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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
That's how you see it, but I made a statement of fact. To me that's not 'beating science with a stick'. I am not a "certain section of 'the church'".
Perhaps you are overly sensitive with this subject and have misinterpreted my comment.
Pove 99% of scientists are evolutionists I meant.
Newton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo..... A bunch of nobodies, huh?
Bravo, pick out the ones that were around before Darwin. [applauds sarcastically]
What rules are these? They can't be very robust as we have scientists constantly saying that evolution is not a theory but a proven fact.
If anything is obvious in this debate it is that the science can be highly subjective and the scientific method in practice does not stop wishful thinking, herd mentality and desire for personal fame from masquerading as science.
Ah the reporters right to lie and publish them.
Pick out the ones that were responsible for most of what we know as science. You're presuming to know that if the ToE was in existence at that time that these men would have undoubtably believed in it. How arrogant to assume that you know what's in someone else's minds and speak for them.
The inverted commas meant you werent meant to take the church bit too literally. You are repeating arguments made by certain sections of the church, hence the connection.
I can also infer from your statement of fact that you agree with their line of reasoning. And that is why I am arguing against it to you. Capiche?
Francis Bacon (15611626) * Johann Kepler (15711630) (WOH) Scientific astronomy * Athanasius Kircher (16011680) Inventor * John Wilkins (16141672) * Walter Charleton (16191707) President of the Royal College of Physicians * Blaise Pascal (biography page) and article from Creation magazine (16231662) Hydrostatics; Barometer * Sir William Petty (1623 1687) Statistics; Scientific economics * Robert Boyle (16271691) (WOH) Chemistry; Gas dynamics * John Ray (16271705) Natural history * Isaac Barrow (16301677) Professor of Mathematics * Nicolas Steno (16311686) Stratigraphy * Thomas Burnet (16351715) Geology * Increase Mather (16391723) Astronomy * Nehemiah Grew (16411712) Medical Doctor, Botany
The Age of Newton
* Isaac Newton (16421727) (WOH) Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light (wrote more about the Bible than science, and emphatically affirmed a Creator. Some have accused him of Arianism, but its likely he held to a heterodox form of the TrinitySee Pfizenmaier, T.C., Was Isaac Newton an Arian? Journal of the History of Ideas 68(1):5780, 1997)
* Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz (16461716) Mathematician * John Flamsteed (16461719) Greenwich Observatory Founder; Astronomy * William Derham (16571735) Ecology * Cotton Mather (16621727) Physician * John Harris (16661719) Mathematician * John Woodward (16651728) Paleontology * William Whiston (16671752) Physics, Geology * John Hutchinson (16741737) Paleontology * Johathan Edwards (17031758) Physics, Meteorology * Carolus Linneaus (17071778) Taxonomy; Biological classification system * Jean Deluc (17271817) Geology * Richard Kirwan (17331812) Mineralogy * William Herschel (17381822) Galactic astronomy; Uranus (probably believed in an old-earth) * James Parkinson (17551824) Physician (old-earth compromiser*) * John Dalton (17661844) Atomic theory; Gas law * John Kidd, M.D. (17751851) Chemical synthetics (old-earth compromiser*)
Just Before Darwin
* The 19th Century Scriptural Geologists, by Dr Terry Mortenson * Timothy Dwight (17521817) Educator * William Kirby (17591850) Entomologist * Jedidiah Morse (17611826) Geographer * Benjamin Barton (17661815) Botanist; Zoologist * John Dalton (17661844) Father of the Modern Atomic Theory; Chemistry * Georges Cuvier (17691832) Comparative anatomy, paleontology (old-earth compromiser*) * Samuel Miller (17701840) Clergy * Charles Bell (17741842) Anatomist * John Kidd (17751851) Chemistry * Humphrey Davy (17781829) Thermokinetics; Safety lamp * Benjamin Silliman (17791864) Mineralogist (old-earth compromiser*) * Peter Mark Roget (17791869) Physician; Physiologist * Thomas Chalmers (17801847) Professor (old-earth compromiser*) * David Brewster (17811868) Optical mineralogy, Kaleidoscope (probably believed in an old-earth) * William Buckland (17841856) Geologist (old-earth compromiser*) * William Prout (17851850) Food chemistry (probably believed in an old-earth) * Adam Sedgwick (17851873) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) * Michael Faraday (17911867) (WOH) Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator * Samuel F.B. Morse (17911872) Telegraph * John Herschel (17921871) Astronomy (old-earth compromiser*) * Edward Hitchcock (17931864) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) * William Whewell (17941866) Anemometer (old-earth compromiser*) * Joseph Henry (17971878) Electric motor; Galvanometer
