Another nail in the coffin for Intelligent Design

[yo mama]

if you look into the ID debate, it's not a matter of wanting it presented as fact, it is a matter of wanting it considered and not ignored.

 

1259002[/snapback]

 

 

 

That's fairly glib summation of the issue.

 

As has already been stated, its not whether it should be considered, its WHERE it should be considered. The ID zealots want it discussed in science classes, despite the fact that it by definition defies scientific testing; by its very nature it presents a hypothesis that must be accepted - if at all - based on the existence of faith, miracles, and inherantly untestable assertions. Plus, most science classes are mandatory, which is another bone some opponents have to pick with the ID agenda.

 

Then there's the concern that ID is little more than Christian creationism masquerading as a more politically correct "all faith" concept, which it isn't. The only people barking up this tree seem to be fundamentalist Christians.

 

I'd have no problem if every public school offered a religion-free, elective philosophy class in which ID was one of many issues that were discussed. I think people should be able to discuss such things openly, if they want to. But it ain't science and shouldn't be taught as such. And the existence or lack of a "creator" is not a discussion our state or federal government should be forcing any citizen to enter into, especially in lieu of things like English, math, history, civics, and actually science.

Edited January 11, 2006 by yo mama

[tonorator]

Gaia, for instance.

 

1259008[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

remember, i'm not saying devote the entire class to the discussion - maybe it is an afternoon out of a semester. i agree that diving deeper into explanations for why is more suited for outside of a science class. the level that people want to go to, however, to ensure it is banished from texts and never uttered is disturbing. finding out how things happen (and happened) is at the root of science, and how the universe came to be is the ultimate question (both scientific and philosophical). it doesn't have to be treated like the plague and surrounded by the fear of the implications.

[wiegie]

do your own homework ...

 

"A better approach is to do experiments and perform careful observations. The results of this approach are universal in the sense that they can be reproduced by any skeptic. It is from these ideas that the scientific method was developed. Most of science is based on this procedure for studying Nature."

 

and some more ...

 

What is the "scientific method''?

 

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

 

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

 

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

 

sounds like a perfect fit to me ...

 

1258988[/snapback]

 

 

 

do my own homework???

 

What you have just written above is NOT the same at all as to what you wrote earlier (particularly, your earlier statement left out steps 3 and 4 which are essential in science):

i agree perch.  science doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything at all.  science is simply the act of recording observations and then linking the observations together into more complex observations to predict an outcome.  if you observe A doing something so many times, we then say that science explains A's behavior, which is not true.  we merely observe it and classify it - i.e. call it "gravity."

 

everything can be "explained" by "science" if you give it enough effort and observe something long enough.  in this case, they took a new tact on how to observe the bee and wham!  they had an "explanation" (which is really an observation).

 

whether it be photosynthesis, gravity, chemical reactions, partical physics, meteorology, or whatever "science" you want, it is all a big pile of observations and classifications.

 

none of that gets you any closer to the question of "why?"  why does everything on our planet and in our universe act in such a way that just so happens to sustain us humans here on earth with air to breath, water to drink, and fruit to pick off of a tree?  you can describe the air and atmosphere, break down water into H2O, and classify every genre of tree, bush, and fruit, but you have moved no closer to the question of "why?"

 

intelligent design is a very plausible option to consider when posing this question.  why people think that introducing this option after saying the pledge of allegiance every morning will somehow infect the young minds of our nation is beyond me.  what are we/you afraid of?

 

1258879[/snapback]

 

 

 

[wiegie]

if you look into the ID debate, it's not a matter of wanting it presented as fact, it is a matter of wanting it considered and not ignored.

 

1259002[/snapback]

 

 

 

Can you please give me a testable implication of the ID hypothesis so that I can see how it fits in with the scientific method that you outlined above?

[tonorator]

here's what i said in the first paragraph:

 

science doesn't actually EXPLAIN anything at all. science is simply the act of recording observations and then linking the observations together into more complex observations to predict an outcome.

 

note the word predict, which is part of step 3.

 

and then:

 

if you observe A doing something so many times, we then say that science explains A's behavior, which is not true.

 

this is step 4 - do it over and over until you get consistent results ...

 

so i'm not sure where you are confused.

 

my premise is that the scientific method does not explain anything in terms of why it is happening. it just observes, tests, classifies, and then goes back to observes and continues to cycle.

[tonorator]

Can you please give me a testable implication of the ID hypothesis so that I can see how it fits in with the scientific method that you outlined above?

