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

Skip to comments.

Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]
Sioux City Journal ^ | 29 September 2005 | Staff

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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: anothercrevothread; beatingadeadhorse; crevolist; crevorepublic; dover; enoughalready; evolution; itsbeendone; onetrickpony; played; scienceeducation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 561 next last
To: bvw

"Math isn't science?"

By itself, math is not science. Science uses math as a tool, but math itself is not science.


321 posted on 09/29/2005 4:35:33 PM PDT by BeHoldAPaleHorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Oh, and the carbon dating stuff, there is alot more to prove it nothing more than a wild guess besides William Tripp's summary. It's just plain wrong. I didn't get around to posting any of it because the personal attacks started flowing from all you "mature" people.

If you want, I'll go step bystep and show you the error of your ways re #211 when i get home.

Ta-ta for now boys and girls.


322 posted on 09/29/2005 4:35:39 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

His response to #211, point by point, after he 'get's home', may make that decision easier.


323 posted on 09/29/2005 4:41:27 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 318 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; Coyoteman; PatrickHenry
Nathan's going to show Coyoteman the error of his ways regarding carbon dating? Oh, this oughtta be gooood!

Patrick, if he does, you've got to include this in the List-O-Links!

Nathan, I don't think you realize just how many people you are entertaining right now. Thanks!

324 posted on 09/29/2005 4:43:30 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary; Coyoteman
If you want, I'll go step bystep and show you the error of your ways re #211 when i get home.

This I have to see.
325 posted on 09/29/2005 4:43:34 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas (Deity in training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
First, you simply can't date live clams and get a reliable age.

=======

Oceanic shellfish apparently recycle old carbon that hasn't been near the atmosphere in forever. Thus, the carbon indeed tends to be "old."

That is correct. See the Marine Reservoir Correction Database.

Shellfish can be readily calibrated by dating pre-bomb specimens and establishing a calibration curve.

However, the problem with live organisms still exists and renders recent samples unreliable. Even with the Marine Database I would not trust samples more recent than World War II.

326 posted on 09/29/2005 4:44:01 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: ml1954
His response to #211, point by point, after he 'gets home', may make that decision easier.

It'll be a cut 'n paste dump from some creationoid website.

327 posted on 09/29/2005 4:45:25 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
It'll be a cut 'n paste dump from some creationoid website.

Yeah, but the entertainment value alone makes this Must-See TV!

328 posted on 09/29/2005 4:49:42 PM PDT by Antonello
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary

If you want,

Nathan, just in case you need to be explicitly solicited, I want you to respond to #211, step by step.

329 posted on 09/29/2005 4:52:25 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Vive ut Vivas
"Exactly why it's stupid to draw philosophical implications from a scientific theory! They have nothing to do with each other!"

I suppose it all depends upon what is ones philosophical beliefs, in other words, what kind of a "GOD" does one believe there is.

Only wee little man can make such an declaration, as if the Heavenly Father does not exist and "science" or the origin of the flesh human being is out of His scope. But hey that is your choice.

"...and they're not going to get it from the theory of evolution. Or gravity. Or electrodynamics. These are not "foundations upon which to build their lives". I can just imagine the philosophy you'd extrapolate from quantum mechanics."


Oh really are you so wrapped into your method you cannot see what the implications are to young minds? You have no clue what I would extrapolate from quantum mechanics. What I know is that I am limited by gravity and a flesh body yet awareness that there is more to life than this flesh body. Flesh is but a mere necessary vehicle each soul is required to pass through.


"They don't even have anything to do with each other. By definition science can't address anything that's not naturalistic. How many times do we need to state this before it sinks in?"

Whose definition are you using? You can repeat your mantra over and over and over til you turn blue in the face, just cause you say it and believe it does not make it true.

YOu can teach a child allllll about his/her body without ever saying once he/she descended from any other creature, because you have absolutely NO proof or evidence, merely a theory.

You can place the highest walls between God and His creation, but YOU have NO authority to make anyone believe your evolving theory. IT IS A SCAM the taxpayers are required to pay for.

