Harrisburg, PA – Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design. Not all the signers are proponents of intelligent design, but they do agree “that protecting the freedom to pursue scientific evidence for intelligent design stimulates the advance of scientific knowledge.”
"We don't like the consequences" is not generally grounds for getting courts to interpret the law your way.
Amici curiae are scientists who oppose any attempt to define the nature of science in a way that would limit their ability to follow the evidence wherever it may lead. Since the identification of intelligent causes is a well established scientific practice in fields such as forensic science, archaeology, and exobiology, Amici urge this Court to reject plaintiffs’ claim that the application of intelligent design to biology is unscientific. Any ruling that depends upon an outdated or inaccurate definition of science, or which attempts to define the boundaries of science, could hinder scientific progress.
Forensic science, archeology, and exobiology all search for evidence of human (or humanoid) activity. Has the Discovery Institute taken up the search for space aliens?
Typical creationist claptrap.
So they are "asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design"? Good for them. But why are they wasting the judge's time asking him to "affirm a freedom" that is not being infringed, and is not at issue in this case? Why are they asking him to "not limit research into the scientific theory" when no one *is* limiting or proposing to limit such research?
Are they really that confused, or are they just grandstanding?
And what are they babbling about when they speak of "the scientific theory of intelligent design"? The last time I checked, there WASN'T any scientific theory of intelligent design. (Note, there has been a lot of bluster about intelligent design, but nothing which rises to the level of a "scientific theory".)
Maybe these guys should learn what the Kitzmiller v. Dover case is actually about before they waste everyone's time filing irrelevant briefs to the judge.
And maybe they should come up with some kind of "scientific theory of intelligent design" before they try to get a judge to make a statement about how an imaginary theory of that sort should be treated.
Creationiists are such drama queens...
of course, that's not at all what the trial is about.
Harrisburg, PA – Eighty-five scientists have filed an Amicus Brief in the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial asking the Judge to “affirm the freedom of scientists to pursue scientific evidence wherever it may lead” and not limit research into the scientific theory of intelligent design.
Are they asking the judge to rule on whether or not ID research qualifies as 'science' research. It almost sounds like it. If he rules in their favor, does that mean the court rules that ID is science?