Just After Darwin
* Richard Owen (18041892) Zoology; Paleontology (old-earth compromiser*) * Matthew Maury (18061873) Oceanography, Hydrography (probably believed in an old-earth*) * Louis Agassiz (18071873) Glaciology, Ichthyology (old-earth compromiser, polygenist*) * Henry Rogers (18081866) Geology * James Glaisher (18091903) Meteorology * Philip H. Gosse (18101888) Ornithologist; Zoology * Sir Henry Rawlinson (18101895) Archeologist * James Simpson (18111870) Gynecology, Anesthesiology * James Dana (18131895) Geology (old-earth compromiser*) * Sir Joseph Henry Gilbert (18171901) Agricultural Chemist * James Joule (18181889) Thermodynamics * Thomas Anderson (18191874) Chemist * Charles Piazzi Smyth (18191900) Astronomy * George Stokes (18191903) Fluid Mechanics * John William Dawson (18201899) Geology (probably believed in an old-earth*) * Rudolph Virchow (18211902) Pathology * Gregor Mendel (18221884) (WOH) Genetics * Louis Pasteur (18221895) (WOH) Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization * Henri Fabre (18231915) Entomology of living insects * William Thompson, Lord Kelvin (18241907) Energetics; Absolute temperatures; Atlantic cable (believed in an older earth than the Bible indicates, but far younger than the evolutionists wanted*) * William Huggins (18241910) Astral spectrometry * Bernhard Riemann (18261866) Non-Euclidean geometries * Joseph Lister (18271912) Antiseptic surgery * Balfour Stewart (18281887) Ionospheric electricity * James Clerk Maxwell (18311879) (WOH) Electrodynamics; Statistical thermodynamics * P.G. Tait (18311901) Vector analysis * John Bell Pettigrew (18341908) Anatomist; Physiologist * John Strutt, Lord Rayleigh (18421919) Similitude; Model Analysis; Inert Gases * Sir William Abney (18431920) Astronomy * Alexander MacAlister (18441919) Anatomy * A.H. Sayce (18451933) Archeologist * John Ambrose Fleming (18491945) Electronics; Electron tube; Thermionic valve
* Dr Clifford Burdick, Geologist * George Washington Carver (18641943) Inventor * L. Merson Davies (18901960) Geology; Paleontology * Douglas Dewar (18751957) Ornithologist * Howard A. Kelly (18581943) Gynecology * Paul Lemoine (18781940) Geology * Dr Frank Marsh, Biology * Dr John Mann, Agriculturist, biological control pioneer * Edward H. Maunder (18511928) Astronomy * William Mitchell Ramsay (18511939) Archeologist * William Ramsay (18521916) Isotopic chemistry, Element transmutation * Charles Stine (18821954) Organic Chemist * Dr Arthur Rendle-Short (18851955) Surgeon * Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (18921979) Surgeon * Dr Larry Butler, Biochemist * Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997) * Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (19151995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
Just to name a few.
Eight families are trying to have intelligent design removed from the curriculum, arguing that it violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
It's only Congress and the thing they cannot do is pass any law. It does not "guarantee" the seperation of church and state; it prohibits Congress from meddling with churches and establishing as state church as existed in England.
My list has those
I dont assume they would be evolutionists, but I think its laughable to offer them up as doubters when the theory you are contesting didnt really exist at the time (and incidently is outside their notable fields).
Presumably you would offer Hippocrates beliefs as evidence that the elements are earth, air, fire and water.
To an extent. That's why I'm still bothering to respond.
Show one hypothesis of evolution that can be tested.
Every time a new fossil is found, the TOE is tested.
I guess you thought wrong. Those on my list all thought of creationism.
A fossel has never been found which proves anything evolutionist claim.
Further, carbon dating is seriously flawed. A "guess" based on a flawed formula.
Why does that mean Ive thought wrong? It just means the same comments apply to bits of your list.
All it proves every time a fossil is found is that something was alive at one point and now is dead. That doesn't "prove" it evolved.
A fossel has never been found which proves anything evolutionist claim. Further, carbon dating is seriously flawed. A "guess" based on a flawed formula.
I can tell from this response we have no basis for further discussion.