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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
It is obvious to me that the majority of the people on this thread who oppose ID have not bothered to read any of the literature that is currently available. They buy into what the MSM says, and let that suffice. They would not do that on any other topic than this...amazing.
The FSM completely blesses such practices as his noodly appendages are all over the place therein.
OK, you caught me. Since I moved back to WV, the closest Italian place features "Spaghetti, white clam sauce." Doesn't sound very exotic, but it's good.
This isn't "pot ... kettle ... black." This is "mote ... log ... own eye." IOW, pure projection.
If you are right, tell me the basic arguments of the ID position...please provide as much detail as possible.
Oh, please. He spent at least as much time ignoring it as you did composing it.
Now, tell me the theory of evolution and give a quick precis of the evidence for it.
- Evolution cannot explain irreducible complexity, defined as systems which cannot suffer the removal or disablement of a single component without loss of function.
- Evolution cannot explain Complex Specified Information, defined as something so obviously designed that it just has to have been designed. We can tell this by objective criteria which we have not however thus far specified without luxurious recourse to the fallacy of equivocation.
- Evolution cannot explain the obvious fine tuning of the universe to accomodate life. Nor does it deal with how mud puddles are always just exactly the right shape to fit in the holes without sticking up out of the ground.
A former Governor of the Great State of (clap clap clap clap) Texas supposedly said: "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for me!"
And NO actual real motion picture frames show evidence of motion. Ha! We just disproved the movies!
Nice try, but wrong. Your #1 is backwards; #2 doesn't come close; #3 is really on the edge, but not a major factor. Sorry, you obviously are more interested in satire than truth.
- William Hays
Hays was discussing the problem of "The Troping Hypothesis."
I thought I'd post this again.
Needs a bit of analysis, there. How so? That one I refrained from satire, totally.
#2 doesn't come close.
Unsupported assertion. It's Dembski on truth serum.
#3 is really on the edge, but not a major factor.
No, that one's not a biggie. But that's about all the quivvers in the ID arrow.
OK, if you include Johnson and Wells, they drag in a bunch of recycled creationist stuff, trying hard to throw out all the YEC material but occasionally forgetting. One or the other (Johnson?) attacks radiometric dating, for instance. Why do that if you accept the age of the Earth?
The expanded version could thus include:
I notice you didn't answer my counter-challenge. A chance to demonstrate your acumen, and you delined?
Old posters never die. At least, not until they really DO die.
Now I am reminded why I never considered majoring in physics. The calculus! All of those letters that you have to write on a crib sheet so you can remember what they mean when you take the exam! Arggh! The most important physical concept I ever learned was "run to red."
(That describes the behavior of biological molecules in an electric field, and has the advantage of saving me the trouble of figuring out which is the positive wire and which is the negative every time I want to electrophoresis something.)
(All the electrophoresis boxes have color coded contacts anyway, so you always plug in the wires correctly. Gee, biologists are dumb!)
Actually, there are a lot of other physical concepts that come into my work. We life scientists don't tend to think of them as physics, though. And most of us don't do calculus.
You still have not gotten the ID position correct - why should I answer your challenge when you have yet to answer mine? Try focusing on your first bullet, but try to get it right this time.
Somewhere, taps is playing.
You are called. You are challenged. Got it? This is where you show the hand or fold.