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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
And just how many of the Nobel laureates that have no scientific background related to biology/chemistry do the evolutionists parade out in support of their position?
Nathan Zachary's list is pretty impressive when one considers their specialties.
predict future speciation? I cannot.
predict that various "gaps" in the fossil record will be filled by the discovery of currently unknown fossils, and that the morphology of those fossils will be transitional between what came before and what came after? sure. I predict that.
now, as to predictions of what we do not expect: I predict that spontaneously occurring mutation leading to single-generation saltation between high-order taxa will never occur. If it does occur, the ToE shall be substantially falsified.
as to the ToE's supposed inability to back up its claims with empirical evidence - "fossil" genes containing errors common to humans and various forms of primate strongly support the taxonomic cladogram of shared descent.
I'll let the Big Dogs explain what that means to you, and hope you will take a clue from your UserID and actually connect the dots for once.
a correction: scientific theories can never be proven, but can be disproven.
Cases in point: Phlogiston, caloric theory of heat, etc...
falsification criteria are vital to any scientific theorum.
How about this one: As more species' genomes are mapped, the common descent of these species as proposed by taxonomy will be confirmed.
This has been recently backed up by the completion of the chimpanzee genome mapping, which demonstrates that ToE predictions regarding percentages of shared similarities, mutations, and flaws between chimps and humans were indeed accurate. I predict such confirmations will continue in the future with other relationships claimed by the ToE.
At least you admit their are gaps in evolution, including the absense of transitional forms. Seeing that there have been no transitional forms found in the fossil record, what leads you to believe they will be discovered? One would think, that after all this time, there would have been many transitional forms found.
Talk about blind faith!!!
Causality CAN be falsified, simply by observing another stimulus of speciation and another selective mechanism. Even if such things cannot be observed directly, their effects should be apparently different from those caused by random genetic mutation and selective pressures.
a single example of single-generation saltation between high-order taxa would serve to rock the ToE to the core.
Isn't that special. The evolutionists claim that the IDers can offer no positive proof of ID, but the evolutionists can't provide the same kind of proof for evolution. The fact is the IDers have offered plenty of evidence casting serious doubt on the ToE.
flaming ignoramus placemarker
consult the List O' Links. PLEASE. It's WAY too early to get drunk enough to survive the hilarity your ignorance inspires.
I think a philosophy class that included an evolution v. ID topic would be OK. What do you think?
actually, I stated a principle inherent to all science: ANY theory MUST have falsification criteria; NO theory can EVER be absolutely proven.
Your tenuous grasp of science was already well established. Thank you for now providing solid evidence of your tenuous command of reading comprehension.
must...be...strong.....must...not...give...in...
I'll make it easy, because we're here to help: The List-O-Links.
Another service of Darwin Central, the conspiracy that cares.
You said there were gaps in the ToE, including a lack of a fossil record supporting transitional forms. Those were your words.
I see you have no substantive evidence, so you resort you throw a temper tantrum like a spoiled brat.
"Isn't that special. The evolutionists claim that the IDers can offer no positive proof of ID, but the evolutionists can't provide the same kind of proof for evolution. The fact is the IDers have offered plenty of evidence casting serious doubt on the ToE."
I didn't ask for "positive proof." I asked for evidence. The evidence for evolution is significant and growing. (If you throw out evolution, you also throw out the entire field of genetics and all of the biological sciences beyond the "that's a duck, this is a whale" descriptive level.)
PAST causality cannot be falsified. That should have been obvious but apparently not. Or do you presumptious enough to think you can prove exactly why something happened millions of years ago?
I found the coparsison of 32 day-old human and cat fetuses interesting as evidence for evolution. I haven't yet read where a huiman has given birth to a cat or a cat to a human.
You have to admit, that is a pretty lame illustration.
The field of genetics would survive quite well without evolution. If anything, the field of genetics tends to discount the claims of evolution.
"I haven't yet read where a huiman has given birth to a cat or a cat to a human. "
That's good too, it would be a falsification of the ToE.
"You have to admit, that is a pretty lame illustration."
You said it! :)
Nothing new - he does that every time he posts here.
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.