Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]

Sioux City Journal ^ | 29 September 2005 | Staff

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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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

[wyattearp]

You mean, like stealing your nic?

Didn't steal it. It's been mine since I was a kid.

[Coyoteman]

he FACT is, Carbon dating is flawed, very inaccurate, and used only to bend time to fit the ridiculous theory of evolutionists

Did you even read my post #211 to you? I spent over an hour on it and it looks like your comments are identical to what you were saying before I posted.

Have you had time to read it or are you ignoring it?

[bvw]

Actually he's a tiler.

"The Emperor's New Mind"

[GretchenM]

I didn't ignore it, I pointed out the other parts of the definition.

When there are no facts to refute a theory, the theory is taken as an assumption for the most likely cause of something. When there are facts, the theory, to be scientifically acceptable, must be taught as a theory and it is essential to proper scientific practices to include other explanations.

[Thatcherite]

Let me see if I got this: We don't know where life came from, we don't know where matter came from, we don't know where nothing came from - BUT - we sure know that it wasn't created. Do I got it?

No, you not got it.

Science can say nothing either way about the supernatural claims like "creation". Science is the study of the natural. Science can say that phenomenon x appears to have the following explanation which may contradict some religions. If you have one of those religious faiths that may present a problem to you. For example the Bible used to be cited as a clear authority for a stationary earth at the centre of creation, but this denial over time just made the Christian church look very, very stupid. Christianity also resisted lightning rods, as attempting to defy God's manifest will that certain buildings should be destroyed. Problem was the brothel with a lightning rod got spared, while the nearby church got hit. How could God be resisted so easily? Let's have that St Augustine quote again.

"Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience .... Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics."

I know from reason and experience that the theory of evolution is broadly true. The evidence for it in numerous correlating fields of study is literally overwhelming. "Disgraceful and dangerous" sums it up the entirely religiously inspired resistance to it perfectly.

[furball4paws]

"It won't sink in. Some surfaces aren't porous."

Do you suppose it could be so porous that it'd just run right through?

[Oztrich Boy]

A dentist?
Half of these guys arent even professional scientists.

They wear white coats don't they? Doesn't that make them scientists?

[GretchenM]

You're crazy.

So you resort to name callng because we disagree.

You are welcome to your conclusion, flawed as it is.

[Antonello]

Ha ha. O well, I guess this is only an issue for gubmint schools, otherwise, would you be in favor of local school boards deciding what is taught without federal interference?

I've got no problem with private schools teaching ID.

I'd assume the parents would be aware of and approve of the curriculum ahead of time, and understand that some institutes of higher learning might have a requirement for evolutionary instruction as well, but that shouldn't be a problem for them. Either they could ensure their child receives both or they probably would want to choose a college that agreed with their beliefs and taught accordingly.

[Thatcherite]

I also noticed a fair amount of "making it likely", "it is known only from fragmentary skull remains" and "probably also had a tail fluke" kinds of phraseology.

The point is that we find things that fit. All of life appears to be in a nested hierarchy that evolves over time. The fossil record crushingly supports this conclusion as Darwin predicted it would (the record was much less complete 150 years ago). Millions of finds have failed to break the pattern of a nested hierarchy of being. But that is just one prediction of many. Take some time to think about these; many of these predictions are simultaneously impressive, easy to understand, and irrefutably correct, even though this wasn't known at the time the prediction was made.

[Oztrich Boy]

Months later, board member Alan Bonsell also questioned her faith, Casey Brown testified. “He told me I would be going to hell,” Brown said.
After court broke for lunch, Bonsell denied making that remark.

Now you have to ask yourself. Would a Creationist lie?

[Nathan Zachary]

" A dentist?"

If you take note, evolutionists also study teeth in their efforts to establish evolution theory. So why would a person who studies biology of teeth and draw his conclusions on the side favoring creation be disqualified and the other not?

