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.

[RightWingNilla]

But yes, it appears that P. T. Barnum was *understating* the situation.

Born every minute?

[RightWingNilla]

"Big Tent" creo-style.

Its a circus tent. Send in the clowns...

[connectthedots]

I would call it a gedanken experiment. Yes, you need fantasy to do it but the logic is correct. With default conditions you reach to a conclusion.

Like I said, it's fantasy.

A conclusion based on principles of logic is useless if the premises are false.

[PatrickHenry]

If this ["Of Pandas and People"] is being used to teach science anywhere, this country is in worse shape than I thought.

My understanding is that it's mostly used for homeschool purposes. One generation of creationists raising up another.

[newsgatherer]

except the unfortunate "days" text in Genesis that has confused you.

Than how about being kind enough to explain to me how I am confused over the "days text". I say it is a 24 hour day, and you say it is what?

[RightWingNilla]

Don't be surprised if he does well.

Behe supports evolution and common descent (you knew that right?)

If he takes the stand, the ID circus tent will collapse.

[Stultis]

All the 'ifs' you mention are mere speculation.

No they aren't. There are real world instantiations of all of them, and more besides.

And here's one, for instance, that meets your definition: Wolves and coyotes occasionally hybridize in nature and the pups are healthy and fertile. Yet for whatever reasons (I don't actually know, probably rarity of the event mostly, maybe unsuccessful rearing) these occasional hybridizations don't have any discernible biological effects on the respective populations, which remain distinct.

Wolves and coyotes meet your supposedly clear and simple definition of being the same species, but they are clearly separate species -- whether we consider ecology, behavior, morphology or population dynamics -- and are universally accepted as separate species.

Your definition doesn't work, even for sexually reproducing species. (It's obviously useless beyond that realm.)

You have a better generalized, brief definition of a species? If so, let's see it.

I said I didn't, and I said why. Biologists use different species concepts depending on the circumstances. Google "species concepts" or "species definitions" for examples.

For living, sexually reproducing species, biologists still tend to prefer some variant of the "biological species concept," classically stated as: "Groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups". (The reproductive isolation doesn't have to be absolutely complete. It can be occassionaly violated at a level that has no effect on the populations, as with the wolves and coyotes.)

[RightWingNilla]

So, if I set my time machine back to one million bc, I wouldn't be able to mate with Raquel Welch?

You would have to settle for Raquel's Australopithecus counterpart.

[RightWingNilla]

Time or intelligence? I’m betting on the latter.

Jack is that you?

Could you please stop leaving your little comic books all over the corner laundromat? I slipped on 'Big Daddy' the other day and almost broke my neck.

Thanks man.

[stremba]

You miss the point. Behe's claim is that it isn't possible even in principle for an irreduibly complex system to evolve. I have merely pointed out that this claim is false. It is indeed possible for evolution to produce irreducible complexity. This destroys Behe's argument, since there's no positive evidence that IC systems found in organisms didn't evolve. The burden is on those challenging the accepted theory to show that their ideas are better, not on those supporting the accepted theory. So far, ID'ers haven't met the challenge.

[narby]

Than how about being kind enough to explain to me how I am confused over the "days text". I say it is a 24 hour day, and you say it is what?

I say that the content of information in Genesis is orders of magnitude less than the content of information in the creation. Since Gods word, and Gods creation cannot conflict, and there is so much more content of information in His creation, then what we read in his creation must be the truth.

How you rationalize the human language in Genesis, which is a very poor transmitter of information compared to the multidimensional and experiment-able world in the creation, is your decision.

[Quark2005]

Hurling bricks (whether in error or correctly) at the theory of evolution does not for one instant validate a Theory of ID (whatever that may be)

I know I'm a little late on this, but your comment caught my attention.

Just for the record, I think we're all for having proverbial "bricks" hurled at the ToE or any scientific theory. This can only make the theory stronger.

As one anonymous person put it, it's the creationist habit of hurling "marshmallows", then prematurely declaring that you've knocked your opponent down, that irks proponents of science; especially when they keep reusing the same bag of moldy marshmallows over and over again.

[RightWingNilla]

Most Published Research Findings May Be False

Outright fraud is pretty rare in science. Nothing is more certain to bring your career a swift end (since anyone in your field can and will try to confirm your results.)

In many papers there is a tendency by the authors to overinterpret their data a bit in the discussion, however any scientist worth his/her salt will come up with their own interpretations.

There is a LOT of information out there. Graduate school trains you to read everything with a very critical eye and reach your own conclusions.

[Dimensio]

A conclusion based on principles of logic is useless if the premises are false.

Please explain how the premise is false.

[Liberal Classic]

What the heck happened to general_re?

[gobucks]

Outright fraud is pretty rare in science.

Yeah. So rare that a book was published nearly 10 years ago about this rare behavior:

Stealing into Print: Fraud, Plagiarism, and Misconduct in Scientific Publishing.

One reviewer noted something interesting about the consequences of blowing the whistle on a cheater:

In contrast is the often remarkable boldness of those who draw attention to fraud. In case after case, the whistle-blowers turn out to be young researchers, too principled to connive at a superior's legerdemain and naive enough to assume that university authorities will welcome the pointing out of a wrong. Almost invariably, however, the first response of universities is to investigate the whistle-blower, not the accused. Bruce Hollis, a whistle-blower at Case Western Reserve University, is quoted here with the bitter reflection: "I cannot recommend that junior scientists who discover scientific misconduct blow the whistle unless they want to experience immense personal suffering and a possible end to their scientific careers."

Nicholas Wade New York Times

Kinda of reminds me of ... yes, what happens in Corp America too...;

Funny, you'd think 'scientists' and big wig corp types would have little in common.

[jennyp]

placemarker

[PatrickHenry]

Prime coming up ...

[js1138]

Punk-eek is geologically/paleontologically faster than gradualism. It doesn't hypothesize massive changes in one generation.

the Technical term for significant change in one or very few generations is saltation. The common term is the hopeful monster.

Both concepts were defenestrated a hundred years ago. Punk-eek, as you mention is a slow but irregular process. It is obvious from plant and animal breeding that large changes in form do not always take millions of years. There is no problem with varying rates of change.

[PatrickHenry]

600