Now I realize that evolutionists think so highly of themselves they do not need a "GOD", and that is your FREE choice, but when you start messing with little children's minds then there will be some accounting to be had. The evolutionists are like a pious bunch of tunneled brained entities who can see no further than their TOE!
330 posted on 09/29/2005 4:53:16 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 227 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
I can hardly wait also. Especially since the reference I presented was "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.

Its on the ASA (American Scientific Affiliation) website which is dedicated to:

Science in Christian Perspective The American Scientific Affiliation (ASA) is a fellowship of men and women in science and disciplines that relate to science who share a common fidelity to the Word of God and a commitment to integrity in the practice of science.

Its actually a pretty good article, I enjoyed it and bookmarked it. (Thanks to whoever it was that posted that link earlier on this thread.)

Anyway, I think you probably have another addition to your famous List-O-Links coming.

331 posted on 09/29/2005 4:53:50 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: Nathan Zachary
Whales have been found to be a completely unique species.

Whales am not a "completely unique" (as in there's only one) species

332 posted on 09/29/2005 4:54:57 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: All

If I go out tonight, will you all promise me that the rebuttal will be here when I get back in the morning? I do not want to cancel my plans, and I'm sure it'll seem doubly funny later seeing as I'll probably be not at all sober.

Do not mess up this thread, it is classic, it is perfect


333 posted on 09/29/2005 4:56:24 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas (Deity in training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Thanks to whoever it was that posted that link earlier on this thread.

I think it was Mr. Doctor Stochastic.

334 posted on 09/29/2005 4:57:53 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: Vive ut Vivas

Try real hard to take care of your brain, the thread will hold its own.


335 posted on 09/29/2005 5:02:40 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 333 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Coyoteman; Nathan Zachary
Oceanic shellfish apparently recycle old carbon that hasn't been near the atmosphere in forever.

I think that particular Creationist "problems with Darwinism" claim references freshwater shellfish living in limestone rock pools.

336 posted on 09/29/2005 5:03:19 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (Paging Nehemiah Scudder:the Crazy Years are peaking. America is ready for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The Wiens article is already in The List-O-Links. Been there for years.
337 posted on 09/29/2005 5:04:30 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM
I like this crevo-Threads. Especially then people try to avoid to answer the last question.

"Just by reciting a dictionary has not demonstrated you even understand scientific theories,..." doc30

Answer?:
"And the way you obtained evidence of how inextensive my investigation of the subject is ... ?"GretchenM

Switch to another topic:
"I have studied the topic, including some of Darwin's own works. "GretchenM

and finally the try to stir some hornets: "Things got broken -- such as the land in earthquakes and floods -- and defective genes -- mutations -- became commonplace. God had the answer to bring all creation back to perfection, back to full relationship with Himself."GretchenM


Well, that are your believes GretchenM. But should this taught in a science class? What can you derive of ID except that ODIN exists? Please, mind the gaps! It's not scientific to say "RA is the answer" instead of saying "Well, at the monument we have really no idea why that happened but will search for an answer."
338 posted on 09/29/2005 5:06:51 PM PDT by MHalblaub (Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 294 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy
Oceanic shellfish apparently recycle old carbon that hasn't been near the atmosphere in forever.

====

I think that particular Creationist "problems with Darwinism" claim references freshwater shellfish living in limestone rock pools.

Limestone will do it. So will coal, asphaltum (tar), or bitumin. Lots of other things we have to watch out for. Its not rocket science but we do have to be careful in sample selection.

Marine shellfish ingest old deep-water carbon, but we can check our calibration and Delta-R by comparing shellfish and carbon from the exact same proveniences. That lets us be quite accurate.

339 posted on 09/29/2005 5:08:38 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 336 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The Wiens article is already in The List-O-Links. Been there for years.

I was thinking of the detailed refutation that was promised for later tonight.

340 posted on 09/29/2005 5:10:15 PM PDT by Coyoteman (I love the sound of beta decay in the morning!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 561 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