Haha! Sure, it is.
Because according to them, the universe never had a beginning don't ya know!
There is a tagline lurking in this paragraph just aching to be free!
Ping.
Not!
What's so intelligent about our design? Why do so many people have back trouble. No engineer starting with a blank sheet of paper would design the human spine the way it is designed.
I've been following this debate for 25 years. No way it's dead, although this author is substantially correct in saying that the judge did turn a cannon on ID and fire several times to deal a significantly damaging blow.
As a side note: one of the sections that caught my eye when I read the whole document is a line quoted in this article, about an observation by the judge:
"He said that one of the professors, an ID proponent, who testified for the school board 'remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.' "
My take is that the judge, though he took 21 days of testimony, has not been following the debate long enough to judge this one in context.
Behe was not caught here in a gotcha Freudian slip, as the judge clearly thinks he was.
He was reiterating a classic ID argument that says that scientists cannot adequately evaluate the existence of the supernatural because they have ruled it out, a priori, in their definition of science as only allowing study of the natural. You can't evaluate the existence of God (supernatural) if you don't allow for the existence of the supernatural. That's all he was saying.
You can agree or disagree, but it's not "remarkable" that Behe made the assertion.
"Intelligent Design Science" is none of the three.
It is not very intelligent
It certainly seeks to promote a design along the lines of long established religious tenants.
And it certainly is not science.
3 strikes. You're out.
Another activist judge legislating from the bench mega technicolor barf alert. Probably a Clinton appointee.
The laws of nature exisited before the alledged big bang.
Without the laws of nature i.e. gravity, thermodynamics and
so forth the universe would not display the degree of orderliness it presently does. Are we to "believe" that
an explosion initiated an orderly universe?
This statement is proof that this is anti-Christian persecution.
They state that just because the idea is mentioned in the Bible it automatically becomes a failed idea.
This is prejudice, pure and simple. They insult adults who know the truth of Christ and insult and belittle children of Christians by telling them their Bible is a lie.
I believe lawsuits can be won. They must be filed. My teenafgers can see how the school insults them and belittles their religion. (My children pity them their poverty, but they nonetheless suffer in such a hostile environment).
BTW: The reason there is so much panic among the atheists is because since 1998 they have been dealt setback after setback as previous scientific theories are shot down and the idea that there must be a God becomes scientifically ever more credible.
The theory that a Creator is responsible for the Universe is more credible now than an oscillating universe theory which had been (and still is) taught in most every high school science curriculum for the past 20 years.
The founder of modern science, Sir Isaac Newton also disagrees with all of these 'scientists" who use his ideas to attempt to discount the idea of God.
"There are more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than any in profane history." -- Sir Isaac Newton
Dream on. God's Truth is marching on. Ain't no judge gonna be able to stop it.
Nietzche?
Beheist. Keeper?
With all due respect to my many Christian friends, and to sites such as Joseph Farah's usually excellent WorldNetDaily.com, the judge was both conservative and definitive in his ruling.
Leaving no wiggle room with phrases like ""The breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident -", he clearly defined the difference between science and activist theology.
Conservatives might be better served by remembering where activist theology got the Catholics, particularly during the heyday of Church "activist theologians" making nice with Commies in South America.
Science explains what the world is. Religion discusses 'why', not 'how'. Religion and science are not competing, they are different.
ID never had a chance. It was stillborn.
Fantastic article
Scopes Trial Part 2, but with a different ending...
Science in this nation is already dying a slow death, we do not need to be confusing kids by throwing something like ID into science classes.
Want to teach ID in social studies, or religious studies, ghost hunting 101? Sure, go right ahead. But leave it out of the science class. Science tries to find the answers to "how" and religion asks "why"- They are both vital, and are not in competition, but need to be kept apart.
What the judge and most of the maroon ignore is: That man is the only animal thats "needs" relgion. He/they will NEVER change that.
More evo-clutter.
Unless it's true. The judge didn't say it isn't true, only that it relies on the existence of an agent or power outside of the natural order. If that power or agent exists, then ID isn't dead.