[PatrickHenry]

This is the final hurrah of the Dover evolution-intelligent design drama. In all the other school board slots that were up for election, the incumbents lost. This incumbent is getting a revote. Whatever happens in this particular race, the conclusion appears to be that ID is electoral death.

[PatrickHenry]

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 330 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[BenLurkin]

The court made it perfectly clear: the school system has a duty to prevent children from adhering to their parents' beliefs.

[highball]

the conclusion appears to be that ID is electoral death

The good guys win again. I love America!

[2banana]

she and her fellow members might officially vote to remove the mention of intelligent design from the school district's science curriculum.

Lord forbid that you even mention it. It's illegal to even talk about it. Sounds like schools under Communism...

[betty boop]

Intelligent design is the idea that life is too complex for random evolution and must have a creator.

Of course you know, dear Patrick, that that's not what ID is at all. It says nothing about whether the source of the "intelligence" is a natural process or an agent.

I think what this brou-ha-ha is ultimately about is methodological naturalism is a scientific method based on only two of Aristotle's four causes: the material and the efficient. It is a "reductionist" method, in that it omits to consider the formal and final causes. ID is interested in all four causes.

Ultimately, this fight is not over a "creator." It's about what causes the scientific method ought to address, going forward. FWIW

[RonF]

Uh oh. Editing error.

Intelligent design is the idea that it can be scientifically proved that life is too complex for random evolution and must have a creator.

There. Fixed it.

[JCEccles]

The "science" of Darwinian materialism is in deep trouble, PH. It is hemorrhaging because it cannot answer simple questions posed by Intelligent Design. This silly little bandaid applied to the gaping wound by a small-minded angry little frump of a judge isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference over the long haul.

[longshadow]

One more time, with gusto; let's review just ONE of the reasons why ID doesn't belong in the science classroom, as deduced by the court based on the testimony of ID God-father Michael Behe:

On cross-examination, Professor Behe admitted that: "There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred"(22:22-23 (Behe)). Additionally, Professor Behe conceded that there are no peer-reviewed papers supporting his claims that complex molecular systems, like the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade, and the immune system, were intelligently designed. (21:61-62 (complex molecular systems), 23:4-5 (immune system), and 22:124-25 (blood-clotting cascade) (Behe)). In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."17 (21:62, 22:124-25 (Behe)). In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing. (28:114-15 (Fuller); 18:22-23, 105-06 (Behe)).

[emphasis added]

That's ID's score card, folks: NO peer-reviewed articles supporting it with positive evidence, NO articles supporting irreducuble complexity, and NO research or testing. Sure sounds like they desperately want to get to the "bottom" of things, doesn't it?

[Junior]

Opus takes on intelligent design.

[dennisw]

God fearing patriots, pioneers, workers, farmers, capitalists and soldiers made America what it is. Sniveling atheist punks are a footnote