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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
There are no skull fossils that support progressive man either, although many fakes have been discovered. Different racial groups of man have different shaped skulls. That does not prove evlution.
recent discovered "young" galaxies are too old for the big bang theory. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Radioisotope and the Age of The Earth (RATE) scientists have discovered significant scientific evidence which contradicts the “old earth” model and supports a young earth.
“Thousands … Not Billions” is both the title and the theme of the upcoming national conference to be hosted by ICR at Shadow Mountain Community Church in El Cajon (near San Diego), California, November 5, 2005. Speakers for the event include Dr. John Morris (president of ICR), Dr. Larry Vardiman, Dr. Russell Humphreys, Dr. Andrew Snelling (formerly of AiG–Australia), and Dr. John Baumgardner and astrophysicist Dr. Jason Lisle.
This significant groundbreaking conference will be an opportunity to witness history in the making. Participants will discover the truth about conventional dating methods and why they do not prove an old earth. They will also learn why carbon-14 found in coal and diamonds offers convincing evidence confirming a young earth. These and other important recent discoveries will be introduced to the public at the conference, along with the premier showing of THOUSANDS … not BILLIONS, a new video documentary produced by ICR.
The research presented will once again demonstrate that the supposed “fact” of an old earth (i.e., billions of years) is not based on or supported by empirical science. “The results of this study are quite compelling,” states Mark Rasche, Director of Outreach and Resource Development at ICR.
This will no doubt get evolutionists in a kerfuffle.
Catastrophic plate tectonics theory answers many questions evolution theory just can't. Perhaps those who are so biased and stuck on evolution should open their minds rather than exclude everything which doesn't fit their impossible theories, which contradict each other so many times over.
"Only on days ending in 'y'."
LOL - That's what I tell my wife when she asks if I'm planning on stopping off at the pub.
Side note: Have you noticed that Nathan and DK are never seen in the same room? I'll have to develop a hypothesis.
"“Thousands … Not Billions” is both the title and the theme of the upcoming national conference..."
There you go again. Cutting and pasting sans attribution. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0913RATE.asp
The FACT is, Carbon dating is flawed, very inaccurate, and used only to bend time to fit the ridiculous theory of evolutionists
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?
Guy, this particular group of addled old creationists have been pushing their shtick for the last 20 years, and they've convinced nobody that wasn't convinced already. Baumgardner, while he claims before this audience that the earth is 6000 years old, puts his name on papers that track the earth's history over 100 million years. What a hypocrite! Other than disgracing themselves by helping promote the enemies of the United States in Turkey, they've had no impact whatsoever.
I always get a laugh from those who say everything was created by nothing exploding, nothing being infinitely small, exploding to create the universe and everything in it. Everyone agrees that our universe had a beginning, But for some reason, GOD couldn't have created it all with his WORD.
Science explains our ordered and perfectly harmonious universe, kaos from a random explosion turning into the same requires more of a leap of faith than does creation; scientific theories supports creation much more easily than it does evolution. You need to ask yourself what is more of a blind faith religion.
Also, for the second time today, Smooth Change in the Fossil Record.
Another compilation of well-documented examples: Intermediate and Transitional Forms.
The contention that there is no "fossel" record showing evolution reads like satire. Two last links and I'll stop.
The Fossil Record. A general discussion of just how good the fossil record is for evolution.
Taxonomy, Transitional Forms, and the Fossil Record. Discusses limitations of the record, what it nevertheless shows us, and how creationist pleadings from taxonomy (think "It's a BIRD! Just a BIRD!") are misguided.
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?
I bet he didn't read it (going out on a limb). In the unlikely event he read it he didn't understand it. And in any event, it wouldn't make any difference.
But I'll extend a thanks for your effort.
No, I just posted the information of the upcoming conference. but I guess if you want to call it cut and paste, go ahead, I fail to see what your point is.
Is that all you can do? You sure don't seen to be able to add anything of substance to support your position.
Hint: see my post #211
Maybe you can copy/paste yourself one.
Do you suppose it could be so porous that it'd just run right through?
What we have here is a surface that actually repels anything poured on it.
Macroevolution of life on earth is a scientific fact.
There is no REAL PHYSICAL FOSSIL RECORD. What is it you can't seem to understand about that? Someones drawings, and comparing of two completely different species is NOT a fossil record, no matter how hard you click your heels together and make a wish.
Oceanic shellfish apparently recycle old carbon that hasn't been near the atmosphere in forever. Thus, the carbon indeed tends to be "old."
I read it. And thank you.
Watch that little weasely qualifier "possibly." If the jury comes back that it ain't science then it MUST be philosophy. Pick one or the other.
There is no REAL PHYSICAL FOSSIL RECORD. What is it you can't seem to understand about that? Someones drawings, and comparing of two completely different species is NOT a fossil record, no matter how hard you click your heels together and make a wish.
Sorry, son. That was not cut and paste, unlike your posts. That was out of my own research and experience. Thirty-five years worth. I did have two quotations which I attributed, but I verified the accuracy of those quotations myself; I didn't just grab them to fill space.
I actually think you are probably afraid to read post #211. You are probably afraid of learning something and then where would you be.
You have just forfeited all hope of any credibility on these threads. Several of us have spent time presenting you with evidence and all you do is ignore it. I certainly will never again pay any attention to anything you have to say pertaining to science.
(Actually there is a fossil record. In graduate school we had plaster or plastic casts of all the main fossils in the primate line, and got to spend hours with them. You just make a fool of yourself denying that these fossils exist.)
Bye, now.
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.