Posted on 12/20/2005 12:12:16 PM PST by truthfinder9
SEATTLE — "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work," said Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, the nation's leading think tank researching the scientific theory known as intelligent design. “He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it.”
“A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics,” added West. “The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree."
In his decision, Judge John Jones ruled that the Dover, Pennsylvania school district violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by requiring a statement to be read to students notifying them about intelligent design. Reaching well beyond the immediate legal questions before him, Judge Jones offered wide-ranging and sometimes angry comments denouncing intelligent design and praising Darwinian evolution.
"Judge Jones found that the Dover board violated the Establishment Clause because it acted from religious motives. That should have been the end to the case," said West. "Instead, Judge Jones got on his soapbox to offer his own views of science, religion, and evolution. He makes it clear that he wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."
"Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West. "Americans don't like to be told there is some idea that they aren't permitted to learn about.. It used to be said that banning a book in Boston guaranteed it would be a bestseller. Banning intelligent design in Dover will likely only fan interest in the theory."
"In the larger debate over intelligent design, this decision will be of minor significance," added Discovery Institute attorney Casey Luskin. "As we've repeatedly stressed, the ultimate validity of intelligent design will be determined not by the courts but by the scientific evidence pointing to design.”
Luskin pointed out that the ruling only applies to the federal district in which it was handed down. It has no legal effect anywhere else. The decision is also unlikely to be appealed, since the recently elected Dover school board members campaigned on their opposition to the policy. "The plans of the lawyers on both sides of this case to turn this into a landmark ruling have been preempted by the voters," he said.
"Discovery Institute continues to oppose efforts to mandate teaching about the theory of intelligent design in public schools," emphasized West. "But the Institute strongly supports the freedom of teachers to discuss intelligent design in an objective manner on a voluntary basis. We also think students should learn about both the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory of evolution."
Drawing on recent discoveries in physics, biochemistry and related disciplines, the scientific theory of intelligent design proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. Proponents include scientists at numerous universities and science organizations around the world.
So you admit that intelligent design isn't science, it's faith. Dont you teach your kids the Bible in Sunday School? Why force it on others as "science" because you cant effectively inculcate it in your kids without the power of the state.
Actually, it's barely been red in the last two presidental elections by massive voter fraud in Phily and Pittsburgh (i.e. bussing in the homeless, convicts, dead people).
So, why did they need a judge to decide anything? If the local taxpayers voted the folks out, that should have been their method of fixing the problem.
susie
That's immaterial. They can teach that red is blue and blue is red if they choose. They would be wrong and stupid, but it's not up to a judge to decide these things. I feel like I've fallen down the rabbit hole and into Wonderland!
susie
Actually, ID doesn't say anything about who the designer is. There are ID scientists from a variety of religions. Of course that probably wasn't in the talking points from Darwinian Fundie HQ.
And judges wouldnt be forced to if activists didnt try to redefine and dumbdown science by making the oral history of shepards the equivalent of the scientific method.
Some angry parents brought a lawsuit. You're right, the legal system should have never been a part of this.
Because the case was before the courts and pushed by ID activists that's why.
"The bottom line is judges should not be deciding what is taught in schools (and I would think this would be the conservative viewpoint). The local taxpayers should decide."
The judge isn't deciding what should be taught in the classroom--he's deciding what shouldn't. ID is for the simple-minded.
Since the time intelligence designed the first hypothesis?
"It's funny how the Darwin Fundies in the trial never addressed the science that the ID supporters presented."
And specifically what science would that be?
Again you prove your zero knowledge on the subject, because no ID books reference "the oral history of shepards" including the peer-reviewed ID book, "The Design Inference."
"But I thought there wasn't any peer-reviewed ID lit?"
Guess again.
Having an interest in intelligent design is fine. Studying it is fine. Fostering it on impressionabel kids as science is not. I enjoy listening to the Art Bell show, but that doesnt mean that I think the transistor was created by backengineering alien technology from Roswell. And Im going to give credit in school to the three PhDs at Bell Labs.
You're right about Art Bell. Now there's entertainment.
Try developing or discussing any tenants of intelligent design that conflict with "Genesis" in any way and you will realize that you are wrong.
You like this decision because you agree with the premise (ID is not science). However, do you believe judges should be deciding what is and isn't science??
susie
It's not scientific. And he didn't try to stop it's spread. Those people who seek to find a way to develop science to back up ID are still free to do so.
and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate,
Criticize it all you want. Debate it all you want. But such criticism and debate belongs in the scientific literature, not in the classroom. Until there's science to back up the teaching of ID, the only class it belongs in is one for philosophy or comparative religion.
and it won't work,"
Yes, it will. It'll work precisely as it should; find scientific evidence to back up religiously-based assertions and it'll get taught as science. Until then, it won't.
I'm tussling mightily with the logic of that statement!
susie
And it's freaking hilarious how the Genesis worshipers here never address how the "scientists [who] think ID is science" believe in evolution (including "descent from the ape") and testified to that at the Dover trial
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.