There is no "controversy" in the Scientific community. Intelligent design isn't science.
Intelligent Design should be taught at home or in church. It doesn't belong in the Science classroom.
DOLTS! and/or CLODS!
The Thomas More Law Center is a not-for-profit public interest law firm dedicated to the defense and promotion of the religious freedom of Christians, time-honored family values, and the sanctity of human life. Our purpose is to be the sword and shield for people of faith
So much for ID being separate from religion.
I'd be amazed if there isn't a motion to prevent these folks from representing a government school.
There are much more important things such legal organizations can be doing than attempting to destroy the integrity of science.
The "designer" could be anything or anyone
I'd really like to read/hear the cross examination of the 'expert witness' who must defend this statement.
Critics of intelligent design have dismissed the theory as a backdoor to creationism, with some calling it pseudo science.
LOL. Where 'some' = 99+% of scientists.
patent falsehood... no surprise.
Go look at the pro-evo blogs and the relish with which they're looking forward to the Dover trial. It's not as if our side doesn't have a strong case on its merits alone, but the missteps by the defense (paying $100,000 to Dembski as an expert witness and then deciding not to use him, and the overt admissions by members of the School Borad that the policy is religiously motivated) have most of us believing this case is a slam-dunk, and will be a major defeat for the IDers.
No. It is really boiling over in school board meetings around the country. That's it.
Not true! Yellow journalism at it's finest!
(We can't post stuff from the New Yorker, but this is just a very cool 'Queer Eye for the Omnipotent Guy' thing, super! )
Ancient history.
The fact that more scientists admit there is validity to ID means that at some point people are going to have to come up with something better than character assassination to rebut it (though I doubt most are capable of it). The fact that it arouses such a reaction in its detractors (and given the personalities of such detractors) has me interested in it - bribing museums and attempts to censor through the courts doesn't indicate to me a very good foundation in scientific truth (unless filing a lawsuit was recently added to the scientific method). American Spectator had a good article about ID several months ago, and now I see Time is covering it.
Good.