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III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories -- and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources.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.
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.
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.
Because 1) I have answered you twice now, and 2) 999 creationists out of 1000 can't state the theory of evolution. Since you wish to be considered one of the ever so rare exceptions, please distinguish yourself by so demonstrating.
Here's a little test on mathematical notation.
2 /= 0.
How many times have I answered you?
"THE ID position?"
The correct stance on issues like an ancient Earth, the common ancestry of organisms, and natural selection can be worked out later, after we've convinced the public that they should be rejecting at least one of these. "The Quixotic Message", or "No Free Hunch"
Well, it's particularly easy to correct for The Flood. An affine transformation yields the most reliable results:
T_correct = A * T_measured + B
where A=1 and B=0 as determined by examining antediluvian pine cones.
Now he's spent EIGHT TIMES as long ignoring it as you did composing it. Aren't you ashamed?
You're rambling a bit, and that makes it hard to follow what you have written.
The teaching of science has nothing to do with religion, and vice versa. If you want to argue that it is important to give children a good grounding in moral religious beliefs, then, fine, I have no quarrel with that. We need a moral framework in order to have a decent society.
The problem is, you're trying to mix religion and science. I specifically chose the example of mad cow disease concerns being irrelevant to the logging industry, because both mad cow disease and logging (forest management) are important issues, and people feel strongly about both of them, but they have nothing to do with each other. Just like science and religion have nothing to do with each other, yet they are both important.
I do feel sorry for you. If you feel that the only way your faith is valid is by "proving" that scientific theory is false, then you have weak faith. That also means that YOU believe that if the world was not created literally according to Genesis, then there is no God, no Jesus, no salvation. It is your weak faith that makes you upset with scientists pursuing science. Scientists do not believe as you do. The faith of religious scientists is not challenged by any scientific data they collect; their faith is strong.
No matter what you keep telling yourself, scientists are not out to disprove the existence of God. We can't do that. We're out to learn as much about the world and universe as we can.
For lawn sprinkler systems, black=hot, white=ground=common; usually.
Notice: I'll be ignoring everything for the rest of the night.
"because both mad cow disease and logging (forest management) are important issues, and people feel strongly about both of them, but they have nothing to do with each other"
Actually they do - I give you the USDA.
You have this backward in that ID posits that that irreducibly complex organisms cannot be the product of gradual development over a long period of time. All of the parts must be present from the beginning, not that it will stop working if parts are taken away. It is the origin of the parts and the controlling instructions that are in question.
Mutations over a long period of time would not account for all of the elements of the biochemical processes for blood clotting, for instance. If it takes 11 chemical reactions, in sequence, to produce blood clotting, what would account for the first chemical reaction?
And what would that process do while waiting for the second reaction?
What would the organism do while it was waiting for the reaction that would trigger the process?
More importantly, what would it do while it is waiting for the chemical reaction to turn off the process?
Where would the instructions for controlling this process reside?
ID is not about change, it is about origin.
ID is not just about the origin of the structure, it is also about the origin of the process control, as well.
Evolution says that all of that came about over a long period of time, by random chance, unguided and without purpose. It would also lead us to believe that somehow all of this randomness can account for a highly sophisticated, complex system coming into existence - natural selection assessing each mutation, keeping "useful" changes, rejecting each "un-useful" change. And yet, how does a random chance process define "useful" and "un-useful"? How does the organism "know" what is "useful" and what is not? It doesn't even "know" what the end product/process is going to be...how can it assess usefulness?
This all begs for some kind of controlling intelligence.
well, vr, he's got you. crawl under a rock and croak. :)
Phooey. You ignore almost everything almost all the time.
Just remember that if you get it wrong, it'll kill you and your entire family. Cheers!
To disarm the bomb, if made in the US, cut the red, white, and blue wires in that order, but first, disengage the tingler circuit.
Hmm - anyone seen VR?
Look, my identity is not wrapped up in whether I can disprove your belief that life came from non-life then after a period of a gazillion years we are now having an intelligent(?) exchange of ideas via the internet.
Nonetheless, I am interested in reading about the abiogenesis stuff you refer to - so I hope to look at the links of the two distinguished posters you mention.
Until I do however - Is your position, then, that "science" has a handle on the origin of life?
Some of us have lives outside this forum.
(Or 401 if PH is still around.)