 

1259045[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

again, i'm not saying that science classes should undertake the task of trying to prove ID. this is something all of mankind is grappling with and not something we need school students dealing with in place of the science of understanding what the world presents to us. i'm saying that for a limited portion of the cirriculum, which could be no more than a few hours, the question of why we are here is posed and some time is spent discussing possible answers. it's not a christian sub-plot and it's not meant to replace putting out students who can continue the work of generating scientific advances which improve our lives.

[wiegie]

again, i'm not saying that science classes should undertake the task of trying to prove ID.  this is something all of mankind is grappling with and not something we need school students dealing with in place of the science of understanding what the world presents to us.  i'm saying that for a limited portion of the cirriculum, which could be no more than a few hours, the question of why we are here is posed and some time is spent discussing possible answers.  it's not a christian sub-plot and it's not meant to replace putting out students who can continue the work of generating scientific advances which improve our lives.

 

1259058[/snapback]

 

 

 

I have no problem with having students have some sort of philosophy discussion on the topic and I don't have a problem with students learning about religion--just not in science classes.

[Meat Face]

remember, i'm not saying devote the entire class to the discussion - maybe it is an afternoon out of a semester.  i agree that diving deeper into explanations for why is more suited for outside of a science class.  the level that people want to go to, however, to ensure it is banished from texts and never uttered is disturbing.  finding out how things happen (and happened) is at the root of science, and how the universe came to be is the ultimate question (both scientific and philosophical).  it doesn't have to be treated like the plague and surrounded by the fear of the implications.

 

1259026[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I know what you're saying. But it doesn't belong in science class. It's as ridiculous to talk about ID in science class as it is to talk about the boogie man.. ...he's only there when your eyes are closed!!!

[tonorator]

I know what you're saying.  But it doesn't belong in science class.  It's as ridiculous to talk about ID in science class as it is to talk about the boogie man.. ...he's only there when your eyes are closed!!!

 

1259061[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

understand the point. again, however, if the topic comes up and an instructor mentions the possibility of ID, or as in many science (and other classes) a tangential discussion rises up that leads to ID, we should not have a school system that lives in fear of one child going home and mentioning that ID was talked about in science. we have blown this way out of proportion.

 

aside from that, personally, i do think ID is a highly relevant scientific topic, especially if evolution is on the table. ID is the leading alternative to evolution, so if one is discussed, it seems odd to me to eliminate the other. there are many holes in evolutionary theory, but yet it is presented as the leading option, with most kids walking away believing that human beings are the result of millions of years of permutations of single celled slime. that is just as ridiculous to me.

[wiegie]

understand the point.  again, however, if the topic comes up and an instructor mentions the possibility of ID, or as in many science (and other classes) a tangential discussion rises up that leads to ID, we should not have a school system that lives in fear of one child going home and mentioning that ID was talked about in science.  we have blown this way out of proportion.

 

aside from that, personally, i do think ID is a highly relevant scientific topic, especially if evolution is on the table.  ID is the leading alternative to evolution, so if one is discussed, it seems odd to me to eliminate the other.  there are many holes in evolutionary theory, but yet it is presented as the leading option, with most kids walking away believing that human beings are the result of millions of years of permutations of single celled slime.  that is just as ridiculous to me.

 

1259082[/snapback]

 

 

 

Again, please give me one testable implication of the ID hypothesis.

 

I will give you a testable implication of the evolutionary hypothesis just to help get you started: If the evolutionary hypothesis is correct, then we should find fossil evidence that simple organisms pre-dated complex organisms but not vice-versa.

[SuperBalla]

God made man through evolution. Why is that so hard to digest?

[wiegie]

God made man through evolution. Why is that so hard to digest?

 

1259098[/snapback]

 

 

 

I have no idea. (I just know we can't test the God part.)

[SuperBalla]

I have no idea.  (I just know we can't test the God part.)

 

1259102[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Don't sweat it...he told me.

 

Nah...why isn't evolution a perfect fit into the "vague" book of Genisis? Cause we can't bust the scientific method?

[tonorator]

Again, please give me one testable implication of the ID hypothesis.

 

I will give you a testable implication of the evolutionary hypothesis just to help get you started:  If the evolutionary hypothesis is correct, then we should find fossil evidence that simple organisms pre-dated complex organisms but not vice-versa.

 

1259090[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

fossil evidence is actually the leading reason for doubting evolutionary theory. the evidence is just not there to support the major branching of our species over time. what exists is only very limited cases and they are highly disputed. we should be deluged with fossil evidence if evolution is true, but it's just not the case.

 

the exercise of applying the scientific method to ID is not applicable. the scientific method was created to explain the world around us, not to prove how it started. using it to try and prove/disprove ID is like characters trying to escape a video game. you can only play the game and explore the video world - you don't have the programming to go beyond.

 

again, darwin negated his own theory, so i don't have to do much in that area.

[wiegie]

the exercise of applying the scientific method to ID is not applicable. 

1259107[/snapback]

 

 

 

I agree--because ID is not science. Which is why it should have no place in a science course.

[wiegie]

again, darwin negated his own theory, so i don't have to do much in that area.

 

1259107[/snapback]

 

 

 

Can you give us a link to this please?

[The Irish Doggy]

fossil evidence is actually the leading reason for doubting evolutionary theory.  the evidence is just not there to support the major branching of our species over time.  what exists is only very limited cases and they are highly disputed.  we should be deluged with fossil evidence if evolution is true, but it's just not the case.

 

1259107[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Ahh, the "missing link" argument. As soon as you find a fossil that bridges the gap between an ancestor and modern humans, the ID proponents now say there are 2 missing links. Find another? Oops, now there's 3 missing links. Its a ridiculous argument. As if fossils were the only argument for or against evolution.... Genetics, Geology, Comparative Anatomy immediately come to mind and they all support evolutionary theory.

 

Ton, your science teachers didn't do you very right.

[tonorator]

Can you give us a link to this please?

 

1259115[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

i'm not catholic, but catholic.net does a good job of outlining this ...

 

http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Issues/Darwin.html

 

i highlight:

 

There are other serious problems with classical Darwinian theory. Among them are the fact that scientists see very little "struggle for survival" in nature (many species tend to cooperate and occupy ecological niches which do not compete); the fact that all the major body plans we see today in animals and insects appeared at once in the Cambrian era, a fact which does not fit Darwin's model; and that many species like the lungfish have not changed at all in over 300 million years despite important shifts in their environment, which flatly contradicts the constant fine-tuning Darwin attributed to natural selection.

 

Darwin himself was increasingly plagued by doubts after the first edition of the Origin. In subsequent editions, he kept backing off from natural selection as the explanation of all natural phenomena. Loren Eiseley writes:

 

" (A) close examination of the last edition of the Origin reveals that, in attempting to meet the objections being launched against his theory, the much-labored upon volume had become contradictory.... The last repairs to the Origin reveal ... how very shaky Darwin's theoretical structure had become."

 

Darwin's unproven theory nonetheless became dogma in the public mind.

 

and this is also a big point, explaining the lack of fossil evidence:

 

But a crucial point has to be made here, one that has been made often by Darwin's scientific critics. What Darwin observed in the breeding pens is micro-evolution. Micro-evolution refers to the small changes that occur within a species over time. Such evolution is common. For example, people are generally taller today than they were a hundred years ago. The varieties of finches that Darwin saw on the Galapagos Islands are another example of micro-evolution. With no direct empirical evidence, Darwin claimed that over long periods of time these micro-changes could result in macro-evolution, which consists of really big jumps-from amoeba to reptile to mammal, for example. This is where his theory runs into problems which are still not resolved in the minds of many scientists today.

[bushwacked]

fossil evidence is actually the leading reason for doubting evolutionary theory.  the evidence is just not there to support the major branching of our species over time.  what exists is only very limited cases and they are highly disputed.  we should be deluged with fossil evidence if evolution is true, but it's just not the case.

 

1259107[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Please support your statement with a bonafide research article or study.

[The Irish Doggy]

And there most certainly is a malicious attempt to replace science with God in the guise of ID. But dont take my word for it.

 

Ask the judge. Long, but I bolded some highlights. Nice usage of the word canard.

 

Intelligent Decision

What the judge said about intelligent design in schools.

By Susan Kruglinski

December 22, 2005

 

 

 

 

The judge's December 20th ruling in the Intelligent Design trial, Kitzmiller V. Dover Area School District, is a fascinating read that lays bare a case of shrewd marketing:  the recasting of a religious belief as science.  Below are excerpts from the memorandum opinion – a summary of the case written by the judge – that includes evidence that ID is a carefully constructed cover for the religious idea of creationism, evidence and arguments that imply that ID is not a form of science, and Judge E. Jones's clear-cut conclusions and ruling.   

