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.
Well, if you're going to engage in the childish ad hominem fallacy by pretending that the source is tainted without actually making a case that the material is actually flawed...
Is *that* really the road you want to go down? Do you really want to be that dishonest, petty, and transparently underhanded? Do you really want to try to imply that the ACLU somehow misquoted Miller, without a shred of support for your sleazy implications? Do you really want to try to be so brain-dead as to try to imply that if the ACLU happens to put a transcript on their site, that the material is "ideologically tainted"?
I guess it is OK to post an excerpt from a conservative website:
Only if it knows what it's talking about, which unfortunately is not the case with the twaddle you chose to quote. You know, I'm not surprised that there are people spewing such dishonest propaganda as what you've pasted into your post, but what *does* surprise me is that there are people so incapable of critical thinking, and so hungry to be spoonfed nonsense that tells them what they want to hear, that they'll happily swallow it.
Now let's consider your laughable material, shall we?
…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.
Wrong, but that's the creationist/ID "spin", anyway, since they can't win on the actual facts.
Early in his testimony, Rothschild claimed that “intelligent design is not science in its infancy, it's not science at all.”
This is correct.
Yet Miller’s own testimony contradicts this.
No, it doesn't.
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.”
There is no contradiction here. Manzari is dishonestly trying to claim that having a "scientific argument for" something is equivalent to that something "being a science". Horse manure. If I made a scientific argument for how the bird crap might have ended up on my car window, would that make the bird crap itself into a science? No....
I'd expand on this point more, but the folks over at the Panda's Thumb have done it far better than I could, in response to yet another "ID blogger" who made the exact same stupid "talking point" about how this was some sort of "contradiction", when it's not. Clearly, the ID folks are handing out sheets of talking points to their minions.
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…”
Again, this is no "contradiction", and Manzari is either being dishonest, or as moronic as many other creationists who make this same bone-headed mistake. It's one of the creationists' favorite stupidities.
The comments concerned two different things. It seems that creationists are never too swift at grasping fine distinctions, or even not-so-fine ones, and this is yet another perfect example. It is indeed correct "that there is no controversy in the scientific community about the soundness of evolution". It is also correct that there is disagreement about the exact degrees to which the different processes which drive evolution contribute to the whole. Anyone who thinks that this is a "contradiction" is, frankly, in need of basic classes in how to understand plain English. If you're still baffled over the not-so-fine difference between what the two statements are each addressing, read this And if *that* doesn't clear it up for you, learn to enjoy your confusion.
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.”
More dishonesty/idiocy from Manzari. He needs to read up on what "positive evidence" means, then get back to us. Or, he could try just reading the vast amount of explanations of this point which have already been made in response to the many IDers who keep making this same schoolboy fallacy.
Just once, I'd like to see an IDer who actually knows his hindquarters from a hole in the ground, when it comes to epistemology.
Also, it appears that Manzari has yet again been parroting from the same ID "talking points", because the ID blog which the Panda's Thumb people refuted in the link I included above *also* made the same silly and transparently false claim about there being "positive evidence" for ID -- and the PT folks have also done a great job of rebutting *that* as well (see link).
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…”…
Perhaps Manzari could learn to read: Rothschild stated, correctly, that IDers have not "publish[ed] original data in peer-reviewed scientific journals." None of the handful of pitiful ID papers which have been published (and mentioned by Miller) contain original data. Again, no "contradiction" at all.
Thanks, Heartlander, for once again demonstrating, by providing a wonderful example of complete ID cluelessness, that the ID proponents are lacking in basic reading comprehension, and lacking in any sort of elementary knowledge of science or epistemology.
Now, what I find interesting, is this confession by Miller: 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. - Witt
What exactly do you fantasize that that's a "confession" of? Has a crime been committed?
Also, I suspect that this is a garbling of two different statements by Miller into one mixed-up claim by Witt, but I'll reserve judgment on that until I can get a transcript of that portion of the testimony. In any case, Miller has previously explained his objection to the phrase "random, undirected forces" here, and Witt's description does not accurately summarize Miller's position. Miller's objection is actually over the misleading inaccuracy of calling evolution "random", as if *only* random processes are at work, when that is not correct. If this was Miller's point in his recent testimony as well, then Witt is misrepreseting it, and there would be no "contradiction" at all with your other link. But even if Witt's description is accurate, your summary of the contents of the other link is *not*:
Yet we have the statement here that claims this “random and undirected process” is scientifically confirmed?
That's not really what it says, learn to read.
And yet again, they're talking about two different things. Are you really that confused over the simple fact that some of the same words appear in both passages? Reading comprehension is your friend.
I didn't say "you 'ID guys'"
I said "you 'Creo guys'"
connectthedots appears to be a creationist
you show up in these threads and cheerlead creationists, notably connectthedots on the last couple of threads in which you have foisted your maddening attentions upon me.
The natural implication: you are a Creo guy.
If you are not, your behavior to-date has been a bit... misleading.
take care for now, as well - I'm sure we'll bump into each other again anon.
(engliGh??? you've gotten to the *BLAM!* haven't you?)
