Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dover science teacher testifies [Evolution trial, thread for 12 Oct]
York Daily Record [Penna] ^ | 12 October 2005 | Staff

Posted on 10/12/2005 10:50:53 AM PDT by PatrickHenry

When Bertha Spahr opened the box containing Dover Area High School’s donated copies of “Of Pandas and People” last year, she also found inside a catalogue from the publishing company listing the pro-intelligent design textbook under the heading of creation science.

Under cross examination this morning in Harrisburg in the First Amendment trial against Dover Area School District, the head of the district’s science department testified she filed the catalogue away with other similar textbook materials.

Dover’s attorney, Patrick Gillen, objected to the catalogue being admitted into evidence, arguing that Spahr had not turned it over to administrators. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III overruled the objection.

Spahr also testified that after the school board voted to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum in October 2004, some members of the community thought that the teachers supported the board’s decision. But the teachers did not, Spahr said.

Other people thought that if the teachers didn’t support the board’s decision, it was because they were atheists, Spahr said. This was particularly upsetting to the teachers, Spahr said, “because two of the teachers are the son and daughter of ministers.”

The trial continues this afternoon with testimony from science education expert Brian Alters, a professor from McGill University in Montreal.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dover
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last
To: MineralMan

LOL!


41 posted on 10/12/2005 2:18:24 PM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Biogenesis is a field of its own. You can look it up on the web and educate yourself. It's quite fascinating. Expect some pretty amazing discoveries in the next decade or so. They'll shock your beliefs.

You might be thinking of a different word. Biogenesis doesn't apply our discussion.

42 posted on 10/12/2005 2:22:02 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Abiogenesis is what you may have been thinking of.


43 posted on 10/12/2005 2:24:46 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

Here is one interesting link

http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp


44 posted on 10/12/2005 2:35:12 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Speculations Abiogenesis are as interesting as speculations about the next lottery winner.

We just don't know enough speculate about possibilities.
45 posted on 10/12/2005 3:02:31 PM PDT by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MHalblaub
We just don't know enough speculate about possibilities.

"Possible" and its derivatives are some of the most frequestly used words by environmentalists.

46 posted on 10/12/2005 4:22:22 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan
Sorry. Spastic double-click.

Isn't that the first sign of Creuzfeld-Jacobs disease?

;-)

47 posted on 10/12/2005 4:46:54 PM PDT by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots


<< Rather than objecting to the catalog being entered s evidence, the defense should have simply pointed out these facts. >>


They can't do that, because it would contradict all their other claims that ID is not about religion, and is not creationism.


M




48 posted on 10/12/2005 6:22:59 PM PDT by Ulugh Beg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots


<<<< Well, not really. They don't attempt to explain the original genesis of life, because that's not the purview of the Theory of Evolution. >>>>


<< Are you saying that it was never part of the ToE or closely associated with the ToE, or that it currently is not? >>


Never was. Evolution is about how the great VARIETY of life came to be. Abiogenesis is about how LIFE came to be. We don't know about the latter -- not yet; we know a lot about the former.


M





49 posted on 10/12/2005 6:28:22 PM PDT by Ulugh Beg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Here is another interesting link.

Talk Origins

50 posted on 10/12/2005 6:35:11 PM PDT by b_sharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MineralMan

I met Prusiner twice. The first time I told him he was full of it concerning prions. His data were pretty skimpy at that time. The second time I cornered him and told him that it was I who was full of it. I thanked him for persevering. Such is the life of a scientist. Facts instill such an awesome sense of humility (except for some, however).


51 posted on 10/12/2005 9:20:53 PM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Ulugh Beg
Never was. Evolution is about how the great VARIETY of life came to be. Abiogenesis is about how LIFE came to be. We don't know about the latter -- not yet; we know a lot about the former.

Never was? That's a crock. It has a long history of being closely associated with evolution. It certainly was in the 60s and 70s when I was in school.

How life came to be is the pink elephant in the room that the evolutionist pretends isn't there. Modern microbiology has clearly established that abiogenesis is impossible, so the evolutionist had to abandon that tenant in order to help maintain some semblance of credibility in evolution.

52 posted on 10/12/2005 9:59:24 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

That link is nothing but wild speculation. Besides, I thought evolutionists claim abiobenesis has nothing to do with evolution.


53 posted on 10/12/2005 10:03:28 PM PDT by connectthedots
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
How life came to be is the pink elephant in the room that the evolutionist pretends isn't there.

No one pretends it isn't there. It just doesn't have anything to do with evolutin. The way things work can be studied independently of how they originated. Else we wouldn't have any science at all.

It is ID that is obsessed with the origin of life itself.

54 posted on 10/12/2005 10:05:31 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Never was? That's a crock. It has a long history of being closely associated with evolution. It certainly was in the 60s and 70s when I was in school.

Not according to Darwin. Who was quite clear that his theories could not account for the origin of life.

Modern microbiology has clearly established that abiogenesis is impossible

No, it hasn't, not in the slightest--of course, that's only if you listen to scientists about where science is at.

55 posted on 10/12/2005 11:55:33 PM PDT by donh
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws

"The first time I told him he was full of it concerning prions. "

After many stupid mistakes, I've learned not to tell researchers that they're "full of it." If I were smarter, it wouldn't have taken so long to learn that lesson.


56 posted on 10/13/2005 6:43:28 AM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots

" Modern microbiology has clearly established that abiogenesis is impossible, so the evolutionist had to abandon that tenant in order to help maintain some semblance of credibility in evolution."

Would you please provide a reference for this? As a microbiologist, I'd be real interested.


57 posted on 10/13/2005 7:17:09 AM PDT by furball4paws (One of the last Evil Geniuses, or the first of their return.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: furball4paws
Would you please provide a reference for this? As a microbiologist, I'd be real interested.

If you get a response, please ping me. I'm not a microbiologist, but I'd be interested too.

58 posted on 10/13/2005 7:58:02 AM PDT by PatrickHenry ( I won't respond to a troll, crackpot, retard, or incurable ignoramus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
"That link is nothing but wild speculation. Besides, I thought evolutionists claim abiobenesis has nothing to do with evolution.

The link I gave you simply rebutted some of the false premises used in the wild speculation your link contained.

The study of evolution is concerned with the nested hierarchy of living organisms we observe. Abiogenesis, simply because it is primarily a chemistry problem is studied separately. It is the creationists that have pushed the link between the two.

59 posted on 10/13/2005 3:08:48 PM PDT by b_sharp (Making a monkey of a creationist should be a natural goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: b_sharp

Where was I placemarker


60 posted on 10/13/2005 3:29:17 PM PDT by b_sharp (Making a monkey of a creationist should be a natural goal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-63 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson