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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
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.
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:
Here's Cuozzo's site, where he tries to weasel out of the controversy:
Sure there is. The unicorn genome, dragon fossils, and the radioactive decay patterns of dilthium crystals, to name but three examples.
Please note, while reading Cuozzo's pages, in which he attempts to refute the evidence that the "bones" are not bones at all that he does not even know that the symbol "Si" stands for Silicon, not Silicone. He labels his data thus: Si = Silicone.
He reveals himself to be a non-scientist and not competent to discuss the issue, since he does not know the difference between an element and a filling for breast implants. He does it more than once, so it's not a typo.
This is one of your "Scientists." Feh!
We are talking about the origin of life now - hello - is that not a part of life sciences? Just because we don't know the origin of life, we can't act like life has no origin. Since science, in everybody and their mother's words, can't explain the origin of life - are we supposed to just say "O, never mind"?
Mentioning creation or a Creator is not illogical.
After Casey Brown quit the school board Oct. 18, she testified today, two board members questioned her belief in God.
Brown was the mornings sole witness in the fourth day of the Dover school district trial over intelligent design, in federal court in Harrisburg. She said Bill Buckingham, after she handed in her resignation, called her an atheist and accused her and her husband Jeff Brown, also a former school board member, of destroying the school board.
The Browns announced they were resigning from the board immediately after it voted to include intelligent design in biology class.
Months later, board member Alan Bonsell also questioned her faith, Casey Brown testified. He told me I would be going to hell, Brown said.
After court broke for lunch, Bonsell denied making that remark.
Casey Brown will be cross-examined this afternoon.
But by the way, believing in a creator and believing in Evolution are not mutually exculsive.
Isn't that what's called "ID"?
Yes, it is, unless you've managed to find some actual scientific evidence for that Creator.
And no, "I want there to be a Creator" doesn't count. Science doesn't deal in wishful thinking. It deals in evidence.
Ha ha ha. I'll check into the Cuozzo stuff later. Perhaps I'll quit being his agent.
filling for breast implants.
Perhaps, he somehow uses breast implants for dental fillings?
We are talking about the origin of life now -
No, we aren't. You are, but that's not the subject here.
Evolution doesn't address the origins of life. Only the origins of species. That's not a failing of evolution any more than astronomy's not addressing the origin of life is a failing of astronomy.
His original thesis work, begun in 1937, was interrupted by that inconvenient little war. His PhD thesis was, oddly, enough, in X-ray diffraction. He was, by then, something of an expert.
no - you don't "got it"
natural science is limited to dealing with evidence and theories concerning that evidence - theories which explain the essentially mechanical interactions of matter and energy and which make predictions of future observations of such interactions.
We can say with a great deal of assurance that, back to a certain point, we understand the mechanics and timeline of how things have moved along. We can also, with a fair degree of certainty, debunk many superstitious stories which run counter to the mass of evidence we have available for study.
Can we absolutely prove any explanation in some ultimate sense?
No. There does not seem to be any end to the data or its variations, so no scientific explanation can ever be complete and absolutely inarguable - even setting aside absurd philosophical solipsistic quibbling on the reliablity of observation and the questionable nature of "reality".
Can we absolutely disprove any superstitious story in some ultimate sense?
Not really, no. The hypothetical existence of an OMNIPOTENT and INFINITELY SUBTLE (perhaps even DEVIOUS) and IMMATERIAL god-thing which is not detectable through direct or indirect observation cannot ever be completely dispelled, as semantical argument is not so fact-bound as science.
That's right. But, at the same time it is design that makes science possible.
How positively medvedian!
Most biology courses take a wag at abiogenesis (as distinguished from evolution) - no one is deprived.
Mentioning creation or a Creator is not illogical.
It's just not science. Do it in a comparitive religion class.
Shall we say: SWING AND A MISS.
Come on, science doesn't have a handle on the origin of life.
Yeah, what you said. I think I agree.
You're wrong again. Please, go read some of Ichneumon's posts on current abiogenesis research or some of Patrick Henry's links on the same subject before you embarrass yourself yet again.
it is being worked on.
though it seems highly unlikely that science will ever yield a "proven" explanation for the rise of life on Earth, it is entirely possible that science will provide a very solid explanation for it which fits all the evidence (and might, perhaps, in the fullness of time, be directly observable as fact in other non-terran environments)
I never claimed he did.
Math isn't science? Your science may be math-free but real science is full of it -- according to Lord Kelvin (but perhaps you don't know him) it isn't science without numbers.
Didn't steal it. It's been mine since I was a kid.
Did you even read my post #211 to you? I spent over an hour on it and it looks like your comments are identical to what you were saying before I posted.
Have you had time to read it or are you ignoring it?
"The Emperor's New Mind"
When there are no facts to refute a theory, the theory is taken as an assumption for the most likely cause of something. When there are facts, the theory, to be scientifically acceptable, must be taught as a theory and it is essential to proper scientific practices to include other explanations.
No, you not got it.
