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.
Nothing in science is every proven, but the fossil and genetic evidence points to it happening in the manner the Theory of Evolution predicts.
Go for it. Biologists have been looking for 150 years, but don't let their inadequacies block you from your Nobel Prize.
Some people support an Angelic Theory of Gravity, in which cherubim and seraphim push the planets in eliptical orbits around the sun. I think there are some problems with this theory, and hypothesize that angels exert some miraculous force that shapes the geometry of spacetime around massive objects. Right now I'm working on a theory to quantify angelic energy into discrete packets...
Incorrect. I don't think about biotheology or Howard Dean at all.
I only noted that the only evidence you have that they are connected is the opinion of a guy who imagines that he talks to cartoon characters
An interesting observation. In commercial science ther is the possibility of scoring some fast bucks. In academic science, the only real reward is in the hope that your work will be a lasting contribution to the total body of knowledge. As such, there is little incentive for fraud.
There have been several frauds -- the midwife toad stands out, but these have been exposed so quickly that the hoaxer got little benefit.
"," which may explain why we sometimes see "major excitement followed rapidly by severe disappointments in fields that draw wide attention."
Sounds like they admit science polices its own. Self correction in action.
"In their linked editorial, the PLoS Medicine editors discuss the implications of Ioannidis' analysis. "Publication of preliminary findings, negative studies, confirmations, and refutations is an essential part of getting closer to the truth," they say. "
Seems like you left something out of the article in your excerpt.
That was my take on his post as well.
Here's wsomething to think about while you are waiting for ID to become a science. If variation anticipates or responds to need, this effect would be noticable long befre we isolate the molecular mechanisms responsible. Evolution was observed long before we had a theory of genes, and the behavior of genes was studied long before we knew about DNA.
ID is asserting a cause for a phenomenon that has been looked for for 150 years and never observed. Regardless of how you characterize it, you are talking about Lamarckian evolution.
What if they they are biologically capable of producing fertile offspring -- for instance if "fooled" into mating by humans masking or faking certain signals between the sexes, or switching mates at the last minute, various methods are used -- but they never do so on their own, in the natural state? What if they can't physically mate, but can be crossed by artificial means? What if the hybrids are biologically fertile, but not actually successful in mating in nature (because they lack proper markings, behaviors, or for any number of reasons)? What if they are merely relatively less successful in mating or rearing such that their lineages invariably "peter out" and have no actual biological effect on populations of either species? What if they invariably back-cross and "revert to type," again having no real population effects. What if the hybrids can mate successfully, but not bring offspring fully to term, or successfully rear them, etc? Or what if their fertility is merely reduced to one of any number of degrees? What if hybrids are not inter-fertile with each other, but are with either of the parent species? What if they're inter-fertile with one of the parent species, but not the other?
All of these "what ifs" (and many more) are instantiated in nature.
In short, your definition is not "simple". None is. Even though there clearly are such things as "species," there is no single "simple," sufficient and universal criteria for distinguishing them. There shouldn't be because they are ultimately connected by continua (even if most elements thereof end up being eliminated) and separated from one another in infinitely varying degrees.
*SIGH* There you go, again...
So, AGAIN:
IF (as you have repeatedly asserted) the statement "There are gaps in the fossil record of transitionals"equates to "There IS NO fossil record of transitionals"
THEN (by your "logic") the statement "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.
Which choice, the record shows, you have now made: To continue on as before, in blithe illogic and dishonesty.
by the way, I find it ironic that one who goes about under the ID of "connect the dots" would complain so much about "speculation" by scientists - are you aware that "connect the dots" derives directly from "extrapolate the line or curve from the individual points of the data set"?
I sorta remember the borogoves being all mimsy.
Fair enough. Forgot that one. Strictly speaking this should be considered fraud in an evolutionary field (even if it was an anti-darwinian one). So that's two in 100 years. Any other cases of real fraud in an evolutionary field, committed by a researcher?
Insolence is incompatible with promotion at DarwinCentral.
;-)
…Unfortunately for Rothschild, the testimony of Kenneth Miller–a Roman Catholic biology professor from Brown University who staunchly defends evolution—has already refuted his argument. And even more unfortunately, Miller was his expert witness.Early in his testimony, Rothschild claimed that “intelligent design is not science in its infancy, it's not science at all.” Yet Miller’s own testimony contradicts this. In cross-examination, when asked by Robert Muise, the defense attorney, if during a debate between Miller and Michael Behe, an ID proponent, at the American Museum of Natural History, “you [Miller] were presenting your scientific argument against intelligent design, and Dr. Behe was presenting his scientific argument in support of intelligent design?” Miller responded: “Absolutely.”
Rothschild then asserted that “…there is no controversy in the scientific community about the soundness of evolution.” But once again, he contradicted his own testimony. In another round of Muise’s cross-examination, Miller explained that one of the three “core propositions” of evolution is “united under the term of ‘natural selection.’” Yet only moments later, Miller pointed to “enormous controversy within evolutionary theory on the relative values and weights to give to forces such as natural selection…” Rothschild went on to claim that “Intelligent design has arguments … but these arguments are not a positive case for intelligent design, just negative attacks on evolution.” However, when asked about an article he authored, Miller admitted that Dr. Behe's “biochemical argument from design … [states that] the evolution of complex biochemical structures cannot even or ever be explained in principle.” Moreover, this positive argument states that “there is some aspect of this complexity, which means we can say not just, we haven't figured it out yet, but we will never figure it out, and that's where the evidence for design lies.”
Later in his testimony, Rothschild stated that ID proponents have not “publish[ed] original data in peer-reviewed scientific journals.” Attorney Witold Walczak asked Miller if there is “a very recent publication, peer-reviewed publication, that bears on this issue of common descent?” To which Miller responded “Well, the answer to that is, there's more than one. And the one that comes to my mind right away is an issue earlier this month of the scientific journal Nature…”…
taemag
Also, in yesterday’s testimony, Miller called attention to a factual error in Pandas. In today’s questioning, he conceded that the “elephant” edition of his own high school biology textbook contained an error, describing evolution as a “random and undirected process.” Miller said that it wasn’t a scientific statement, and it was removed from subsequent editions. - WittYet we have the statement here that claims this “random and undirected process” is scientifically confirmed?
the female ones were, of a certainty.
beware of those greedy light-fingered mome-raths, though... they'll clean out your pockets faster than a Donk with a large constituaency to bribe.
|
(with apologies to Blue Oyster Cult)
You see me now, a veteran
Of a thousand crevo wars.
I've been posting on these threads so long
Where the wind of ignorance roars
I've tackled ID proponents
And battled YEC.
I've ripped into catastrophism
Until there was nothing left to see.
[Refrain]
Please bring the creos on
I'll never need a break from it
Don't like it you can leave
We've been living in the flames
We've been revving up our brains
Oh, please, please bring those creos on.
Sometimes I get so weary
Repeating stuff to you
You call me a bloody commie
And blame me for Nazis too
But the war's still going on dude
And there's no end in sight
And I can't say if we're ever
I can't say if we're ever gonna end this fight
[Refrain]
You see me now a veteran
Of a thousand crevo wars
I've got energy to spare
Until my opponent's on the floor
Science supplies me weapons
Creos are helpless and bereaved
BTW, there's also Lysenko and Lysenkoism in the old Soviet Union, another evolutionary but anti-darwinian fraud. But I think it's fair enough to exclude examples which occured under totalitarian systems that manipulated the sciences (and all fields of intellectual inquiry) and often actively encouraged fraud!
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.