I find the stance of scientists on the Dover Trial to be dubious to unfair. I don’t buy creationist evolutionism, and am critical of creationist ID, and don’t think it should be in the classroom, but the fact of the matter is that darwinian natural selection theory is clearly false, and should not be enforced with bogus legal rulings that seed contempt for lawyers, scientists, and school systems.
The lawyers at Dover for the science side were dishonest and used the standard Hollywood movie tactics to discredit ID. But darwinism is equally bad, and to say it is unconstitutional to question it is so outrageous that it puts science at risk.
The solution is very simple, but almost impossible for the brain dead in the science world. Debrief creationism. Debrief ID mixed with creationism. Consult the form of ID produced by people like Demski, which is not creationist, although these figures are theistic. Note his in principle neutral design inference. From there acknowledge the reality of design in nature which is not theistic, and instead of forbidding design in the class room, demand a kantian neutrality by disallowing religious interpretations of design.
There are many ways to do this, but to use the legal system to enforce natural selection is outrageous, it is a blow against science that will sooner or later cause damage to the reputation of science.
But the problem is that everyone is miseducated. If you point out that complex machines in biochemical contexts show design, it should be accepted by science.
One problem is the distinction of Intelligent Design with design as such.
We can’t use the term ‘intelligent’ as an adjective for design. It is debatable but confuses the argument. Complex design is all we can claim We can’t claim that an adjective that applies to a personal property of intelligent beings can be used for design in biochemistry.
So, both sides are at fault, but the legal promotion of darwin’s theory is stupid and ideological domination worthy of the Dawkins groupies…