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.
LOL!
You might be thinking of a different word. Biogenesis doesn't apply our discussion.
Abiogenesis is what you may have been thinking of.
Here is one interesting link
http://www.trueorigin.org/abio.asp
"Possible" and its derivatives are some of the most frequestly used words by environmentalists.
Isn't that the first sign of Creuzfeld-Jacobs disease?
;-)
<< 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
<<<< 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
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).
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.
That link is nothing but wild speculation. Besides, I thought evolutionists claim abiobenesis has nothing to do with evolution.
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.
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.
"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.
" 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.
If you get a response, please ping me. I'm not a microbiologist, but I'd be interested too.
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.
Where was I placemarker
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.