Professor Defends 'Intelligent Design'


Nascar_James
#1
Quote:

Peapod wrote:This thread is now locked, nascar james put your post in the evloution debate thread in the off topic forum. There is no need for a bunch of different threads on the same topic.

For the love of Pete!

Did you bother to read the post before making your ill conceived decision Peapod???. THIS POSTING IS ABOUT A COURT CASE.

There is no other thread regarding T H I S topic as it is new news. .. UPDATED TODAY FRIDAY NOVEMBER 4th,12:11 PM EASTERN TIME

Show me where we have a topic on this court case and I'll post my news there.

We are permitted to post recent news updates aren't we Peapod?????.

If not, show me where on the terms of service of this forum it says I can't post a recent news update regarding a court case.

Quote:

Associated Press:
By MARTHA RAFFAELE, Associated Press Writer
Fri Nov 4,12:11 PM ET

HARRISBURG, Pa. - A biology professor who supports classroom discussion of "intelligent design" testified Friday that major peer-reviewed scientific journals shun articles on the concept because it is a minority view.

"To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because it's a position against the consensus. Science is not a democratic process," University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich said under cross-examination.

Minnich testified on behalf of the Dover Area School Board, which is defending an October 2004 decision to require students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. Teachers opposed the statement, which says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to the textbook "Of Pandas and People" for more information.

Eight families are suing to end the practice, saying it violates the constitutional separation of church and state because it essentially promotes the Bible's view of creation.

Intelligent design supporters argue that natural selection, an element of evolutionary theory, cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms.

Minnich testified that intelligent design is based on science and doesn't require adherence to any religious belief. He also praised the prescribed statement to students.

Like some other advocates of intelligent design, Minnich acknowledged that he believes the designer is God, but he stressed that is a personal belief, not one based on science.

The trial, which began Sept. 26, is being heard without a jury and was expected to conclude with closing arguments Friday afternoon. The judge was not expected to rule immediately.

The plaintiffs are represented by a team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. The school district is represented by the Ann Arbor, Mich.-based Thomas More Law Center, which says its mission is to defend the religious freedom of Christians.

 
Reverend Blair
#2
So the radical right bought a shill? That's not news. It's just the way they do things.

Intelligent design doesn't pass peer review because it is not a scientific theory.
 
pastafarian
#3
Quote:

A biology professor who supports classroom discussion of "intelligent design" testified Friday that major peer-reviewed scientific journals shun articles on the concept because it is a minority view.

No, they shun it because:
a) it is untestable
b)the evidence argues against it
c) has nothing to do with science

Quote:

"To endorse intelligent design comes with risk because it's a position against the consensus. Science is not a democratic process," University of Idaho microbiology professor Scott Minnich said under cross-examination.

No, it's a position against intelligence.

I don't know what's worse, that Scott Minnich, microbiologist has just realized that scientific discoveries aren't based on a show of hands by the guys in the lab. Or that he seems to think they should be.

There's a ringing endorsement for the University of Idaho!
 
Reverend Blair
#4
 
Cosmo
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Nascar_James

Quote:

Peapod wrote:This thread is now locked, nascar james put your post in the evloution debate thread in the off topic forum. There is no need for a bunch of different threads on the same topic.

For the love of Pete!

Did you bother to read the post before making your ill conceived decision Peapod???. THIS POSTING IS ABOUT A COURT CASE.

There is no other thread regarding T H I S topic as it is new news. .. UPDATED TODAY FRIDAY NOVEMBER 4th,12:11 PM EASTERN TIME

Show me where we have a topic on this court case and I'll post my news there.

We are permitted to post recent news updates aren't we Peapod?????.

If not, show me where on the terms of service of this forum it says I can't post a recent news update regarding a court case.

Nascar:
This will be your one and only warning on this issue.

There are already threads established on this topic. Use them for updates. Not a matter of terms of service but a matter of keeping topics in some kind of readable format.

If you're too lazy to use the search provided, I have done so for you:
http://www.canadiancontent.net/forum...sign&start=570

As a matter of fact, Peapod and I discussed it before she locked the thread. The lock was MY suggestion.

If you don't like what a moderator says or does you have two options. You can PM the moderator for an explanation and they may or may not choose to reply, or you can PM Andem and speak with him about your concerns. You don't start a fight in open forum. Non-negotiable, Nascar.

I have locked this thread. If you have a comment, PM me. If you continue to argue in open forum, you will be banned.

Cosmo
 

Similar Threads

22
intelligent design
by progressive | Oct 31st, 2006
3
Creationism/Intelligent Design
by Chake99 | Nov 6th, 2005
2
Professor Defends 'Intelligent Design'
by Nascar_James | Nov 4th, 2005
4
The answer to Intelligent Design.
by Twila | Oct 7th, 2005
1
The Case Against Intelligent Design (pdf)
by Hard-Luck Henry | Sep 9th, 2005
no new posts