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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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 know lots of scientists, and not one is named "Steve." Obviously, this is a bogus list, and therefore, the TOE is wrong. < /sarcasm >
Science doesn't 'prove' things, rather, it attempts to 'disprove' them. Any theory must have some aspect that can be tested to see if it is falsifiable. All scientific theories are like that, including evolution. Thus far, evolution fits the observed evidence better than any other explanation and has not been falsified, nor is there a theory that can better explain the information observed.
Bad argument!
They were all dead before TOE was introduced.
In a single word - Flapdoodle!
That reminds me of when I took physics, and we kept talking about an electric field around an infinite wire. I know it was presented that way in order to simplify the mathmatics, but I got so hung up on the impossibility of an infinite wire that I couldn't grasp the mathmatics. For me, it would have been better to present the equations with all the modifications necessary to describe the distortions of electric field at the wire ends, because I can believe a finite wire.
that simply is NOT TRUE. it has been completely falsified, over and over again. tell whaty you think hasn't, And i will show you it has. ID does better explain the "information observed" (whatever information your claiming is observed without actualy saying what it is)
Another test is genetics. Evolution was conceived before genetics was even known. With genetics, hereditary relationships between species can and is observed. There are many more such predictive tests. Look at the scientific literature if you want over a million pages of such information.
"NO fossel record exists. Your monkey man was a fraud. try again."
I know Piltdown Man was a fraud. *smacks head on table*
That fossil you posted about was found almost 20 years after Piltdown Man was found to be a fraud, and so has absolutely no relevance to the point I was making.
Ichy[can’t remember the rest of his username] has the best demonstration of the fossil record I’ve seen. I will have to do some Googling to find something that demonstrates it nearly as well.
Someone needs to call the lawyers for the school board, have them read this post, then cross examine the thoughtful, fair, unbaised, non-leftist Dr. Robert - and ask him why he makes his living denying God.
After all I keep reading about how knowing about God's existence is outside the realm of science because you can't find evidence that supports it, I am astonished at the number of scientists who state categorically that God (a creator) does not exist. How can they speak on a subject that they admit ignorance of.
I understand fully! :-)
ml1954 is basically saying that you have no understanding of science, biology or evolution and what you are posting has nothing to do with archeology or biology. I agree with him. Your statements clearly show you have never studied the subject and are making gross errors in your statements. Stating those errors demonstrates that you do not have the knowledge to discuss evolution since you do not even know what it means. If you, or anyone else, wants to argue about evolution, you have to learn what scientists mean by evolution.
The scientific method is not being used these days in many areas of "science".....scientific method requires that you examine all the data/evidence. These bigoted scientists won't even look at data/evidence outside their preconceived notion of what the answer should be.
WHAT A JOKE....intelligent design made sense to most scientists up until Darwin vomited his black box THEORY on humanity. We are way beyond the black box because we are beginning to finally understand some of these highly complex systems he assumed were simple.
Physical systems and their components demonstrate methodical behaviors and patterns. This requires programming not random chance. There is so much intelligence and information embedded in every single atom, only a fool, once they have actually looked at it with an open mind, could dismiss design over random chance and absolutely improbable statistics of evolution.
Good luck with that. :-)
Einstein never believed in a personal god of creation. Einstein's closest views on creatron would best be described as a hands off, distant type of god that set things in motion and let evolution take it's course. Too many creationists hijack Einstein's comments as an indication he was deeply religious. He was not.
Wow! what a "scientific" refutation. it is in step with the rest of 'evolution flapddoodle, er I mean theory.
Radiocarbon dating, especially using the Carbon 14 method, takes advantage of the radioactive decay of the isotope, which is seen as a constant. Every living thing takes in and expels Carbon 14 while it is alive, and a static level of the element is maintained. When the organism dies, the infusion is suspended, and the level is reduced according to the rate of decay, known as the “half-life.” The amount of Carbon 14 in the artifact is measured and then compared to the presumed static level the organism maintained while alive; the comparison then yields the relative age of the specimen. Though this sounds very straightforward and scientific, there are several serious problems.
