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

Skip to comments.

Scientists Back Dover - [85 scientists request scientists, not Judges, to define "science"]
York Daily Record ^ | 5 Oct 2005 | York Daily Record

Posted on 10/17/2005 5:36:09 PM PDT by gobucks

An international group of scientists have filed a "friend of the court" brief with federal Judge John E. Jones III advising him that "the identification of intelligent causes is a well-established scientific practice" and asking him to allow "the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead."

Jones is presiding over the Dover intelligent design trial.

The 24-page brief — carrying the names of 85 scientists in fields including chemistry, molecular biology, mathematics, neurological surgery and environmental science — states "the definition of science and the boundaries of science should be left to scientists to debate."

"Any (court) ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science or which attempts to define the boundaries of science could hinder scientific progress," the brief states in asking Jones to find in favor of the Dover Area School Board.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News
KEYWORDS: arrogantscietists; badscience; crevolist; darwin; dover; evolutiontheory; intelligentdesign; junkscience; theory; theoryofevolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-178 next last
To: Gondring
While it's true that craziness like creationism and ID scare many people away, I don't think you can claim that's what has made the change in political makeup of the sciences. I think that has more to do with the change in academics in general.

I disagree. The social sciences and humanities and whatnot have always been on the left, at least as far as I remember -- the conservative art historian or sociologist is almost by definition an odd exception. But chemists aren't radicals, and never have been. I'm not sure chemists have changed.

101 posted on 10/18/2005 9:37:28 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: RunningWolf
In my opinion, this is poor logic. Many of the worlds great minds did their work in relative obscurity, if fact many of those names are used here.

Well you can't play it both ways. The whole point of the Amicus brief is to wow the court by showing them that you have 85 Great Men on your side -- it is, by its very nature, an appeal to their authority. The problem is that their authority isn't very convincing, at least not on its face. I agree that many smart people don't teach at top institutions -- but you're not going to be effective at showing support from authorities (assuming that's what you want) if you can't get people from top institutions to endorse you.

102 posted on 10/18/2005 9:40:52 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
The reason you don't want to address abiogenesis is because even the most staunch defender of the ToE understands realizes life cannot come from non-life.

I don't believe that's the case, lots of scientists believe life came about by natural means. I don't, however I speak only for myself.

That being the case, the origin of various life forms has to be the based on intelligent design.

This is where we part ways. The evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution.

If a 'designer' can create one form of life, that designer could just as easily design and create a multitude of life forms.

True, but that doesn't mean He did. Moreover, the evidence points overwhelmingly to Common Descent.

103 posted on 10/18/2005 9:44:27 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

My sincere thanks for linking to this...


104 posted on 10/18/2005 10:42:43 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
"Older than dirt." Really? How old is the dirt?

About 8,000 years old.

105 posted on 10/18/2005 10:47:18 AM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker

"but you're not going to be effective at showing support from authorities (assuming that's what you want) if you can't get people from top institutions to endorse you."

maybe. but maybe the people at the top reflect a certain kind of cultural sifter at work ... and that given they actually GOT to the top, they dare not mess with them who done brung them to the dance.

Credentialing institutions are a funny place, and the credentialists are a high and mighty bunch. And for the most part, Darwinian thinking suits them well. For a Credentialist, esp one whose signature would appear on diplomas, a great career risk is taken by not following orthodox rationalist dogma (given the 'thought' should dare cross their minds) ... but you probably don't agree.


106 posted on 10/18/2005 10:48:06 AM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
The reason you don't want to address abiogenesis is because even the most staunch defender of the ToE understands realizes life cannot come from non-life. That being the case, the origin of various life forms has to be the based on intelligent design.

It's not that the ToE says that life cannot come from non-life. It's that evolution requires a "before" organism and an "after" organism. If there's no self-replicating entity to start with, then the process of evolution can't occur. So the first self-replicating organism must have come about through some means other than replication with mutations.

That's hardly the same as "realizing life cannot come from non-life".

107 posted on 10/18/2005 11:02:08 AM PDT by jennyp (WHAT I'M READING NOW: Art of Unix Programming by Raymond)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Ma3lst0rm

"One reason is that science is not static especially in the area in question involving evolution and cosmology..."

Translation: we need to keep changing the definition of science to make sure evolution still meets the definition (and those wacko IDers don't.)

