Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
“The consideration of whether ID is merely religious, or might also be scientific was demanded by both case law, and the original filings of the Dover parents, and school board. ”
The Dover parents were in opposition to a school board’s actions, not in judgment of a scientific concept. Ruling on the religious nature of a particular incident, and with reference to similarly related historical activities resulted in a proper ruling. But here is where the Court went awry.
First, ID is NOT creationism. Do not conflate the two. ID does not equal IDC.
Secondly, no one is proposing ‘teaching ID’, as though it were a discipline.
Thirdly, as incorrectly mentioned in section ‘E’, ID principals are NOT in opposition to the teaching of evolutionary theory.
In addition, your (and Judge Jones) reference to “ID Policy” is fallacious. ID is the study of teleological inferences within biology, nothing more. In section ‘E’, reference is made to the school board’s ‘newsletter’ detailing “ID Policy in Detail”. Since when does a panel who admitted not even being familiar with ID as a concept, be allowed to set ‘ID Policy’, which is in fact a non-sequitur? Furthermore, the Court made reference to what it referred to as the “intelligent design movement (“IDM”)”In this context, it is portrayed as a political movement, again in contrast to what ID constitutes.
Then Judge Jones goes into a convoluted discourse regarding “opposition to the teaching of evolution, and its historical origins”, which again has NOTHING to do with ID as a scientific concept, nor was that ever a goal of ID principals such as the Discovery Institute. Furthermore, his case citations (McLean v Arkansas and Tennessee v Scopes) and references to “Fundamentalism’s attacks” on evolution might only be relevant if in fact a conspiratorial effort by “IDM” was the case. IT WAS NOT, nor does IDM exist as a ‘movement’. It is perhaps no wonder then that he adjudicated as he did in part two, since he was led down a path of deception regarding ID proper.
As stated elsewhere, harm has been done to science by first tagging a scientific hypothesis with a convoluted association with a purportedly subversive political ‘movement’ (“IDM”), and then in essence, getting a jurist to rule on intelligent design as “religion in a lab coat” and as pseudoscience. I would seriously consider having the second part of the ruling reviewed by the Supreme Court for its jurisprudential merit.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.