The >phossal< record link posted by our local evolutionist on this thread shows a study by a dentist as well. Another thing to note on this so called 'fossil record link, is that there are no actual fossil records, Rather just hand drawing explaining the THEORY of fossil records they hope to some day find. Again, there is no actual fossil record that shows even a HINT of evolution.

So far, the argument presented by so called "rational thinkers" defending evolution on this thread have pointed out 1). A spelling error. 2). My neglect to repeatedly post the same link over and over again. 3). Attacking people on my list of pro-creationists in order to discredit their work which I have not even made reference to on this thread as of yet, while ignoring that many on the list of pro-evolutionists share either the same professional qualifications or do not even have a doctorate but some how that doesn't matter if they are on the evolution side of things.

My statement is 100% correct. There are NO actual real fossils found that show evidence of evolution, only drawings of a theory which has yet to be proved.

My other statement is correct, and the corresponding proof I posted is correct- that carbon dating is flawed and useless and cannot prove anything is millions or billions of years old.

The universe did not start out with a big bang. Nothing cannot explode into something. Nothing cannot explode into something for no reason.

Man did not evolve from monkey and apes. The DNA is completely different and cannot support that theory at all.

Whales did not walk into the sea. Whales have been found to be a completely unique species.

Fossils do not form over long periods of time. They are formed during catastrophic events, such as flash floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. This is proved by geological evidence which shows the 'fossil record" to be is specific layers at specific times. Otherwise the fossil record would be spread in all layer in all time periods.

Scientific observation supports creation, not evolution. The earliest known trilobite fossils show very advanced eyes. This is only possible by creation.

[furball4paws]

I'm begining to think you are right. We have beat him over the head continuously with information and facts and he's still as thick as he began. Presumably all that beating plugged up his pores.

[GretchenM]

Just by reciting a dictionary has not demonstrated you even understand scientific theories, let alone evolution. You are doing what many creationist-types are guilty of. Deliberately misleading people as to what a scientific theory is by twisting it into what a lay person would see.

And the way you obtained evidence of how inextensive my investigation of the subject is ... ?

I have done much more than read the dictionary on this. I have studied the topic, including some of Darwin's own works. If you are willing to do the research on a different POV, I recommend Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, by James Perloff He makes his argument using science and quotes many other scientific sources.

For all who come after this post and would take shots at my purported idiocy, I want to state that living things in the world do mutate or evolve. That doesn't explain the origin of life.

I have other things to do today and had no idea my post would stir up so much vitriol and personal attack, which I'm not interested in responding to, so some people's posts to me on this thread may go unanswered.

Now I am going to write something that will really stir some people's hornets' nests. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves. God created life on Earth in a perfect form: as He is, so once was His creation. Man sinned, corruption and death entered into the world. 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. That answer is Jesus Christ and all who believe in Him as Savior will inherit eternal life and receive the joy of knowing Him on this earth. All who don't, suffer the consequences now and ever after. Therefore, choose life, that you and your descendants may live.

[furball4paws]

Oops that was supposed to go to you.

[furball4paws]

Here we have it. All those fossils we've been digging up for hundreds of years are unreal and not actual fossils.

[Right Wing Professor]

Now you have to ask yourself. Would a Creationist lie?

Only on days ending in 'y'.

[stormer]

"I never claimed he did."

I'm attempting to illustrate that fact that non-PhDs have made significant contributions. Now if you had read my papers on the re-hydration of iridea or adiabatic temperature change and its impact on the distribution of dominant vegetation, you would have known that. Hey! Where the hell is my Nobel Prize?! Must be a mistake.

[RunningWolf]

We don't know where life came from, we don't know where matter came from, we don't know where nothing came from - BUT - we sure know that it wasn't created.

You got it KMJames,

The cult of cosmo-evo distilled down to its essence.

Wolf

[furball4paws]

This is such a mess that it cannot be straightened out. It ripe for the dungheap.

My 5 year old used to think he knew everything and would explain it ad nauseum. It included some entertaining stories. It was funny in a 5 year old.

Since I assume NZ is more than 5, then this is just pitiful.