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.
My understanding of logic greatly exceeds my knowledge of biology. On the other hand, I understand enough about biology to recognize that evolution has many very large gaps that simply cannot be explained away.
I am not flip-flopping. My point was that your comments following the first sentence appered to be an attempt to discount the first sentence.
Talk about begging the question.
How do you know the Bible is the Word of God, and not just claiming to be?
Variences within a species never result in a new, different species.
*sigh* yet another creationoid strawman misrepresentation... do you folks have any OTHER mode of conduct?
The man said he lacks the requisite patience for giving your neutronium-density absurdities a considered and considerate rebuttal.
This is not a matter of lack of time, nor of lack of intelligence.
Indeed, the lack of patience with you suggests he has squandered enough time and intelligent effort in attempting to educate the intrasigently ineducable to realize that spending yet more effort in the same vein would be an unintelligent waste of his time.
Whatever you're smoking, it's time to set it down and let some oxygen return to your brain.
He "didn't contradict anything" in the statement? EXCUSE ME? Did you not understand a word of Miller's testimony, or are you just being grossly disingenuous about it? This is the third time I have found myself having to ask you that question. Please answer it for a change. I want to know what I'm dealing with.
From Miller's testimony:
Monday, September 26, 2005 (Excerpt of testimony from Kenneth R. Miller, Plaintiffs’ expert in biology, evolution, creationism and intelligent design).So I ask again -- are you just totally incapable of understanding the testimony, or are you purposely being dishonest about it?Q. (By Witold Walczak) The School District argues, you know, it takes a minute to read this statement. I haven't timed it. It takes about a minute to read this statement. What's the big deal? What's the harm in reading this to Dover School District students?
A. (By Kenneth R. Miller) That's a very interesting point. And if they raised the issue, what is the harm in reading it, one might well turn around and say, well then why read it in the first place, if it makes so little difference, if it is of so little consequence? Then why have you insisted on doing this and why are you in court today? The only thing I can infer from turning that question around is that the Dover School Board must think this is enormously important to compose this, to instruct administrators to read it, to be willing to fight all the way to the court. They must think that this performs a very important function.
Now turning it around back to my side of the table, do I think this is important? You bet I think this is important for a couple of reasons. One of which, first of all, as I mentioned earlier, it falsely undermines the scientific status of evolutionary theory and gives students a false understanding of what theory actually means. Now that's damaging enough.
The second thing is, it is really the first attempt or the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the practice of science, because what this really tells students is, you know what, you can't trust the scientific process. You can't trust scientists. They're pushing this theory. And there are gaps in the theory. It's on shaky evidence. You really can't believe them. You should be enormously skeptical. What that tells students basically is, science is not to be relied upon and certainly not the kind of profession that you might like to go into. And thirdly, that third paragraph that we haven't talked about very much right now points out that intelligent design, which has implicit endorsement in this statement, because we don't hear that it's just a theory, we don't hear that it's being tested, it sounds like it's a pretty good explanation. It's available. It's good stuff. And students will understand immediately, as anybody does who reads Pandas, that the argument is made on virtually every page of Pandas for the existence of a supernatural creator designer.
And by holding this up as an alternative to evolution, students will get the message in a flash. And the message is, over here, kids. You got your God consistent theory, your theistic theory, your Bible friendly theory, and over on the other side, you got your atheist theory, which is evolution. It produces a false duality. And it tells students basically, and this statement tells them, I think, quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science.
What it does is to provide religious conflict into every science classroom in Dover High School. And I think that kind of religious conflict is very dangerous. I say that as a person of faith who was blessed with two daughters, who raised both of my daughters in the church, and had they been given an education in which they were explicitly or implicitly forced to choose between God and science, I would have been furious, because I want my children to keep their religious faith.
I also want my students to love, understand, respect, and appreciate science. And I'm very proud of the fact that one of my daughters has actually gone on to become a scientist. So by promoting this, I think, this is a tremendously dangerous statement in terms of its educational effect, in terms of its religious effect, and in terms of impeding the educational process in the classrooms in Dover.
Why?
I don't have any experience of her.
Perhaps you should try making use of it in your posts here. It would save us all a great deal of time.
I understand enough about biology to recognize that evolution has many very large gaps that simply cannot be explained away.
Do tell, I am all agog to know what you, someone who patently knows almost nothing about biology, can bring to our attention that nullifies the work of the hundreds of thousands of biologists over the last 150 years who have found ToE logically and evidentially persuasive. And of course your skepticism has nothing whatsoever to do with religious prejudice. Nah.
What's to stop them?
Why, because you stomp your foot and declare it to be so? I'm sorry, but your presumptions are falsified by the evidence. Deal with it, and stop spewing falsehoods.
Creationists keep making this claim, but when asked to actually didentify any of these alleged "many large gaps", they either run away or post complete twaddle.
So to date, the evidence indicates that the creationists don't know what in the hell they're talking about when it comes to biology.
I knew it was one of those peripheral issues that get some fundie types blood pressure to rise.
Well, at least CtD can't believe in Noah's ark then... there's a mercy.
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.
Is there any special reason you didn't bother to read enough of my post to find the real-life example I gave IN THAT SAME BLOODY POST?
Son, if you're not going to hold up your end of the conversation, go find some other thread to pester.
[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?
Yes, because it is. The ability to interbreed is based on genetic compatibility, which is a matter of whether the size and number of genetic differences can be "bridged" during the fertilization and development process.
and you use this as a "valid disproof" of the ToE, all the time, in thread after thread after thread, no matter how many timese the specifics you cite get rebutted.
yet, you also claim to be extensively expert in logic. Fine. Again, I challenge you:
IF, as you have repeatedly asserted, "there are gaps in the fossil record of transitionals" equates to "There IS NO fossil record of transitionals"
THEN, by your "logic", "I have gaps in my teeth" MUST EQUATE TO "I have NO TEETH"
As this latter set is demonstrably contrary to fact, the "logic" of its construct is obviously false. It is a logical fallacy, in any application.
Recognize this, and henceforth modify your arguments, or you automatically VOID your claims to logic and rationality.
your choice.
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.