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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
I guess the Doctor was just reminding me to do my homework.
Ah. But that, no doubt, is already posted at Answers in Genesis, or ICR, or one of the other fraud sites. However, I await the entertainment.
In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.How many howlers can you find in those two sentences?
No, it won't, but then we can always depend on your cut and paste crap can't we?
I can only assume I'm trying to talk to a bunch of children.
You may enjoy DU a little better. Everyone there will agree with you without question and make you feel good.
That is about the most asinine statement I have ever read on FR. Haven't you ever heard of museums, universities, fossil collections? Have you never seen or held a fossil in your own hands? Or just never wanted to? Just how stupid are you really or do you enjoy playing an anonymous retard on the internet?
This one must be strong with the force.
I didn't ignore it, I pointed out the other parts of the definition.
Those aren't "other parts of the definition," they're less-preferred definitions. In a dictionary, the numbers mean alternate definitions of a word. The smaller the number, the more common in useage. You tried to disprove the #1 definition by applying the #5 and #6 definitions. That's hardly a strong argument.
Besides, you're ignoring the fact that "theory" has one very specific meaning when it's in a scientific context. When used in science, theory doesn't mean "guess," it doesn't mean "untested or untried." It means that there is solid evidence to back it up. It means that it has been tested, and the evidence has backed it up.
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.
Only if the other explanations are even vaguely scientific. ID isn't. If you can come up with an alternate theory that even begins to justify the scientific meaning of the word, then we'll add it to the curriculum.
We don't need facts to "refute" the theory. That's called proving a negative, and logically it can't be done. We need its proponents to show any evidence to support it. They are the ones making a positive claim, and it falls upon them to demonstrate the authenticity of their claim.
You keep speaking of "facts." Facts are very problematic for fans of ID, because there is decided lack of hard evidence for the existence of an Intelligent Designer. The only evidence is emotionalism and wishful thinking. People wanting it to be so is not evidence that it is.
There is strong, solid, real, physical evidence for evolution. We see it in action, we see it in the fossil record, it makes predictions, it is falsifiable and it gets more and more supported the more evidence we discover.
Try again when ID can rise above the #6 definition in your dictionary.
I've got a rock wall outside my back door whose rocks are full of shellfish fossils. All somebody could think of to do with these rocks was to mortar them up into a wall. (Well, being sedimentary, they do tend to be flattened in shape.) Here's one I imaged directly on my scanner lately. (Yes, the wall IS falling apart and I should fix it.)
But, other than that, no. Nathan is right. There is no physical fossil record.
Festival of Howlers & Trolls placemarker
Post 315 by Nathan Zachary on 29 Sep 05 . There is no REAL PHYSICAL FOSSIL RECORD.
What's truly astonishing is that there are several true statements in it. It can give useful results. It needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years.
Fool! The bible has several references to the pillars of the earth. Squid pro quo!
Its really funny when they tell us you can't date fossils with Carbon-14. (Like being told evolution is just a theory.) Duh!
It's the "I learnt everything I know about science from TV" syndrome
It's exactly the sort of thing for which Wolfgang Pauli's famous remark: "It's so bad it's not even wrong" seems so apropo.
The funny thing is, Carbon-14 has almost nothing to do with evolution!
But the YEC crowd needs to start somewhere. And they've got little to work with.
nothing you say will touch that one.
the almighty would have to come down and tan his hide with a hefty length structural tubing to shift His Ignorance one iota.
what you, I, and the others do here is equivalent to biff-baffing a badminton shuttlecock: we get exercise, sure... but the shuttlecock doesn't give a damn.
on to important matters: why does fresh wet polyurethane varnish smell distinctly like fresh wet pumpkin guts?
depending on what we mean by "live clams" you'd better get a reliable age before you try to date one.
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.