12.21.05
The Darwin Fraud Triumphs Again
A Times article on the Dover decision notes
The judge found that intelligent design is not science, and that the only way its proponents can claim it is, is by changing the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
This is a surprisingly strong decision, a big win for the evolution camp, too big, unfortunately. There are a couple of gaping holes in such a decision, so obviously based on the cliche dogmas of science put out by such as the NCSE.
In one way, even a critic of Darwinism could feel relief at the decision. The strategy of the ID camp, or at least of the School Board, was flawed from the beginning, and just wasn’t the right way to challenge Darwin. They were unable to restrain their religious impulses and brought in the useless Of Pandas and People, which Barbara Forrest was able to expose as creationism recycled. The debate, which began with Johnson’s Darwin on Trial, with the obvious irony in its title, very quickly became ‘ID on Trial’. One obvious problem here is that while ID might not be science, as noted by the judge, Darwinian selectionism isn’t either, and any fair process of cross-examination could quickly establish the problems with Darwin’s theory, the coverup of those problems, and the fact that while the ‘right way to do science’ is one thing, the ‘right way to do evolution’ might be another.
The question then is not just that ID isn’t science, but that theories of evolution are metaphysical presumptions on both sides.
In any case, secular critics of Darwinism saddled with the inept tactics at Dover can almost be grateful for the opportunity to start from scratch with a better approach.
No doubt complacency in certain Darwinian circles will consider this a turning point, but it is worth remembering that eighty years after Scopes we are still in exactly the same morass as before. And that the scientific community, behind its appeal to the nature of correct science, in reality is abetting this situation of persistently flawed accounts of evolution, backed up by Big Science legitimation tactics.
We shall see what happens next.
We never had a ‘Darwin on Trial’ case. The ACLU ought to consider just how easy it might be, if Darwin really were on trial, for their lawyers to expose Darwin’s theory.
So behind the legal veneer, the Darwin Fraud triumphs once again.
Judge Bars ‘Intelligent Design’ From Pa. Classes
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
HARRISBURG, PA., Dec. 20 - A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board’s policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances “a particular version of Christianity.”
In the nation’s first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, Judge John E. Jones III dealt a stinging rebuke to advocates of teaching intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools.
The judge found that intelligent design is not science, and that the only way its proponents can claim it is, is by changing the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.
Eleven parents in Dover, Pa., sued their school board a year ago when the board voted that ninth grade biology students should be read a brief statement saying there are “gaps in the theory” of evolution and that intelligent design is another explanation they should examine. The case is Kitzmiller et. al. v. Dover.
The six-week trial in federal district court in Harrisburg gave intelligent design the most thorough academic and legal airing it has had since the movement’s inception about 15 years ago. The judge heard evidence from scientists in the forefront of the design movement, as well as scientists and other experts who are critics.
Intelligent design posits that biological life is so complex that it must have been originated by an intelligent source - without ever defining the identity of that source. But the judge said the evidence in the trial strongly proved that intelligent design is “creationism relabeled.” The Supreme Court has already ruled that creationism, which relies on the Biblical account of the creation of life, cannot be taught as science in a public school.
In his opinion, the judge said he found the testimony of Barbara Forrest, a historian of science, very persuasive. She had presented evidence that the authors of an intelligent design textbook, “Of Pandas and People, merely removed the word “creationism” from an earlier edition and substituted it with “intelligent design” after the Supreme Court’s ruling in 1987.
“The evidence at trial demonstrates that intelligent design is nothing less than the progeny of creationism,” Judge Jones wrote.
“We conclude that the religious nature of intelligent design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child,” he said. “The writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.”
The lead defense lawyer for the school board, Richard Thompson, said it was “silly” for the judge to have issued such a sweeping judgment on intelligent design in a case that he said merely involved a “one minute statement” being read to students.
“A thousand opinions by a court that a particular scientific theory is invalid will not make that scientific theory invalid,” said Mr. Thompson, the president and chief counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, a public interest firm that says it promotes Christian values. “It is going to be up to the scientists who are going to continue to do research in their labs that will ultimately determine that.”
Opponents of intelligent design were delighted by the decision, but said it would not put an end to intelligent design or the efforts to teach it because it is only an opinion from one federal district court.
Eugenie Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution, said, “I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum than the Dover group did, and they’ll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent.”
Even after courts ruled against teaching creationism and creation science, she said, “For several years afterward, school districts were still contemplating teaching creation science.”