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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
"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. "
OK. Give me a list of his published papers on anthropological dentistry. It is a field of study. I'd be happy to go examine them.
A speech that happened somewhere, sometime (sorry you can't recall) is not evidence of his expertise, quite frankly. And you wouldn't know if he was an expert or not, since you can't even remember where or when you heard him speak.
Scientists doing research like this publish their research. So, let's see it.
Theory or no, it certainly is an EXPLANATION for a current area of ignorance.
So is claiming that my cat created the universe and all in it Last Thursday. That doesn't mean that it should be presented as a viable scientific alternative.
Exactly. Not all explanations are equally valid. That's why we deal in theories.
Words mean things. ID isn't a "theory" in the scientific meaning of the word. There are no alternative notions that get anywhere close to fufilling the basic requirements for a scientific theory, which is why evolution is the only one worth talking about in science classes.
Don't get freudian on us now!
"Theory or no, it certainly is an EXPLANATION for a current area of ignorance."
OK. God did it. That's their explanation. Pretty hard to test that theory, isn't it?
And which deity do they think was the one? There are so many that it's hard to sort out. Some of them gave birth to the universe. Some spoke it into existence.
What experiments will we use to figure out which deity or "intelligent entity" did all of this?
I mean, when you put on your "evolution sunglasses" and you look at data you see evolution in the data.
Why not look at the data in the pure, true light?
Please don't. Please.
OK, there, I did some research on Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, and here's a list of his publications. Oddly, they don't appear to be scientific publications, except perhaps the Journal of the New Jersey Dental Society. I'll have to see what that article was about:
I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense.
You have it backwards. Evolution is the only theory that matches the data. Those who would like to pretend that evolution doesn't exist are the ones who refuse to acknowledge data.
There is plenty of evidence to support the Theory of Evolution. The more evidence that we find, the stronger the theory is. Where's the evidence for creationism, other than you want it to be so?
Hold on Nellie, I'm just trying to humanize this here discussion (I could have easily left out the part of my absent-mindedness). Anyway, I think he published something, a book perhaps - heck, I'm not his agent. I just amused myself by realizing that I had indeed heard of the one guy that a previous poster had singled out as a persona-non-scientista.
... soon to be a major motion picture, starring Raquel Welch.
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?
Well, he's busier than I'd ever have known. Thanks. His presentation was interesting to me, though, as I said earlier "I am not a scientist" which inadvertently dismisses everything I heard that fine day (or was it night?)
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?
I should have read all of the posts before commenting on Mr. Zachary's thievery.
ROTFLMAO!
hehehe! GMTA. :-)
Digging further, there is some interesting evidence regarding his work on the dentition of Neanderthal man. It appears that he claimed to have discovered some new bones of a Neanderthal skeleton that had been studied. Apparently, he based part of his book on these new "bones." Sadly, when he submitted them to a museum, they were found to be pieces of rock, not bones, and not fossils. He's still arguing that he was right, but the analysys from the museum appears to be pretty conclusive.
A search on his name will bring up all this information.
If he lied about the bones, what else did he lie about? It's not nice to lie, even if it's in the name of a deity. Not nice at all.
I will leave the decision on who's telling the truth to the examination of anyone interested enough to do the search. Here's the site where the investigator demonstrates that the bones are not bones and not fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/stringercuozzo.html
Here's Cuozzo's site, where he tries to weasel out of the controversy:
http://www.jackcuozzo.com/
Scroll down.
Sure there is. The unicorn genome, dragon fossils, and the radioactive decay patterns of dilthium crystals, to name but three examples.
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.