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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
FR does have a rudimentary "spell check" too. (It even adds HTML tags.)
Not only are creationists attacking science, they're even going after English.
D: Got a reference for this?
Here's the reference (from a previous post of mine):
"Not only are creationists attacking science, they're even going after English."
Hey. If Aramaic and Hebrew was good enough for Jesus, then English doesn't matter. Right?
"...we have scientists constantly saying that evolution is not a theory but a proven fact."
Evolution is both a theory and a fact. It happens in nature, it is observable, it is testible and predictions can be made based on it. That's a fact. Organisms evolve It's also the theory that describes the fact as it appears in nature.
You weren't trying to pass on the tired creationist lie that "theory" means "guess," were you?
I see that you not only don't understand science, you also don't understand people.
Yay! Einstein quotes! My turn!
Thus I came...to a deep religiosity, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of 12. Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached a conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true....Suspicion against every kind of authority grew out of this experience...an attitude which has never left me.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
~Albert Einstein, March 24, 1954
During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man's own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests.
~Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium
Well some of those on your list are medical doctors, who are really Bachelors of Medicine, basically technicians, not scientists
And even some of the "real doctors" are also jokes
Do you know the meaning of the word "plagiarism"? To pass of the verbatim arguments of others as if they were your own work is deceitful. Fortunately your incomprehension of the issues was abundantly clear from your earlier posts, so it was easy to see that you just presented a cut-and-paste (from a particularly inane and stupid website source) as your own thoughts.
OK, I've spotted that you are a Loki troll now going for the comedy vote. Pretending to be ignorant for laughs.
Try post 52 here.
More evidence than any reasonable person would be able to wave away.
It is highly amusing that creationists make statements like this and then, without a trace of irony, accuse evolutionists of equivocating the word 'evolution'.
Seriously, why is it "silly" to define the scope of what the ToE addresses?
And indeed several of the Steves are Nobel Laureates. How many living Nobel Laureates on your list, Nathan? And have you counted the Steves on your list of medical doctors and professors of linguistics?
Nah, this is the way the evolution debate usually goes.
Creationist: Theres NO evidence.
Scientist (GCSE standard or above): Heres a bunch of it.
Creationist: *fingers in ears; eyes closed* Theres NO evidence. Oh and heres why carbon dating sucks. And here are ten scientists who believe in God.
A theory that all other theories are wrong. Hmmmm. Sounds like religion to me.
There are more scientists than that named "Steve" on the evolution side of things.
Which is why you occasionally run across a geologist who finds ID convincing, or a biologist who is worried that the young-earth geological arguments have some substance.
When I asked about these "predictions" and what was the next evolutionary development we are likely to witness, I was directed to a link that described "retrodictions" and other linquistic contrivances that explain the "predictions" are not predictions at all.
Be real - how much stock would you put in the "predictive" powers of someone who can only "predict" the past?
Because, BY DEFINITION, Evolution is the study of the Origin of Species, NOT the Origin of Life. You know it and every other Creationist knows it. Why do you keep spouting things when you KNOW they are bogus?
Now, if you want to have a discussion on the Origin of Life, then post a thread concerning Abiogenesis or the Creation. You will find many who will gladly discuss that with you, and the scientific side will not talk about evolution.
Just because Creation covers everything, doesn't mean that Science must operate the same way.
I use Carbon-14 dating all the time. Could you please elaborate on the flaws? For example, the date I received a few months ago of cal. 7140? What's wrong with that one?
Limits to effectiveness and margins for error count as serious flaws to creationists.
Quite a lot if that person keeps finding valuable mineral deposits for an example from another field, or who predicts in advance of mapping genomes what similarities they will have with the genomes of other species for an evolutionary biology example.
I don't put a lot of stock in people who raise bogus objections to the numerous (some of them startling) predictions made by the theory of evolution. For example it was predicted that a fossil sequence from land-mammals to whales would be found, and eventually it was. How would ID predict that?
Does my philosophy mean that if I were a scientist you would include me on your list?
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, the species could evolve in an unexpected manner. How accurate would you have to be to pass the test? And the experiment would take a long time.
Has this been tried at all?
"How can they speak on a subject that they admit ignorance of."
Overflowing Confidence plus brimming biblical ignorance combined w/ the foundation of pride = arrogance.
Didn't I see you on the OJ jury? That explains a lot!
Thanks. I skimmed it and it looks like a good read. I'll save it for later.
Well, come on now - certainly we agree that there are biological "things" outside the scope of evolutionary biological science. This point is made time and again on these threads: furball4paws reiterated it again to me in post #170.
Now why on God's green earth (colorful language intended) is it so friggin' unacceptable to articulate this point regarding biological "things" - to students who are there to learn about biological "things"?
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.