 

 

 

All text is excerpted and incomplete, all headings are our own. 

 

 

 

THE MACHINATIONS BEHIND

INTELLIGENT DESIGN

 

The Wedge Document

Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's [intelligent Design Model] goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science."  As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.  In addition to the IDM itself describing ID as a religious argument, ID's religious nature is evident because it involves a supernatural designer...Prominent ID proponents have made abundantly clear that the designer is supernatural.

 

 

 

Defendents' own words

Defendants' expert witness ID proponents confirmed that the existence of a supernatural designer is a hallmark of ID. First, Professor Behe has written that by ID he means "not designed by the laws of nature," and that it is "implausible that the designer is a natural entity." Second, Professor Minnich testified that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened so that supernatural forces can be considered.  Third, Professor Steven William Fuller testified that it is ID's project to change the ground rules of science to include the supernatural.

 

 

 

It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID's religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.

 

 

 

Of Pandas and People

The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID's creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover's ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas [Of Pandas and People]. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization.  Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court's decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science. By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge: (1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID; (2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and (3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards. This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE's argument that by merely disregarding the words "creation" and "creationism," FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre- Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term "creation" was defined as "various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc," the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published version.

 

The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from "creation" to "intelligent design" occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court's important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs' assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God. Further evidence in support of the conclusion that a reasonable observer, adult or child, who is "aware of the history and context of the community and forum" is presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism concerns the fact that ID uses the same, or exceedingly similar arguments as were posited in support of creationism. One significant difference is that the words "God," "creationism," and "Genesis" have been systematically purged from ID explanations, and replaced by an unnamed "designer." …The sole argument Defendants made to distinguish creationism from ID was their assertion that the term "creationism" applies only to arguments based on the Book of Genesis, a young earth, and a catastrophic Noaich flood; however, substantial evidence established that this is only one form of creationism.

 

 

 

 

 

WHY ID IS NOT SCIENCE

 

Definition of science

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research. 

 

 

 

Expert testimony reveals that since the scientific revolution of the 16th and 17th centuries, science has been limited to the search for natural causes to explain natural phenomena. This revolution entailed the rejection of the appeal to authority, and by extension, revelation, in favor of empirical evidence. Since that time period, science has been a discipline in which testability, rather than any ecclesiastical authority or philosophical coherence, has been the measure of a scientific idea's worth. In deliberately omitting theological or "ultimate" explanations for the existence or characteristics of the natural world, science does not consider issues of "meaning" and "purpose" in the world.  While supernatural explanations may be important and have merit, they are not part of science.  This self-imposed convention of science, which limits inquiry to testable, natural explanations about the natural world, is referred to by philosophers as "methodological naturalism" and is sometimes known as the scientific method. Methodological naturalism is a "ground rule" of science today which requires scientists to seek explanations in the world around us based upon what we can observe, test, replicate, and verify.

 

 

 

ID takes a natural phenomenon and, instead of accepting or seeking a natural explanation, argues that the explanation is supernatural. It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world…Defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces.

 

 

 

ID's goal to "defeat" science and "replace" explanations

The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as "Governing Goals" to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." 

 

 

 

Further support for this proposition is found in the Wedge Strategy, which is composed of three phases: Phase I is scientific research, writing and publicity; Phase II is publicity and opinion-making; and Phase III is cultural confrontation and renewal.  In the "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary," the Wedge Document explains that the social consequences of materialism have been "devastating" and that it is necessary to broaden the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of ID. "Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions." Phase I of the Wedge Strategy is an essential component and directly references "scientific revolutions." Phase II explains that alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, "we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence that support the faith, as well as to 'popularize' our ideas in the broader culture."  Finally, Phase III includes pursuing possible legal assistance "in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula."…The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic andChristian science."  The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory.

 

 

 

No backing from scientists

Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best "fringe science" which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.

 

 

 

No Evidence For ID

A final indicator of how ID has failed to demonstrate scientific warrant is the complete absence of peer-reviewed publications supporting the theory…The evidence presented in this case demonstrates that ID is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications…The one article referenced by both Professors Behe and Minnich as supporting ID is an article written by Behe and Snoke entitled "Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues." A review of the article indicates that it does not mention either irreducible complexity or ID. In fact, Professor Behe admitted that the study which forms the basis for the article did not rule out many known evolutionary mechanisms and that the research actually might support evolutionary pathways if a biologically realistic population size were used…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."

