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.
Overall, though, T-rays still constitute a gap in the science of light and energy. They inhabit a region of the electromagnetic spectrum remaining to be better understood...
[ IDiocy ]
SEE?!? SEE?!? THERE'S A GAP IN THE SCIENCE OF ELECTROMAGNETISM! THAT MEANS IT'S ALL A BUNCH OF FAIRY-TALES!
[ /IDiocy ]
If y'all are going to apply a silly set of self-serving "standards" to the ToE, you must -if you are honest- apply that same set of "standards" to all other science.
funny, how that works in practice, isn't it?
Doesn't everyone aspire to start a lucrative new religion? A high school friend started one as a joke. I've lost track of him, but last I heard he was making a living as a minister.
"Doesn't everyone aspire to start a lucrative new religion? A high school friend started one as a joke. I've lost track of him, but last I heard he was making a living as a minister."
Between you and js1138 I'm beginning to regret ever posting it. ;->
Good antidote to an article I just got in the mail from Kansas noting that Abrams, chair of the State Board of Education, has said that you can only believe in the Bible OR evolution. (Lawrence Journal-World 9/24)
He has a long way to go before he catches up with L. Ron Hubbard, who founded the religion of "Scientology"...
But yes, it appears that P. T. Barnum was *understating* the situation.
"Good antidote to an article I just got in the mail from Kansas noting that Abrams, chair of the State Board of Education, has said that you can only believe in the Bible OR evolution."
Amazing! I though they had gotten rid of all those peole from that State Board of Education. Apparently not. A bunch of them lost in the last election they ran in, I know. Maybe this one's term wasn't up.
I have friends in Kansas. They were really ticked that their state got such a bad reputation over this silliness.
Radiometrics are accurate to +- 1% based on current half-lives, calibration against other knowns, and they correlate with a number of other measuring methods.
"Your comment is not clear.
My comment was poking fun at the IDist idea of 'specified complexity'.
The idea is that both nature and intelligence can 'design' complexity, however only intelligence can produce complexity that is 'specified'.
For example, if you were to shoot an arrow from a bow at a large wall, the path the arrow took would be complex. To verify this, try to calculate the trajectory it should take beforehand, considering the bow, wind, steadiness of hand and eye, smoothness of release and so on. Even with this complexity, there is no specificity to it, no intent, no target. However, if you paint a bullseye on the wall and then shoot with the intention of hitting the centre of the bullseye, that path, including the point of impact, now has a purpose. It is now considered specifically complex as the point of impact was specified prior to the shot. This specified complexity can supposedly be applied to information.
Does that clear up my post for you?
I am curious how you determine specificity without knowledge of the designer. Anybody have any ideas?
I'd add to the critique, in the section about the age of the earth, that another reason they left this out probably is to make a book acceptable to both young-earth and old-earth creationists. "Big Tent" creo-style.
Kenneth R. Miller
Professor of Biology
Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Is this the same Ken Miller who is testifying at the trial and admitted evolution is not a fact, and that there are gaps in the ToE? Are you claiming he is not biased?
When does Behe take the stand? For me, these earlier witnesses aren't contributing much. The cross examination of Behe should be very interesting.
I read your new tagline, and yet here I find you chatting with longshadow...curious.
"I am curious how you determine specificity without knowledge of the designer. Anybody have any ideas?"
An excellent question. One might also ask what the motivation of the designer might have been.
The answer, some will tell you, can be found in Genesis. And that's the problem with ID as it is being presented. Its proponents are pretending to have a non-specific entity in mind for their "intelligent designer." In fact, they have a very specific entity in mind, and are engaging in a little misdirection, thinking that their opponents are too stupid to see through their subterfuge.
I can only hope that clear heads will prevail in this business. I suspect they will, and we'll all have a chuckle one of these days.
The religious folk behind creationism will go on believing Genesis, and science will be taught in the public schools. Everyone will go on believing whatever it is that they believe and we'll all go back to work.
I've toyed with the idea of making a fortune by writing creationist/ID claptrap and selling it. And I'm not sure if it's really a sin to lie to people who very much *want* to be lied to.
Then, after I've pocketed great gobs o' money from the public, I could publicly announce that I just made it all up. Maybe that would get through some of the thick skulls. But more likely, I'd just get depressed =when it turned out that they'd continue believing the nonsense and would just take my exposure of the hoax as my having been possessed by evil or whatever.
Did you bring enough to share with the entire class? Hmmmm?
GOOD post.
PH, please alert the GM that Stultis' post on the necessity of death within living systems deserves archiving.
"I've toyed with the idea of making a fortune by writing creationist/ID claptrap and selling it."
Well, that wouldn't be such a bad idea. We might see some different words in these threads. It's getting really boring seeing the same copy and paste content in thread after thread.
But, never mind. You'd grow bored and unhappy doing it. Far better to continue along your current path and be poor, but honest.
As well as playing into the hands of those who wish to portray Republicans and/or conservatives as scientifically-illiterate religious extremists.
+- 1%? I doubt that you could find a majority of evolutionists who would agree that they could approximate the age of the earth within 1%. I think that is simply a number pulled out of thin air.
My comment was poking fun at the IDist idea of 'specified complexity'. The idea is that both nature and intelligence can 'design' complexity, however only intelligence can produce complexity that is 'specified'.
I don't think that accurately reflects the ID position.
Children/offspring are always the same species as their parents. More specifically to definition of species, their grandparents. It's only after an interbreeding population has been split into isolated groups that evolution begins to have the effect of diverging the groups into different species. IOW, one species doesn't transform into another. One species diverges into two with a common ancestor. There's plenty of proof of that.
"I don't think that accurately reflects the ID position."
From my reading of the ID literature, it appears that it has not been around long enough to have developed a solid position.
ID is a stopgap measure, only. It is not a serious field of study, IMO. Since it cannot be tested in any way, there's no room for research. It's really just a concept being used to wedge creationism into the science classroom.
Because of those things, it will fail to emerge as a serious field of study. How would you get a degree in "Intelligent Design Theory." One class and you'd be done.
Their seeds were stored inside the animals.
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.