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 think I speak for everyone when I say that we would *really* appreciate that.
And I realize most biologists deal with the here and now and do not study macroevolution (since there is no genetic material that old to study),
Wrong on at least three counts...
but that for me is where Darwin's theory breaks down.
*It* doesn't break down at that point, even if you might.
Dawkins demands gradualism to explain the increasing complexity
False.
and Gould suggests punctuated equilibrium to explain the lack of transitionals
Wrong again. How many times have you seen us correct this error, including posting writings from GOULD HIMSELF wondering if this creationist misrepresentation was due to "design [i.e. dishonesty] or stupidity"?
and those are the areas which I find most interesting,
Then maybe you should learn more about them so you can stop making such elementary errors.
and my interest lies in that area of disagreement between them.
There is no "disagreement". "PE" is just "gradualism" running at varying rates depending upon conditions. But it's all "gradual" from the perspective of a human lifetime.
I don’t think the </ works on neo-darwinism…
Would you really wash your hog with it? I think not. I think ID is less than hogwash.
Not if I liked the hog ... or intended to eat it.
Biology is not a soft science; sociology is though.
I cringe at the thought sociology is a science. The 'sociology professor' I had in the 101 elective I took circa 1970 was a raving Marxist. I've had trouble thinking of sociology as science ever since.
Off topic, but he did say one thing that's stuck in my mind ever since. He said the more you see of something on TV the less it is found in everyday life. I've found that resonates.
Don't ya just love that manic depression stuff? One day you can conquer the world, a week later you wish you could just remove yourself from it all. Been there, done that.
You misunderstand ID. It argues that organisms are so complex and the various functions of parts of organisms are so complex, evolution cannot possibly be the explanation. ID is a rejection of the false assumptions of evolution. It is the complete rejection of 'chance'.
Proposing ID is science is nothing but an attempt to change the definition of science in order to use this new 'science' to 'scientifically' prove that God exists.
It's not gonna work.
Since I can feel the swings coming on, I can warn others around me.
At least your sociology professor was a *raving* anything. Mine (circa 1990) was barely coherent and rarely awake. He missed about a third of the classes, and when he did attend, he would sit at his desk and bury his face in his hand mumbling.
An example of the devolution of sociology professors. Hopefully, natural selection should kick in soon.
All I know about SOC 101 is that August Comte was important.
Now that you mention it, that's the other thing I remember about SOC 101. But I don't remember why and have absolutely no curiosity about it either.
Hmmm. Maybe I'd just like to see a bona fide 'libertarian' scientist/philosopher be used in courtroom battles for a change. You know ... right wing types attacking right wing types ... so called.
"So, in your opinion, all the supporters of the Theory of Evolution here on Free Republic are leftists?"
Welllllll.....; and it is not b/c they 'reject' my brand of faith either. It is how they sound so eager, so enthusiastic, and thus so similar to leftists when they do so HEARTILY reject it.
Given just how great an asset to the GOP we present, LOGIC presumes we're a useful group to have in the GOP. But, illogical, here, we are the scourge, the virus in the body of true conservatism if you will that must be eradicated if hope is to persist.
Yuck amd how self defeating for a party that is doing a fair job of making leftists look silly ... for now. What is REALLY illogical is how FR is the only place I can find that seems to hold fast to this paradigm.
I wonder why that is????
"Maybe she is or isn't, I just honestly don't see any political indications."
just ... wow.
"In fact I don't see your comments as originating in Christianity at all."
I believe you. But I'll also grant I'm not as gracious as I should be at times. Just b/c a lot of Darwinists are deceptive doesn't give me license to be rude.
"Are you one of these guys selling books and pamphlets to the scientifically illiterate?"
Well, I don't actually sell bibles. I tend to give them away.
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.