The first problem is seen in the very approach in the presumption that must be made in the level of Carbon 14 the organism had while living. Here we have a critical calculation that is based upon an assumption that an organism which lived thousands of years previous, of which there are no modern species to compare, developed a specific level of Carbon 14 from an environment we know nothing about. If for example, the presumption is inaccurate by only 10%, considering that it is the rate of decay that forms the mathematical constant, the inaccuracy of the calculation of age at the upper limit would be tens of thousands of years.
The very basis for the assumption above is another problem, and is perhaps the most embarrassing for the proponents of radiocarbon dating. To assume a particular level of Carbon 14 in an organism requires a precise determination of environmental (atmospheric) levels of the same. That is, to presume a particular level in a living thing requires a precise knowledge of the ambient amount of Carbon 14 in the air and environment. Scientists performing radiocarbon dating assume that the amount in the environment has not changed. This is compelling for several reasons, not the least of which is the convenience with which “science” apparently operates; we hear of massive changes in the earth, ice ages, catastrophic events that killed the dinosaurs, etc., but the environment never changed according to the same scientists.
Not only does the requisite level of assumption and presumption all but invalidate the accuracy of the claims of very old dating, but were there for example, an environmental phenomenon that affected the level of ambient Carbon 14, the results could be skewed exponentially. In fact, several such phenomena did indeed exist, proven by the same science that supports old-age radiocarbon dating! It would seem quite clear that some predisposition or predilection for particular findings in terms of dating artifacts is at work in this case. For example, consider that it is essentially accepted that an antediluvian water canopy existed surrounding the earth; this would have acted to either negate or at least significantly reduce the effect of cosmic, x-ray, and ultraviolet radiation in the upper atmosphere. Carbon 14 production would have been negligible, and therefore would not have been absorbed by living things; any organism living before the reduction of the canopy would in turn be dated exponentially older than it actually is. Or consider the effect a global atmospheric shield of dust created as a result of a meteor impact some scientists believe killed off the dinosaurs—levels of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere must certainly have been different, thereby invalidating the age/date test data. Isn’t it funny how the same scientists who purport constant catastrophic changes in earth’s history depend upon the inherent necessity that it was completely without any changes?
Moreover, it is established fact that the earth’s magnetic field has been in a constant decline in strength2, which would have vigorously protected the earth from the same radiation, all but negating the production of Carbon 14 and thereby minimizing the ambient amount available for absorption by living things. Yet these two facts are virtually unknown in modern society, and it seems never associated with radiometric dating, apparently since it would put such method (and indeed its findings) in doubt as to its reliability.
Another fact, which proves quite embarrassing to “old-age” proponents in regard to radiometric dating, is the half-life of Carbon 14 itself. Not only is the actual half-life length itself in some contention, but the effect it would have on the upper limits of its capability in dating illustrates clearly the level of fraud that has been foisted on an unsuspecting society. Consider that Carbon 14’s half-life is around 5,630 years 3 (though estimates range from 5,300 to 5,700 years); in only ten cycles of this, there would be nothing left to measure in the extant specimen! This means that the absolute maximum age radiocarbon could date a specimen to would be around 56,300 years; yet daily society is barraged with reports that some new find was dated in the hundreds of thousands, and even millions of years using Carbon 14. Actually, after the sixth cycle or so, there would not be enough Carbon 14 in the sample to be measured; the upper limit then would be around 30,000 years.
This leads to yet another inherent problem in the use of radiometric dating which would seem virtually insurmountable, and is caused by the presence of environmental Carbon 14 itself, ironically, the phenomenon scientists exploit in the determination of date of origin. Simply stated, it is nearly impossible to preclude contamination that seriously affects the results of the measurement. The levels of Carbon 14 in any “old” artifact are extremely low; because of this, it is virtually impossible to prevent the test and measurement equipment from picking up residual or background environmental Carbon 14 not associated with the specimen.
