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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
"The field of genetics would survive quite well without evolution. If anything, the field of genetics tends to discount the claims of evolution."
Maybe in your pretend fantasy world where you're a brilliant lawyer and geneticist...but over here in the real world, you're wrong.
That is what I asked you! Post or cite a source that demonstrates an Evolutionist claiming the ToE (not evolution) is a fact.
Inaccurate? Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, I tend to believe that the ToE is not so much scientifically accurate as is extraordinarily malleable.
Even though the burden of proof rests on you to back up your claim, I will make an attempt here....
Your statement is inaccurate because, while it is an acceptable if rudimentary paraphrasing of the definition of the ToE, you have asserted that it is a paraphrasing of the ToE itself. This is a distinction with a difference, as illustrated by the fact that we consult dictionaries for definitions and encyclopedias for descriptions.
This is about as compact a description of the ToE as I can come up with (excerpted from Evolution Happens):
All life forms (species) have developed from other species.
All living things are related to one another to varying degrees through common decent (share common ancestors).
All life on Earth has a common origin. In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms.
The process by which one species evolves into another involves random heritable genetic mutations (changes), some of which are more likely to spread and persist in a gene pool than others. Mutations that result in a survival advantage for organisms that possess them, are more likely to spread and persist than mutations that do not result in a survival advantage and/or that result in a survival disadvantage.
Now as far as malleability goes, I'd tend to agree. As new data emerges, the ToE is tested against it and if the new evidence indicates an error then the theory is modified to accommodate this. If the new evidence were to indicate a flaw so fundamental as to invalidate the whole theory (a modern rabbit fossil discovered in the Pre-Cambrian era, for example) then the ToE would be discarded in favor of a theory that accounts for all the evidence, including the newly found bunny.
"The field of genetics would survive quite well without evolution. If anything, the field of genetics tends to discount the claims of evolution."
Genetics is the best evidence we have for common descent. Read a book for a change. Genetics and evolutionary theory are intertwined, irrevocably.
you read:
there were gaps in the ToE, including a lack of a fossil record supporting transitional forms.
I was considering, for a brief moment, giving you an in-depth and considerate reply, explaining why there are gaps in the fossil record (having to do with the fact that the remains of the overwhelming majority of organisms do not get fossilized) and then showing you transitional cladograms of various evolutionary branches, but then I realized that if you are so benighted as to mistake my laughing at you for a temper tantrum, no such reasonable reply could budge you from your folly. So, instead, I shall lampoon you...
I now type:
I have some gaps in my teeth.
You, based on your documented analytical shortcomings, must (assuming you apply consistent standards) now read the above as stating:
King Prout has NO teeth!
Seriously, you have severe reading comprehension problems.
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.
I think you are the confused one. I have never referenced that page to you or anyone else. I agree that the statement is sensible. The natural world is an arena with untold billions of variables. To suggest that we have to work out the direction that future evolution will take to be taken seriously is frankly babyish.
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.
No it isn't, you have been shown numerous predictions made by the theory of evolution, yet you continue to shriek, "you cannot make me see." As usual no position is so stupid that RunningWolf is unprepared to support it if that involves rubbishing evolution.
that depends on a few factors you'd have to specify:
1. what happened that I am supposed to explain?
2. how much data do I have available for analysis?
3. what do you mean by "exactly"? Within what tolerances does your definition of exactitude fall?
lacking these specifics, and ignoring for the moment the open question of whether I possess the intellect and training required to usefully engage the data and challenge, I can only answer "maybe, maybe not."
so I am coming to note.
It is your statement that is false.
There is not one of the above critera that supports Evolution (Macro).
To prove Creationism false all one has to do is prove that life can come from non-life.
True science points to a single designer, not a common (non-human) ancestor
demonstrating that life "can" come from non-life will not falsify Creationism, as you folks will simply move the goalposts and demand that scientists prove that life ON EARTH *in fact* developed from non-life without the intervention of your flavor of skypixie.
That's an impossible task, lacking either a time machine or significantly FTL travel.
So, again: ID/Creationism is NOT falsifiable.
(The above is not a prediction, by the way - it is an evaluation of past performance of creationists on many of these threads: The above is a well-worn gambit for your ilk)
by the way, particular genetic errors found in "fossil genes" common to Man and other primates is strong support of common descent and speciation. They were predicted before they were observed, then they were observerd, and now their frequencies in various primate species have been and continue to be measured.
you lose, dude.
If you want the details, consult the Big Dogs or the List O'Links.
Based on my observation of the record of your antics thus far, which antics I measure as stubborn and intransigent deliberate and willful ignorance, which observations and measurements have been fully repeated by independent study by others, I now predict the behavior from you which I expect and do not expect:
I expect that you shall continue to spout the noises of your benighted state.
I do not expect you to avail yourself of the data at hand for your elucidation.
I specifically predict that you shall make unsupported assertions that I (and the Big Dogs) are simply "wrong".
I predict a high probability of you posting strawmen, indulging in out-of-context or otherwise misrepresented quote-mining to "support" your position, and a moderate probability of you losing your temper in a flamboyantly public manner.
Proving that life can come from non-life (on Earth or anywhere) will show that evolution (Macro) is at least possible.
