Professor, teachers to testify in intelligent-design trial [Dover, PA, 05 Oct]

Times Leader ^ | 05 October 2005 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[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.

[Just mythoughts]

"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?"

ToE is the highest order of "self-serving standards", fits that standard of some are more "fit" (equal) than the rest, and there is nothing honest about it.

[King Prout]

so, 30 years later you are old, half-blind, and decrepit. ;)

I pegged a running wild turkey at 300m with a 30-06 about seven years ago. good enough?

[King Prout]

so you say.

so far, you have never once come close to demonstrating how the ToE is in any way different from any other theory in any branch of science, in terms of evidence, analysis, independent repeatability, methodology, falsifiability, or general predictive utility.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to manage the feat.

[RunningWolf]

Thanks for that Dots, powerful stuff.

Is this on CSPAN? I need to get cable going again, if only they would let me buy the package I wanted.

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

scope or not?

[King Prout]

and I note, almost as an aside, that you have -as predicted- elected to fail to apply the same standards you use to condemn the ToE (ie: "*GASP!* They just admitted a GAP in the science! The whole thing is a false RELIGION!!!"^TM) as a turd to hurl at electromagnetic theory.

[RunningWolf]

If you had a scope, it don't count ;)

Wolf

[King Prout]

Tasco 3x on a Remington "Jam-O-matic"

[King Prout]

hey - it was after a fast half-mile sprint.

[King Prout]

what the hell is a "ball" sight, anyway?
there's iron sights (blade-and-notch or post-and-notch, and "peep" or "ghost-ring" which is standard on all M16 variants), there's optics, and there's NVOS... never heard of "ball" sights

[RunningWolf]

No one tries to make that linkage but you evo guys.

Imagine George C. Scott voice "Evo cult, we have an evidence GAP!!"

Wolf

[RunningWolf]

Thats what it was called back then.

[Just mythoughts]

"so far, you have never once come close to demonstrating how the ToE is in any way different from any other theory in any branch of science, in terms of evidence, analysis, independent repeatability, methodology, falsifiability, or general predictive utility.

I won't hold my breath waiting for you to manage the feat."


TOE is not science, the only gravity holding TOE on this earth is weighted in the natural brain of humans. The evolutionists are in for one rude awakening when their flesh dies. TOE is one of those government funded programs that should be allowed to wither on the vine.

[RunningWolf]

Maybe it was post and notch now days

[microgood]

Hmm... I guess I must have just made this up:

"Niles Eldredge and Steven Gould stirred up the mud of Tempo and Mode in Evolution with their paper in 1972 on so-called "punctuated equilibrium". The traditional view of evolution was one of phyletic gradualism. This encompassed slow, gradual change in phenotype and speciation by gradual change from one species into another. The alternative - punctuated equilibrium was put forward as a means of accounting for the ever present "gaps" in the fossil record (see figs. 20.4-20.5, pp. 561-562). Eldredge and Gould argued that the gaps were not artifacts of incomplete representation, but that there were essentially no intermediate forms. The general notion is that long periods of stasis or morphological equilibria are punctuated by periods of rapid morphological change. This is just one of many quotes like this, this one is at From biomed.brown.edu

I guess you should apologize as you are full of it as proven by this link. You no little of "punctuated-equilibrium" or phylogenic gradualism. Admit it now and be done with it.

[Just mythoughts]

Most definitely an aside as your "GASP!" GAP has nothing to do with anything I have said. My son is studying electromagnetic theory as a electrical engineering student.

[King Prout]

This may come as a shock to you, but most of the "evo guys" on these threads are not evolutionary scientists. Many of us are scientists in other fields. Many of us are technicians/technologists in other fields. All of us bridle at the way you "Creo guys" think calling the ToE "just a theory!"^tm is a valid argument against the ToE, as we are all well aware that ALL theories in science are "just theories" and ALL have "gaps".

[RunningWolf]

I am not a 'ID guy'

Well communication is the key, and for now take care.

Wolf

[King Prout]

I'll toss a quote from Oliver Cromwell at you, since you seem SO certain your interpretation and variant of faith is absolutely correct: "I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken!"

In other words, Justmythoughts, you might want to reflect on the possibility that it is you who are destined for a shock when you die.

[King Prout]

then get your son on here and we'll submit the matter for his review.

Does the fact that a scientific theory has gaps in evidence and in the theory's explanatory completeness automatically invalidate the theory. yes or no?

His answer to that question might be enlightening.