Well my son is nearly a thousand miles away from here, and presumably is in bed as he is not on IM. I expect all kinds of "gaps" for the natural brain. I would imagine he would not be the least bit surprised over a gap in any theory.
You pinged me about a GASP over gaps, I guess you think that one who believes that TOE is untrue makes one a typical creationist. Remember I know this earth is million upon millions upon millions of years old.
You know, given your enormous difficulties with basic reading comprehension, you have an incredibly inapt screen name...
No, "the arguments of evolution" are not "all hearsay" -- if you can actually believe that after the vast amounts of evidence which have been cited here, then you're a perfect example of the saying, "there are none so blind as he who will not see".
Furthermore, your (mis)understanding of the court exchange you quoted reveals a gross inability to grasp the material. It also reveals your complete willingness to be a shill for viciously dishonest ID-bloggers, since you are just emptily parroting their misguided attack on Forrest using that very same passage. Every try to think for yourself?
Here, learn what you utterly failed to understand on your own: The DI's Dishonest Attacks on Barbara Forrest.
I am becoming more and more utterly disgusted with the dishonest, very unChristian behavior of the creationists/IDers. The lies, unjustifiable personal attacks, and misrepresentations of facts reveal far more about you folks than you'll ever realize.
uhn-hunh... and somehow descent from mud via special creation is more "noble" or something than gradual perfection through mutation and natural selection. right. ok.
the shock I refer to is the continual arrogance you display, in daring to speak in God's stead, when you warn us of your sure and certain knowledge that our investigation of the natural world and its mechanical history is going to force God to give us a hard time when we die.
Curiosity is not a sin.
Vanity is.
so, again: think it possible that you may be mistaken.
"ever" is a long time, Magister... mayyyyybe they'll be fortunate enough to get a clue before they die. aside from that, you ain't wrong.
No, you just misunderstand it.
I guess you should apologize as you are full of it as proven by this link.
In what way, exactly? Try to state your case instead of just flinging random pieces of websites at me and screaming, "SO THERE!"
You no little of "punctuated-equilibrium" or phylogenic gradualism.
Wrong again. Plus, at least *I* know how to spell "know".
Admit it now and be done with it.
I admit that you haven't a clue, and are unable to articulate anything resembling an actual rebuttal to what I've written. If you think you have an actual case, make one. But quoting a website that doesn't refute what I've written, then declaring "victory", just makes you look like extremely foolish.
"uhn-hunh... and somehow descent from mud via special creation is more "noble" or something than gradual perfection through mutation and natural selection. right. ok."
Flesh is "mud" when it dies rots and gets wet. Quite frankly there is not much "noble" about we in the flesh. Christ is the "noble" one.
"the shock I refer to is the continual arrogance you display, in daring to speak in God's stead, when you warn us of your sure and certain knowledge that our investigation of the natural world and its mechanical history is going to force God to give us a hard time when we die."
Who's stead are you speaking when you make the claim that He the Heavenly Father did not create/form fully grown adult human beings (more than two)? Hey we all will get to have our face to face with the Heavenly Father to account for what we did or did not do.
"Curiosity is not a sin.
Vanity is."
Claiming the Heavenly Father did not create fully grown adult human beings (more then two) is vanity and well past curiosity.
"so, again: think it possible that you may be mistaken."
Of course you think I am wrong, look how much of your life you have invested in TOE and promoting it, what would you do with your life if you came face to face that the Heavenly Father created fully grown adult human beings (more than two).
"I thought you were leaving some time back?" placemarker
"I *am* now leaving" placemarker
call it a 2fer
good night all.
Yes, right, because you stamp your feet and say so and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue. Got it.
Meanwhile, millions of scientists continue to understand that evolutionary biology is, indeed, science, despite your tantrum.
either
1. all the evidence in the universe is false, created by God as deliberate falsehood
or
2. Genesis is factually incorrect
I'd rather consider Genesis a factually incorrect product of ignorant humanity than call God a deliberate fabricator of universal falsehood.
good night.
'night, Magister.
you be sure to get some shuteye, too, ok?
Night.
We have discussed this before. I wasn't implying that she is a lesbian. I was implying that the trend of leftist women keeping short, butch, haircuts has a purpose: to send masculine power signals to men. Purpose? To lower the masculinity contrast between men and women (which is also why so many male leftist types on campus find long hair chic).
Barbara's hair would be just fine ... if her male peers sported crew cuts as a matter of routine. My point is however should they choose to do so, the women professors would then go nearly bald to make their point.
Mrs. Gb, on the other hand .. I should tell you she liked keeping her hair short. No maintenance. No fuss. Gave her a kind of brassy edge in the corp world environment she occasionally deals with ...;
But after delving into Puritan thinking, I pointed out a few things to her that wasn't obvious to either one of us. These days, I must say, I like her long hair. And she helps me keep track of keeping mine short.
(The Bible makes it clear fwiw; God likes the differences between male and female, and likes the contrast to be quite visible).
I'm glad I didn't claim to be cukoo...
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.