Science is not static, but the definition is.


108 posted on 10/18/2005 11:06:52 AM PDT by Gil4 ('When does mama get to hang somebody?!'")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: taxesareforever
"Older than dirt." Really? How old is the dirt?

About 8,000 years old.

Is that all? I've been in dirt that's lots older than that!

109 posted on 10/18/2005 11:11:44 AM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Why is this trial necessary? I believe the answerer can be found in the students of the 1960s and their world view. Those students stayed in college and became long term students in order to avoid LBJ's war. They got their BS,MS and PHD. Those students now are division chairs and department heads holding fast to their world view, which I believe is unchristian . If evolution is correct then there is no need for a belief in a creator or law and life giver, and therefor law and life evolve according to the observers without any absolutes. Thanks for updating us on this trial.
110 posted on 10/18/2005 11:28:22 AM PDT by tongass kid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Credentialing institutions are a funny place, and the credentialists are a high and mighty bunch.

If you don't believe in credentials, then don't have 85 scientists sign a letter listing their credentials.

111 posted on 10/18/2005 11:40:23 AM PDT by Alter Kaker (Whatever tears one may shed, in the end one always blows one’s nose.-Heine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: A. Pole
It would be excellent if the children could be exposed to the true intellectual debate and various speakers were invited. Unfortunately as it is now, the atheists and gay activists get preferential treatment.

It is impossible to have an intellectual debate with a creationist.

112 posted on 10/18/2005 2:58:34 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
As for scientists, individual biases do come into play with many of them.

And with creationists, it is a mob bias mentality that rules their every thought.

113 posted on 10/18/2005 3:00:04 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: popdonnelly
Why is a judge incapable of determining what is science. Judges determine everything else - with the help of experts.

LOL -experts are like hired guns -whatever the unsettled issue, one can always find experts on both sides to "expertly" confirm the issue unsettled...

114 posted on 10/18/2005 3:03:06 PM PDT by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Actually yes. I find that what atheists say has a weird ring to it once their feelings in their voices become attached to it.

If most of the US population is Christian, why do most people think "wierd" if they see someone reading a bible on their work break?

115 posted on 10/18/2005 3:06:24 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: tongass kid
Why is this trial necessary? I believe the answerer can be found in the students of the 1960s and their world view. Those students stayed in college and became long term students in order to avoid LBJ's war. They got their BS,MS and PHD. Those students now are division chairs and department heads holding fast to their world view, which I believe is unchristian . If evolution is correct then there is no need for a belief in a creator or law and life giver, and therefor law and life evolve according to the observers without any absolutes.

There is no need for a creator now, whether evolution is true or not.

OTOH, it is the CREOS that are put into doubt since so many creos have invested their livelyhood into preaching a strict interpretation of the Bible and that foundation will come crumbling down. Sort of like when the Church hung its had on a geocentric universe. Already, the Church is moving toward evolution but a radical sect is still pushing ignorant dogma. It will be them that fall, not the belief in a creator.

116 posted on 10/18/2005 3:13:21 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Sorry, I didn't know ID postulated that God and another Alien were responsible for creation. And if the other was an alien would also God be an alien? If not why not?

Geez, this ID stuff gets beyond bizarre.

117 posted on 10/18/2005 3:20:44 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7
Did not Francis Bacon say this?

"Sir Henry Wotton used to say that critics are like brushers of noblemen’s clothes."

The creos are the brushers of the scientists?

118 posted on 10/18/2005 3:23:15 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

From Bacon's biography:

"Bacon held some controversial views on religion, which he judged to be unimportant in comparison with science"


119 posted on 10/18/2005 3:41:52 PM PDT by WildTurkey (When will CBS Retract and Apologize?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Alter Kaker
Sure. Life could have arisen by pure random chance, a series of unlikely events. That would be very different from the theory of evolution or anything else I've seen, but it actually is plausible, however unlikely.

The fallacy of the Infinite Monkey Theorem, which states that given an infinite amount of time the probability that a group of monkeys will type out a work of literature is 1. This theorem overlooks the fact that nature's typewriter -- chemistry -- causes the font to dissolve off the page as soon as the hammer begins to retract. Therefore the probability of life being created by random events is absurd.

120 posted on 10/18/2005 3:45:19 PM PDT by bondserv (God governs our universe and has seen fit to offer us a pardon. †)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 161-178 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