Thursday, December 22, 2005 | 12/22/2005 | A forceful rejection of `intelligent design' | 12/22/2005 | A forceful rejection of `intelligent design'

Shira sent me this - an article that talks about the recent decision to not allow intelligent design to be taught next to science.

We both breathed a sigh of relief when we found out that the judge had found in favor of not allowing the teaching of ID in the science classroom. We think that ID could be an excellent topic for some classes, but, as the article and many others have shown -- ID isn't science. That doesn't mean it's not useful knowledge, or interesting or worth studying -- it just means you can't teach it in a science class. (Yes, if you didn't know, science has a definition -- and it's not: "use important sounding words a lot.")

It's also interesting to note how a large proportion of our country believes in misinformation about ID and evolution. It's so frustrating, because the issue seems so cut and dry once you understand the facts.

At least the judge paid attention to the facts. That's a good start.

But don't take my word for it -- you can read the judge's decision here. A few quotes from the ruling are below. If you have any interest at all in this topic, you should give the ruling a read.

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. (page 64)
And another one:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court.

Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources. (page 138)

No comments:

Post a Comment