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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
I agree, but it was nearly midnight, I was giddy from reading the latest in the Nathan Sagatm, and that old ATF joke just sprang to mind :)
I guess this is your version of the I'm the Defender of Science speech....
Observing, say, the results of selective breeding and then concluding that only it replicated over a few (hundred?) million years can account for the diversity of present life is a classic example of conslusions exceeding evidence. You say we know a lot? In relation to all the facts of history, biology, climate, etc. of the past millions of years we know virtually zilch. Not that any of this matters to folks like the professor in this article - they are merely following the money.
...hmmm...do you think some of these tormentors, themselves, realize there are only two lights and are just trying to jag some chains?
Wow...this is better than Star Trek NG.
St Augustine's views are general and timeless, and his message is clear. He wasn't referring to any scientific knowledge in particular. The quote is perfectly relevant (unliike the frequent and ridiculous creationist citing of scientists who died before Darwin was born as "creationists")
Also, how can you accuse "Christianity" of resisting lightning rods...
Apologetic disclaimers aside (which tend to be of the nature that not all Christians resisted the new idea, just as most Christians worldwide don't resist evolution), the church and individual christians certainly did resist lightning rods on religious grounds. Just as the church resisted copernican/galilean cosmology. Are you trying to claim otherwise?
Shameless Trolling placemarker. For the benefit of lurkers, if you read through this thread you will see that KMJ has already been shown numerous predictions of the theory of evolution. He can choose to ignore them if he wishes, but to trumpet statements like the one above is utterly shameless.
The Theory of Evolution (capitalized, indicating a proper noun as it is the name of a specific thing) is a repeatedly demonstrated, scientifically accurate explanation of the evidence and data concerning the historical development of life on Earth. It is not a fact in itself, but rather an explanation of the facts. Thus the statement 'the Theory of Evolution is a theory and not a fact', while a bit misleading in the implied definition of the word theory, is a factually true statement.
Conversely, evolution (not capitalized, indicating a common noun as it is not the name of a specific thing) is the phenomena of change that a population experiences over time. This is a fact that has been observed, and is but one of the many pieces of evidence used by the Theory of Evolution.
As you can see, there is a distinct difference between the two. However, you are deliberately using one in place of the other (equivocation) to support your argument.
The irony comes into play when you consider that ID supporters and Creationists routinely accuse Evolutionists of equivocating the word 'evolution':
Miller, as usual with evolutionary propagandists, equivocates about the meaning of ‘evolution’, i.e. calling any change ‘evolution’ and implying that it proves particles-to-people evolution and disproves special creation. Of course, creationists make it very clear that particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information content. To date, not a single example of such a change has been observed, but such changes should be plentiful if evolution were true. (Emphasis attributed to source.)
~Miller’s mangled arguments, by John Woodmorappe and Jonathan Sarfati, as published on Answers in Genesis website
Note that the above accusation isn't that Miller used evolution in place of the Theory of Evolution, but rather that his definition (to which they added their own inference) didn't match their nonstandard one.
Okay, that's all I got. If you still don't get what I was trying to say then we're pretty much not going to get any further.
observation: from studying fossils to studying genes, observation is used.
repeatability: independent observers can and do undertake the same process of research and testing and derive comparable results.
measurement: various forms of measurement are used - strict linear measurement, radioisotope dating, comparative anatomy, gene allele frequency, statistical analysis, etc... all measurements, all used, all support evolution
the author you quoted was quite mistaken regarding facts.
by the way, there IS a valid and integral fourth characteristic of science: PREDICTION.
And, related to Prediction, a fifth: FALSIFICATION CRITERIA.
Both IDers and Evolutionists are in the habit of using these definitions interchangably to make their points (I happen to believe bombastic Evolutionists started it all).
If the ToE can be paraphrased as "natural selection" + "lots of time" = "everything" then I would have to accuse it of being virtually non-disproveable. Which is not the same as being true.
Sources of evolutionists misusing one for the other, please. And even if you are correct, how does that excuse your equivocation?
If the ToE can be paraphrased as "natural selection" + "lots of time" = "everything" then I would have to accuse it of being virtually non-disproveable. Which is not the same as being true.
But only if your paraphrasing is accurate. Which it is not.
unlike ID, the ToE can be falsified.
the ToE makes predictions about data we have not yet seen and events which have not yet occurred.
it makes predictions about what we expect to see result from a given scenario, and what we do not expect to see from a given scenario.
these predictions are falsification criteria.
IF a defined scenario is observed, and its results contradict the predictions, then the elements of the ToE upon which the predictions were made are proven invalid.
Evolutionists aren't switching definitions - please! How many news articles have they been about Evolutionists claiming the new dark ages are upon us because some influential folks do not agree that the ToE is a fact because change is a fact and natural selection can happen? This is the crux of the debate.
Inaccurate? Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I tend to believe that the ToE is not so much scientifically accurate as is extraordinarily malleable.
Causality cannot be falsified. ToE is fundamentally about the assumption that natural selection and variability is the cause of all change.
ID casts doubt on evolution, if not out disproves it. One need not prove ID to disprove evolution.
Predictions? Give us a couple for the near future. The ToE can't even back up it's past claim with empirical evidence. It's all based on speculation.
you will see that KMJ has already been shown numerous predictions of the theory of evolution
Seriously, I just read through the thread and didn't see these numerous predictions.
Perhaps you are confusing a discussion we had on another thread where you referenced this Talk Origins Claim CA210: Evolution Predictions...from which I note:
#4. If evolution's low power to make future predictions keeps it from being a science, then some other fields of study cease to be sciences, too, especially archeology and astronomy.
Now, the admission from your source of evolution's low power to make future predictions is significant to me, though, obviously not to you. I suppose we can disagree on the importance of evolution's low power to make future predictions, however, suffice it to say that your BOGUS "Shameless Trolling placemarker" is...well, bogus.
"ID casts doubt on evolution, if not out disproves it. One need not prove ID to disprove evolution."
Scientific theories are merely refuted, not "disproven." The problem is that in order to refute Theory A, Theory B must better explain the observed phenomena. ID doesn't do that. ID doesn't make predictions that can be tested by observation.
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.