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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
true.
Please note, while reading Cuozzo's pages, in which he attempts to refute the evidence that the "bones" are not bones at all that he does not even know that the symbol "Si" stands for Silicon, not Silicone. He labels his data thus: Si = Silicone.
He reveals himself to be a non-scientist and not competent to discuss the issue, since he does not know the difference between an element and a filling for breast implants. He does it more than once, so it's not a typo.
This is one of your "Scientists." Feh!
We are talking about the origin of life now - hello - is that not a part of life sciences? Just because we don't know the origin of life, we can't act like life has no origin. Since science, in everybody and their mother's words, can't explain the origin of life - are we supposed to just say "O, never mind"?
Mentioning creation or a Creator is not illogical.
After Casey Brown quit the school board Oct. 18, she testified today, two board members questioned her belief in God.
Brown was the morning’s sole witness in the fourth day of the Dover school district trial over intelligent design, in federal court in Harrisburg. She said Bill Buckingham, after she handed in her resignation, called her an atheist and accused her and her husband Jeff Brown, also a former school board member, of destroying the school board.
The Browns announced they were resigning from the board immediately after it voted to include intelligent design in biology class.
Months later, board member Alan Bonsell also questioned her faith, Casey Brown testified. “He told me I would be going to hell,” Brown said.
After court broke for lunch, Bonsell denied making that remark.
Casey Brown will be cross-examined this afternoon.
But by the way, ‘believing in a creator’ and ‘believing in Evolution’ are not mutually exculsive.
Isn't that what's called "ID"?
Yes, it is, unless you've managed to find some actual scientific evidence for that Creator.
And no, "I want there to be a Creator" doesn't count. Science doesn't deal in wishful thinking. It deals in evidence.
Ha ha ha. I'll check into the Cuozzo stuff later. Perhaps I'll quit being his agent.
filling for breast implants.
Perhaps, he somehow uses breast implants for dental fillings?
We are talking about the origin of life now -
No, we aren't. You are, but that's not the subject here.
Evolution doesn't address the origins of life. Only the origins of species. That's not a failing of evolution any more than astronomy's not addressing the origin of life is a failing of astronomy.
His original thesis work, begun in 1937, was interrupted by that inconvenient little war. His PhD thesis was, oddly, enough, in X-ray diffraction. He was, by then, something of an expert.
no - you don't "got it"
natural science is limited to dealing with evidence and theories concerning that evidence - theories which explain the essentially mechanical interactions of matter and energy and which make predictions of future observations of such interactions.
We can say with a great deal of assurance that, back to a certain point, we understand the mechanics and timeline of how things have moved along. We can also, with a fair degree of certainty, debunk many superstitious stories which run counter to the mass of evidence we have available for study.
Can we absolutely prove any explanation in some ultimate sense?
No. There does not seem to be any end to the data or its variations, so no scientific explanation can ever be complete and absolutely inarguable - even setting aside absurd philosophical solipsistic quibbling on the reliablity of observation and the questionable nature of "reality".
Can we absolutely disprove any superstitious story in some ultimate sense?
Not really, no. The hypothetical existence of an OMNIPOTENT and INFINITELY SUBTLE (perhaps even DEVIOUS) and IMMATERIAL god-thing which is not detectable through direct or indirect observation cannot ever be completely dispelled, as semantical argument is not so fact-bound as science.
That's right. But, at the same time it is design that makes science possible.
How positively medvedian!
Most biology courses take a wag at abiogenesis (as distinguished from evolution) - no one is deprived.
Mentioning creation or a Creator is not illogical.
It's just not science. Do it in a comparitive religion class.
Shall we say: SWING AND A MISS.
Come on, science doesn't have a handle on the origin of life.
Yeah, what you said. I think I agree.
You're wrong again. Please, go read some of Ichneumon's posts on current abiogenesis research or some of Patrick Henry's links on the same subject before you embarrass yourself yet again.
it is being worked on.
though it seems highly unlikely that science will ever yield a "proven" explanation for the rise of life on Earth, it is entirely possible that science will provide a very solid explanation for it which fits all the evidence (and might, perhaps, in the fullness of time, be directly observable as fact in other non-terran environments)
I never claimed he did.
Math isn't science? Your science may be math-free but real science is full of it -- according to Lord Kelvin (but perhaps you don't know him) it isn't science without numbers.
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.