Further, most artifacts by their very nature are found in and around various forms of rock, which provide several sources of additional radiation. This has the concomitant effect of providing a source of neutrino radiation; Carbon 14 decay is accelerated in the presence of such bombardment, and again the effect would be to cause the specimen to appear much older than it actually is. This effect cannot be overstated in regard to the estimates of age—a less than 5% reduction in the extant amount of Carbon 14 in the specimen, owing to the “constant” of its half-life will yield a factor of 5 times the actual age. Imagine the effect on science if an artifact dated at 45,000 years is actually only 9,000; the possibilities are staggering.
The foregoing is but a few examples of the problems with Carbon 14; many more examples could be given, as well as some documented, glaring failures such as live clams being dated at 1,500 years, and parchment documents from the 17th century being dated to the 4th. The point however, is that radiocarbon dating has serious problems in terms of reliability and veracity, and its use is at best quite limited. On the other hand, there is an obvious dichotomy in these problems and the lack of common knowledge regarding them; it would seem that there should be some explanation why the vast majority of society is so unaware of the spurious nature of the science behind radiocarbon dating. That is, since science is ostensibly clinical and without emotion, the most likely cause of the dearth of knowledge of the limitations, fallacies, and vulnerabilities in this method is man himself—a manifestation of his own biases and predilections. This is the subject of the next division.
Whereas in the foregoing the physical and scientific limitations and problems of using Carbon 14 dating has been examined, the human effect and influence on the science is often underestimated; this could be illustrated essentially in the rhetorical "Why?"
That is, since the use of Carbon 14 in radiometric dating has several glaring and seemingly irreducible problems that almost certainly cast doubt on its results, this begs the question of “why” it is used at all, or at least why it would be considered accurate. It would seem quite clear that some bias is at work in the published results of dating activities, and therefore the motivation for fostering erroneous (or at least misleading) findings is suspect.
It would also seem however that it is not so much what the proponents are trying to present as much as what they are trying to prevent. That is, the view is held because a suitable alternative is not available—evolution depends on the great age of living things—the alternative is creation by God, and this is unacceptable to many, especially it seems, scientists. (Though there are indeed many scientists who believe in special Creation by God). This lack of alternative is sufficient motivation for some to ignore the obvious problems with radiocarbon dating, as long as their “religion” of the theory of evolution remains intact. It is somehow appropriate that the theory itself has the same type of problems as the dating methods that support it. The question of “why” is however yet unanswered; it boggles the mind to think that many scientists, ostensibly known for their dedication to truth, objectivity and scholarship would entertain such a problematic system, seemingly at all costs.
It may be that the answer can be found, appropriately enough, in the same place as the account of the creation of man, the Book of Genesis. In the story about the fall into sin, it would seem that the motivations are essentially the same:
"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."
(Genesis 3:4-5
Here are the two great motivations that underlie the motivation for following after evolution and its requisite dating: for absent God, there is no accountability; absent God creating, then evolution and man would be the height of achievement, the top of the scale. Note that the serpent is trying to convince Eve that she will not be held accountable, that the results God had warned of would not be applicable to her; man has sought to be free from accountability ever since. Note also that man’s (Eve’s) status would change, that he would be as high up the scale as any other created thing, perhaps beyond.
Evolution provides both of these things at once, and apparently man’s desire for them is greater than he has for the truth. Just as the progenitor of mankind, Eve, was misled by the serpent, society today is being misled regarding the sufficiency and truth of what science really purports; the great irony is that it is apparently for the same reason.
Well none of them accepted Atomic Theory, Electromagnetic Theory, or the Germ Theory of Disease
So that's three strikes against them
There is NO fossel record which proves evolution. Not one. Nothing. No hobbit bones, Nothing.
Haha! Funny you should mention hobbits:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3948165.stm
But it's kind of beside the point.
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.