Posted on 09/29/2005 3:36:00 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) -- The concept of "intelligent design" is a form of creationism and is not based on scientific method, a professor testified Wednesday in a trial over whether the idea should be taught in public schools.
Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy at Michigan State University, testified on behalf of families who sued the Dover Area School District. He said supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea.
"As scientists go about their business, they follow a method," Pennock said. "Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science."
Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses.
In October 2004, the Dover school board voted 6-3 to require teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Proponents of intelligent design 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.
Eight families are trying to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state. They say it promotes the Bible's view of creation.
Meanwhile, a lawyer for two newspaper reporters said Wednesday the presiding judge has agreed to limit questioning of the reporters, averting a legal showdown over having them testify in the case.
Both reporters wrote stories that said board members mentioned creationism as they discussed the intelligent design issue. Board members have denied that.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.
"They're testifying only as to what they wrote," said Niles Benn, attorney for The York Dispatch and the York Daily Record/Sunday News, the papers that employed the two freelancers.
The reporters were subpoenaed but declined to give depositions Tuesday, citing their First Amendment rights. A lawyer for the school board had said he planned to seek contempt citations against the two.
The judge's order clears the way for the reporters to provide depositions and testify Oct. 6.
Try post 52 here.
More evidence than any reasonable person would be able to wave away.
It is highly amusing that creationists make statements like this and then, without a trace of irony, accuse evolutionists of equivocating the word 'evolution'.
Seriously, why is it "silly" to define the scope of what the ToE addresses?
And indeed several of the Steves are Nobel Laureates. How many living Nobel Laureates on your list, Nathan? And have you counted the Steves on your list of medical doctors and professors of linguistics?
Nah, this is the way the evolution debate usually goes.
Creationist: “There’s NO evidence.”
Scientist (GCSE standard or above): “Here’s a bunch of it”.
Creationist: *fingers in ears; eyes closed* “There’s NO evidence. Oh and here’s why carbon dating sucks. And here are ten scientists who believe in God.”
A theory that all other theories are wrong. Hmmmm. Sounds like religion to me.
There are more scientists than that named "Steve" on the evolution side of things.
Which is why you occasionally run across a geologist who finds ID convincing, or a biologist who is worried that the young-earth geological arguments have some substance.
When I asked about these "predictions" and what was the next evolutionary development we are likely to witness, I was directed to a link that described "retrodictions" and other linquistic contrivances that explain the "predictions" are not predictions at all.
Be real - how much stock would you put in the "predictive" powers of someone who can only "predict" the past?
Because, BY DEFINITION, Evolution is the study of the Origin of Species, NOT the Origin of Life. You know it and every other Creationist knows it. Why do you keep spouting things when you KNOW they are bogus?
Now, if you want to have a discussion on the Origin of Life, then post a thread concerning Abiogenesis or the Creation. You will find many who will gladly discuss that with you, and the scientific side will not talk about evolution.
Just because Creation covers everything, doesn't mean that Science must operate the same way.
I use Carbon-14 dating all the time. Could you please elaborate on the flaws? For example, the date I received a few months ago of cal. 7140? What's wrong with that one?
“Limits to effectiveness and margins for error” count as “serious flaws” to creationists.
Quite a lot if that person keeps finding valuable mineral deposits for an example from another field, or who predicts in advance of mapping genomes what similarities they will have with the genomes of other species for an evolutionary biology example.
I don't put a lot of stock in people who raise bogus objections to the numerous (some of them startling) predictions made by the theory of evolution. For example it was predicted that a fossil sequence from land-mammals to whales would be found, and eventually it was. How would ID predict that?
Does my philosophy mean that if I were a scientist you would include me on your list?
It is true that it would be an interesting experiment to take a section of some species’ population from an environment, dump it in a different, but habitable environment and predict the effects of evolution. Thing is, the species could evolve in an unexpected manner. How accurate would you have to be to pass the test? And the experiment would take a long time.
Has this been tried at all?
"How can they speak on a subject that they admit ignorance of."
Overflowing Confidence plus brimming biblical ignorance combined w/ the foundation of pride = arrogance.
Didn't I see you on the OJ jury? That explains a lot!
Thanks. I skimmed it and it looks like a good read. I'll save it for later.
Well, come on now - certainly we agree that there are biological "things" outside the scope of evolutionary biological science. This point is made time and again on these threads: furball4paws reiterated it again to me in post #170.
Now why on God's green earth (colorful language intended) is it so friggin' unacceptable to articulate this point regarding biological "things" - to students who are there to learn about biological "things"?
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.