It would 'falsify' Creationism, since we state that all life must come from life.
So, Creationism is falsifiable and thus, 'scientific'.
It is the evolutionists that are looking to outer space to prove Evolution is possible.
Too much Star Trek nonsense.
It would 'falsify' Creationism, since we state that all life must come from life.
I wish that were true. I really do wish it would be that simple, that you folks would be slapped into facing reality with so little effort. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Your side would AUTOMATICALLY fall back on the next goalpost: "But living things DESIGNED THAT EXPERIMENT, so all that proves is that Intelligent Design is a fact and that life still came from life!"
I know this for a fact: I've seen it happen on many CREVO threads.
Quit lying about yourselves and your standards.
To suggest that we have to work out the direction that future evolution will take to be taken seriously is frankly babyish.
Frankly Babyish - is that one of the million scientists...with name sounding like Frank? Look, if your standards for prediction don't include anything about the FUTURE, then we obviously have different standards. I can live with that.
By the way, read any good Nostradamus lately?
Aside from the way too obvious opening for snidely commenting on ID as being an 'I don't know' theory, all I can say about this remark is it is a hypothetical that has no basis in reality that you could point to for support.
Nobody claiming evolution is a fact? Then why is this happening? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1439784/posts
That article provides a nice example of equivocation regarding the word evolution from the creationist side, but I fail to see one from the evolutionist side. I didn't sort through the posts, though. If there is one in specific you wish me to see, please identify it.
Now, back to the origin of our current exchange: I have called your statement of 'What rules are these? They can't be very robust as we have [evolutionist] scientists constantly saying that evolution is not a theory but a proven fact.' a fallacy of equivocation. Either directly answer this challenge or concede the point.
Sure it does, since Macro evolution had to have a start, and if life cannot come from non-life, there is no Evolution-period.
But you evolutionists know you can't get past abiogenesis so you run from it (although you have been trying to prove it for years)
It would 'falsify' Creationism, since we state that all life must come from life. I wish that were true. I really do wish it would be that simple, that you folks would be slapped into facing reality with so little effort. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Your side would AUTOMATICALLY fall back on the next goalpost: "But living things DESIGNED THAT EXPERIMENT, so all that proves is that Intelligent Design is a fact and that life still came from life!" I know this for a fact: I've seen it happen on many CREVO threads.
Well, as long as you know it to be fact.
How could any Creationist make that statement when Evolution hasn't proven that life can come from non-life.
Quit lying about yourselves and your standards.
No, you stop setting up strawmen arguments.
If Evolutionists could prove life could come from non-life they would have proven Evolution (Macro) is possible.
As it stands today (in the real world) all life must come from life.
That is what we call a Law.
Show that it is not a law and you have disproven a central tenet of Creationism, no matter what Creationists say.
But there is still hope!
Maybe the Aliens that you Evolutionists are looking for will show you how they came from non-life!
That was what Sagan was looking for, wasn't he with his 'billions and billions' of years nonsense.
He knows better now.
I am pretty sure I can put together a similar list for people who think the moon landing was faked.
A list of real working biologists, (i.e people who actually contribute to the field and have a respectable publication record) who accept ToE would be the size of the yellow pages.
I have been in the molecular biology field for about 15 years, worked in 5 or 6 labs and I have never once come across a creationist.
BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Please... I'm BEGGING you... at least wait until beer-thirty before springing such a whopper on me!
now, let's see here...
Sure it does, since Macro evolution had to have a start, and if life cannot come from non-life, there is no Evolution(sic)-(sic)period.
hrmn... abiogenesis being necessary for the ToE (speciation due to mutation and selection in the populations of imperfectly self-replicating living organisms)... ahhh, nope: Doesn't really matter how life got started - the ToE only applies once a population of imperfectly self-replicating living organisms, competing for resources and subject to environmental factors, is extant. Abiogenesis, alien seeding, a glowing skypixie waving his phallus... makes no nevermind how the population arose.
I truly dislike having to reiterate simple explanations, so, please, have you got it?
I doubt you do (or will admit that you have if you do) but you cannot henceforth honestly claim to have never been informed of the distinction.
As a side note: Will you PLEASE ask your puppetmasters to concretely define what your side means by the term "kind", and get them to set a fixed standard of where they hold "micro" evolution is seperated from "macro" evolution - including an explanation of mechanism by which accumulations of minor mutation-based alterations in phenotype CANNOT add up to speciation? That'd be a help, and would be uncharacteristically polite of your side to do.
As to this: How could any Creationist make that statement when Evolution hasn't proven that life can come from non-life.(sic: "?")
Creationist participants on these CREVO threads have made variations of that very statement ("But living things DESIGNED THAT EXPERIMENT, so all that proves is that Intelligent Design is a fact and that life still came from life!") in response to opponents who have made statements to the effect that sooner or later biological scientists WILL take inert components and create living organisms.
Now, again, PLEASE: wait another 45 minutes or so before posting another staggeringly funny demonstration of nonsense. Make that an hour - surviving another such exemplar of lunacy will take more than one bottle of MGD.
Thanks for reminding me that a prime is coming up.
de nada, jefe!
500
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.