Brilliant analysis.
I wish you knee-jerk, insulting Darwinists would get the clue. The basic issue is not which is correct, Darwin or ID. The issue is whether tyrannical left wing judges can force people to swallow whatever they dictate in violation of the basic principles of the Constitution.
This month it's Darwin. Next month it will be condom education in kindergarten. The month after that it will be gay marriage.
What this article says, basically, is that federal judges have no business making decisions on the basis of bogus theology.
Your "knee-jerk" reaction to the thoughtful, deliberative ruling of a Republican judge appointed to the Federal bench by Pres. Bush in 2002, is duly noted. Perhaps it is you who needs to "get a clue"....
You should take time to study the Dover case a little closer. It was the local citizens backed by their science teachers who had to go to a Bush appointed conservative judge after the board, which admittedly had been seduced by a Seattle based seller of charlatan books, attempted to force people to swallow whatever they dictate about what teachers can and can't teach as science. When you consider the amount of garbage public schools are putting into the curriculum these days, consider this a rare victory for the local citizens against outside forces with a perverted agenda.
Intelligent Design has fizzled--Part 2
5. ID has no record of carrying out scientific experiments or suggesting experiments or providing descriptive classifications or understandings. The major thesis of ID is, "Gee, it is so complicated, so we can explain this only by saying 'God did it.'." Since this idea can be applied to anything we do not understand, it lacks intellectual rigor. As in the case of Paley's The Blind Watchmaker--from which ID derives--it is fundamentally anti-intellectual and rejects the notion that human intellect can puzzle out the complexities. It is noteworthy that IDists do not attempt to apply their notion to quantum mechanics.
6. As shown in the ID document Wedge, http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html, ID adherents attribute a slew of moral and social evils to the theory of evolution, claiming that it fosters "materialism", "naturalistic explanations", and is anti-theistic. Some even go further to claim that the "naturalism" of evolution is responsible for most of the evils of the world. However, to many conservatives that ID hoped to attract, the idea of materialism is perfectly fine and not inconsistent with their theological views. The idea of an ordered social hierarchy fits with evolution and conservative, libertarian values. ID thus offers nothing attractive to these groups and the idea that a grand "designer" directly intervenes to make some people more successful, as suggested by ID, leaves social conservatives uncomforttable.
7. A major problem with ID is that it accepts supernatural forces and actions as being on the same plane with engineering and real science. Since evolution is based on an interwoven network of concepts from geology, physics, astronomy, paleontology, if ID wins wide acceptance, then all such disciplines are equally discredited. Few conservatives or liberals wish to go there. The problem is the mind-set of ID.
The mindset is superstitious in nature. There are many people who are happy to see science and rationalism debased, because they hold to views about psychic phenomena, UFOs, appearances of the Virgin Mary in weird places, astrology, dowsing, predictions of Nostradamus, hidden codes in the Bible, reincarnation, a heaven/paradise after death, and a hundred other non-rational beliefs. The fundamental issue is a rational, healthy outlook on the world, with joy in its beauties and sadness for what some people sometimes do, vs. a supernatural outlook, in which gods intervene willy-nilly, some people have "hidden psychic powers", and happiness is determined (or pre-determined) by weird forces that do not stand up to rational inquiry.
8. A major weakness of ID is the matter of implementation. It's one thing to have a design, but how does it get turned into a fabrication? Every engineer knows that a first design runs into "but we can't make that". Other design flaws frequently appear until there is sufficient reiteration between makers and designers. This may be the the ID explanation for species extinction!
But, now suppose we have an "intelligent design" for an eye. Where and when does this get implemented? Since the coding starts with the DNA of a single cell, maybe each fertilized egg is made by the god-designer. On the other hand, maybe the divine intervention comes only when cells begin to differentiate. Or maybe when humans evolved 2 million years ago and the design has been on auto-pilot ever since? And was the planet earth itself intelligently designed? These are many questions ID has no answer for.