Skip to comments.Witness: 'Intelligent Design' doesn't qualify as science [Day 4 of trial in Dover, PA]
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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
You've got it wrong - scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past. And that is remarkable.
The Piltdown Man hoax is a perfect example - evolutionists weren't fooled, because Piltdown Man didn't conform to what they were expecting to find. Because Piltdown Man didn't fit with the predictions, they suspected that it was a phony from the start.
That's why all the evolution hoaxes have been exposed by scientists. We can make predictions about what we'll find in the future.
Scientists approach all new data with skepticism, even if that data would appear to support existing theory. That dilligence is what separates science from faith, and evolutionists from creationists.
This I gotta see. Do you have a quick link?
How would ID predict that?
I'm not sure that ID is any better at predicting than the ToE.
OK, so you could look at two victims, a glove, a white dog...etc. and know that OJ will make a hole in one - next week?
For example, I know the pathway for naphthalene degradation in a species of Pseudomonas. I can predict what will happen if I feed it a non-natural halogenated naphthalene. After doing this type of thing for awhile, my predictions get real good. But this only an incremental step in the modification of a species (small step).
If, however, I take that same bacterium and feed it benzpyrene, my predictions are likely to be wrong unless they are very general (big step).
Ain't no problem with that as long as you don't call it a flaw in the TOE.
BTW you'll have to do better than "things" if you want a substantive answer.
Try "feeling lucky" on "whale fossil sequence".
"For example, the date I received a few months ago of cal. 7140? What's wrong with that one?"
Because any idiot knows it is really 7147 (/sarcasm)
as long as you don't call it a flaw in the TOE
I don't think I ever described it as a "flaw". The point is: we are talking about learnin' these youngun's 'bout BI-O-LO-GEE. Why can't we try to make things clear for them?...you know the subject of evolution and origins is often confused, don't ya' think?
The point is: we are talking about learnin' these youngun's 'bout BI-O-LO-GEE. Why can't we try to make things clear for them?...you know the subject of evolution and origins is often confused, don't ya' think?
"Origins" means something else. That's outside the scope of biology. Evolution does not address the origin of life. That's not a failure of evolution any more than it is a failure of astronomy, which doesn't address the origin of life either.
That is, unless you're talking about the origin of species, a subject on which there is little real debate.
The subject of evolution is "often confused" because creationists insist on pretending that their personal belief is somehow every bit as scientifically valid. Stop the silly politics such as this nonsense from the Dover school board, and there won't be nearly so much confusion.
The answer to poor eduction is not to replace it with even worse education.
??...you know the subject of evolution and origins is often confused, don't ya' think?"
Only with Creationists.
I'm not sure what Dimensio meant by "things", but I would like to know what you mean.
So what exactly is a Ph.D, D.Th.? Any ideas?
I'm guessing from the authoritative tone of the article he wrote it must mean its somehow related to a nuclear physics discipline. Am I right?
"It is true that it would be an interesting experiment to take a section of some species population from an environment, dump it in a different, but habitable environment and predict the effects of evolution."
Thing is: that would be a very long experiment, requiring several human generations at least. It's a good one, though. Perhaps you can set up the initial group and see that it is funded for the next few thousand years.
I mean the "origin of life". Seems to me that it is a concept that should be discussed in a life sciences class. Just because the ToE doesn't address "origin of life", why do we have to avoid inquiry into this area. It is a "life science"/biology issue.
As for only creationists being confused by the "origin of species" / "origin of life" demarcation, I know that to be a bogus assessment on your part.
later read placemarker
Thanks for the direction - I began reading through the information - my initial thoughts (I must admit) are: O no, not another horse evolution sequence. 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.
I'll check into it a little closer later. Thanks.