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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
Is Intelligent Design a theory then?
It appears the fraud was in your education. Seek a refund.
It would clear it up to my satisfaction if the 2nd paragraph was omitted. Well, you could keep the last sentence.
"Darwin doesn't even qualify metaphorically for that part of the example. He was a bitter hack who turned his back on God and his theory was one of the results -- flawed, tortured, sick (as in lacking wellness) -- as was he. "
Oh, my! Isn't that special?
Oh, by the way, your slip is showing....
scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past.
Whoa, dude - sounds like thought conditioning.
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.
Methinks you have fallen for the: evolutionist scientist is good scientist / creationist scientist is bad scientist ruse.
Let's be real here - the evolutionist scientist can be a good or bad scientist AND the creationist scientist can be a good or bad scientist (just like his/her evolutionist brother/sister). The creationist scientist though would assuredly be a bad "evolutionary" scientist, but, I'm sure he/she can live with that.
Good post Coyoteman. Very interesting.
A "creation science" can of course be a "good" scientist. He could apply the scientific method to his specific field and not to the rest of science. Makes him a great scientist within his field, but for other branches, not so much.
A dentist?
Actually, I heard this guy speak somewhere (can't quite recall where)...anyway he gave an in-depth presentation on his analysis of the dental remains and skulls of human fossils. I thought it was pretty interesting, but, since I'm not a scientist, and he's not a scientist (at least you think he's not a scientist) that should be enough to totally dismiss anything he would ever have to say about the "pure science of paleontology".
One of the most important parts of a scientific theory is that it must be falsifiable. Evolution is falsifiable by many different methods, such as finding species that the theory predicts are "new" intermingled with species the theory predicts are "old". Claims of such finds have never been sufficiently solid to cause evolution a problem, in comparison to the overwelming volume of finds in the "proper" sequence.
The Intelligent Design hypothesis, on the other hand, cannot be falsified. The "intelligence" could do anything, on any whim, in any sequence, and thus it makes no predictions about what we should find. ID cannot be falsified by studying any evidence, because anything we find can be explained as being created by the "intelligence".
"By definition science can't address anything that's not naturalistic. How many times do we need to state this before it sinks in?"
It won't sink in. Some surfaces aren't porous.
Now what do we argue about?
Oops, sorry I inadvertently missed your answer to my earlier question.
scientists can predict what we will learn in the future about the past.
Whoa, dude - sounds like thought conditioning.
Nonsense. That's the hallmark of a good theory - it predicts future discoveries. We know there are gaps in the fossil record, and we can speculate on their nature based on what we already know. And this has borne out time and time again.
"Thought conditioning?" What do you mean?
false statement.
Well, gee. I don't know. Some say 'tis and some say 'taint. Theory or no, it certainly is an EXPLANATION for a current area of ignorance.
Ichneumon is the Big Dog of fossil links
Vade is up there as well :-)
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.