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.
I am not a different species. That's the issue, not whether or not I am a clone.
In post 243, you state that you do believe it's always true. Why are you flip-flopping?
I note that you didn't even pretend to contest the biology point, so maybe there is a shred of wisdom in there somewhere.
For a detailed refutation of your fallacy see #274 from the ichmeister.
1% of 4,500,000,000 years is 45,000,000 years, giving a range of 90,000,000 years. Why is that so hard to believe?
Plaisted (p. 24) calls for double-blind radiometric tests on Phanerozoic outcrops using different methods and different laboratories. Of course, interlaboratory studies on radiometric dating and multiple analyses on outcrops with different methods are nothing new. Examples are cited in Harland et al. (1990) for Phanerozoic samples and Dalrymple (1991) for meteorites and Precambrian outcrops. One of the older and well-known interlaboratory studies is Lanphere and Dalrymple (1965). The results of this study are also described in some detail in Jaeger (1979, p. 23-25). In Lanphere and Dalrymple (1965), 55 laboratories were sent a muscovite standard for dating. The average K/Ar date for the muscovite was 83.0 million years and the average Rb/Sr date was reasonably close at 85.7 million years. Interlaboratory standard deviations were only 1.2% for the K/Ar dates and 2.8% for the Rb/Sr dates. These excellent results refute creationist claims that K/Ar and Rb/Sr methods are inconsistent or imprecise.
Note that this is not absolute dating accuracy but relative dating accuracy between methods.
"I don't think that accurately reflects the ID position.
According to Dembski it does. It factors into his explanatory filter in a big way.
Yes I do and I have bet my eternal soul on it.
Yes, but you are slightly different. And your offspring will be slightly different from you. An accumulation of those slight differences over the ages lead to big differences. Ten-thousand generations from now your descendents may bear only a passing resemblance to you.
Ah, but, where di the things come from to subject to ?
You ahve not started at the beginning, how about you tell em where it all started, after all, I am but a simply minded Mainer, unable to grasp things started in the middle.
That sounds strange at first glance, but it's really not. "Same species as" can be thought of as "close enough, genetically, to interbreed". So while A can be "close enough" to B, and B can be "close enough" to C, etc., the *total* genetic distance between A and D can be far enough to preclude successful interbreeding.
Before I call this merely speculation, can you offer up a real life example of this phenomena? Certainly after all this time, there would still be some real examples of this.
This is no more strange than saying that city A is close enough to city B to make the trip between them on one tank of gas, and city B is close enough to city C to make the trip between them on one tank of gas, *but* A is not close enough to C to make the trip on one tank of gas.
You actually believe this is a realistic comparison?
Chance mutation and natural selection of what?
aw, man... don't confuse him with individual representative vs. sample average representative vs. normal distribution of a population.
'splodin' heads are so messy.
So, if I set my time machine back to one million bc, I wouldn't be able to mate with Raquel Welch?
I'm just kidding and really appreciate your comments.
No, not so I say, so says the Wrord of God, the Holy Bible.
Perhaps the beginning was God? The theory of evolution has nothing to say about the beginning and belief in a creator in no way contradicts ToE.
chance mutation, due to various causes, of genetic code
natural selection among the phenotypic results of such mutations
Time or intelligence? I’m betting on the latter.
you'd be able to mate, just not produce viable offspring ;)
He already did, in the post that you replied to. Do try to pay attention.
Ah but first answer me and then I will answer you. Are you still beating your wife?
Yes, already wrong in the cited case of fossil whale transitionals. That book, originally written in the 80s, is still thumping on the lack of something now well known to be found. They could have avoided this criticism by revising the book before it was published, but that would require admitting being wrong. That's very hard for a creationist. Impossible, for many of them.
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.