Science can say nothing either way about the supernatural claims like "creation". Science is the study of the natural. Science can say that phenomenon x appears to have the following explanation which may contradict some religions. If you have one of those religious faiths that may present a problem to you. For example the Bible used to be cited as a clear authority for a stationary earth at the centre of creation, but this denial over time just made the Christian church look very, very stupid. Christianity also resisted lightning rods, as attempting to defy God's manifest will that certain buildings should be destroyed. Problem was the brothel with a lightning rod got spared, while the nearby church got hit. How could God be resisted so easily? Let's have that St Augustine quote again.
"Usually even a non-Christian knows something about the Earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience .... Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for a non-believer to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics."
I know from reason and experience that the theory of evolution is broadly true. The evidence for it in numerous correlating fields of study is literally overwhelming. "Disgraceful and dangerous" sums it up the entirely religiously inspired resistance to it perfectly.
"It won't sink in. Some surfaces aren't porous."
Do you suppose it could be so porous that it'd just run right through?
They wear white coats don't they? Doesn't that make them scientists?
So you resort to name callng because we disagree.
You are welcome to your conclusion, flawed as it is.
I've got no problem with private schools teaching ID.
I'd assume the parents would be aware of and approve of the curriculum ahead of time, and understand that some institutes of higher learning might have a requirement for evolutionary instruction as well, but that shouldn't be a problem for them. Either they could ensure their child receives both or they probably would want to choose a college that agreed with their beliefs and taught accordingly.
The point is that we find things that fit. All of life appears to be in a nested hierarchy that evolves over time. The fossil record crushingly supports this conclusion as Darwin predicted it would (the record was much less complete 150 years ago). Millions of finds have failed to break the pattern of a nested hierarchy of being. But that is just one prediction of many. Take some time to think about these; many of these predictions are simultaneously impressive, easy to understand, and irrefutably correct, even though this wasn't known at the time the prediction was made.
Now you have to ask yourself. Would a Creationist lie?
If you take note, evolutionists also study teeth in their efforts to establish evolution theory. So why would a person who studies biology of teeth and draw his conclusions on the side favoring creation be disqualified and the other not?
The >phossal< record link posted by our local evolutionist on this thread shows a study by a dentist as well. Another thing to note on this so called 'fossil record link, is that there are no actual fossil records, Rather just hand drawing explaining the THEORY of fossil records they hope to some day find. Again, there is no actual fossil record that shows even a HINT of evolution.
So far, the argument presented by so called "rational thinkers" defending evolution on this thread have pointed out 1). A spelling error. 2). My neglect to repeatedly post the same link over and over again. 3). Attacking people on my list of pro-creationists in order to discredit their work which I have not even made reference to on this thread as of yet, while ignoring that many on the list of pro-evolutionists share either the same professional qualifications or do not even have a doctorate but some how that doesn't matter if they are on the evolution side of things.
My statement is 100% correct. There are NO actual real fossils found that show evidence of evolution, only drawings of a theory which has yet to be proved.
My other statement is correct, and the corresponding proof I posted is correct- that carbon dating is flawed and useless and cannot prove anything is millions or billions of years old.
The universe did not start out with a big bang. Nothing cannot explode into something. Nothing cannot explode into something for no reason.
Man did not evolve from monkey and apes. The DNA is completely different and cannot support that theory at all.
Whales did not walk into the sea. Whales have been found to be a completely unique species.
Fossils do not form over long periods of time. They are formed during catastrophic events, such as flash floods, earthquakes and other natural disasters. This is proved by geological evidence which shows the 'fossil record" to be is specific layers at specific times. Otherwise the fossil record would be spread in all layer in all time periods.
Scientific observation supports creation, not evolution. The earliest known trilobite fossils show very advanced eyes. This is only possible by creation.
I'm begining to think you are right. We have beat him over the head continuously with information and facts and he's still as thick as he began. Presumably all that beating plugged up his pores.
And the way you obtained evidence of how inextensive my investigation of the subject is ... ?
I have done much more than read the dictionary on this. I have studied the topic, including some of Darwin's own works. If you are willing to do the research on a different POV, I recommend Tornado in a Junkyard: The Relentless Myth of Darwinism, by James Perloff He makes his argument using science and quotes many other scientific sources.
For all who come after this post and would take shots at my purported idiocy, I want to state that living things in the world do mutate or evolve. That doesn't explain the origin of life.
I have other things to do today and had no idea my post would stir up so much vitriol and personal attack, which I'm not interested in responding to, so some people's posts to me on this thread may go unanswered.
Now I am going to write something that will really stir some people's hornets' nests. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves. God created life on Earth in a perfect form: as He is, so once was His creation. Man sinned, corruption and death entered into the world. Things got broken -- such as the land in earthquakes and floods -- and defective genes -- mutations -- became commonplace. God had the answer to bring all creation back to perfection, back to full relationship with Himself. That answer is Jesus Christ and all who believe in Him as Savior will inherit eternal life and receive the joy of knowing Him on this earth. All who don't, suffer the consequences now and ever after. Therefore, choose life, that you and your descendants may live.
Oops that was supposed to go to you.
Here we have it. All those fossils we've been digging up for hundreds of years are unreal and not actual fossils.
Only on days ending in 'y'.
This is such a mess that it cannot be straightened out. It ripe for the dungheap.
My 5 year old used to think he knew everything and would explain it ad nauseum. It included some entertaining stories. It was funny in a 5 year old.
Since I assume NZ is more than 5, then this is just pitiful.