howard Dean.
Or, it is just all mere conincidence, and all these good folks are really Randians in disguise.
Archaeopteryx is a transitional form. Pakicetus is a transitional form. Palaeomastodon is a transitional form. Covering your eyes and ears and pretending they aren't isn't going to make them go away.
You mean. for instance, compared with Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, where William Dembski, high-priest of ID, plies his trade?
I find a snide implication my opponent is homosexual always stenghtens my argument.
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.