 

 

 

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.  In that regard, there are no peer-reviewed articles supporting Professor Behe's argument that certain complex molecular structures are "irreducibly complex."  In addition to failing to produce papers in peer-reviewed journals, ID also features no scientific research or testing.

 

 

 

JUDGE'S CONCLUSIONS

After this searching and careful review of ID as espoused by its proponents, as elaborated upon in submissions to the Court, and as scrutinized over a six week trial, we find that ID is not science and cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community. ID, as noted, is grounded in theology, not science. Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents', as well as Defendants' argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum.

 

 

 

Moreover, ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.   To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.

 

 

 

Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.

 

 

 

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

 

 

 

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

 

 

 

With that said, we do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

 

 

 

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

 

 

 

To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs' rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants' actions. Defendants' actions in violation of Plaintiffs' civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs' attorneys' services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs' constitutional rights.

 

[tonorator]

here is darwin saying it himself ...

 

In light of what Darwin asked people to believe, it is hardly surprising that he often ex-

pressed doubts about the feasibility of his theory. In his sixth chapter, “Difficulties on

Theory,” he remarked, “Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of

difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I

can never reflect on them without being staggered;...”Darwin considered such things as

instinct alone “sufficient to overthrow my whole theory.” He also referred to the common

view of many naturalists who “believed that very many [plant and animal] structures have

been created for beauty in the eyes of man, or for mere variety. This doctrine, if true, would

be absolutely fatal to my theory. Yet I fully admit [as evolution requires] that many struc-

tures are of no direct use to their possessors.” Commenting on “the difficulties and objec-

tions which may be urged against my theory,” a few pages later he observes that “many of

them are very grave....”

 

per fossils, again, he said it himself ...

 

“Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such

intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic

chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged

against my theory.” Further, “to the question why we do not find records of these vast

primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.... The case at present must remain

inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here enter-

tained.”

 

this is hardly a man convinced and at the heart of his scientific work is the continual question of design ... note the following ...

 

Darwin confessed, “To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree.” In Volume 2 of The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin by Frances Darwin (1887, p. 67), Darwin confessed in 1860 that, “The eye to this day gives me a cold shudder...”

 

again, when you are talking about synchonized complexity, design has to be a valid option. to ignore the possibility is not good science, in my opinion.

[rajncajn]

I never will understand why some scientists try so hard to prove God does not exist. Why is it so important to them? The argument was stupid to begin with, proving they can 'find out how bees fly' is no less stupid. It's a great discovery, why ruin it with this crap?

[The Irish Doggy]

There are other serious problems with classical Darwinian theory. Among them are the fact that scientists see very little "struggle for survival" in nature (many species tend to cooperate and occupy ecological niches which do not compete);

 

Indeed, I noticed on the Dicovery channel just the other day how those impala cooperatively jump into a cheetah's jaws.

 

But a crucial point has to be made here, one that has been made often by Darwin's scientific critics. What Darwin observed in the breeding pens is micro-evolution. Micro-evolution refers to the small changes that occur within a species over time. Such evolution is common.

 

Ah we've seen this one before. "Micro evolution" - it sounds sciency. Lets put it out there so we don't look like fools for completely denying what's right in front of our face.

[tonorator]

Indeed, I noticed on the Dicovery channel just the other day how those impala cooperatively jump into a cheetah's jaws.

Ah we've seen this one before.  "Micro evolution" - it sounds sciency. Lets put it out there so we don't look like fools for completely denying what's right in front of our face.

 

1259164[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

hey doggy, check out darwin's own words.

 

and i'm not for teaching ID as fact and i'm definitely not for any religious discussion coming into science classes front and center and taking the place of using the scientific method to understand the world around us. that is, indeed, what science is all about.

 

to think, however, that scientists will not end up "staggered" as Darwin was, is silly. it is also silly to present evolution without acknowledging the serious flaws in the theory. i then believe that it is also silly to be so dead set against the mention of ID as an option.

 

and doggy, the article you posted is incorrect in stating that the scientific community turns its back on ID. read 'the case for a creator' in which lee strobel, a former athiest and attorney, interviews highly decorated scientist after highly decorated scientist who all state that the option has merit.

Edited January 11, 2006 by tonorator

[montster]

aside from that, personally, i do think ID is a highly relevant scientific topic, especially if evolution is on the table.  ID is the leading alternative to evolution, so if one is discussed, it seems odd to me to eliminate the other.  there are many holes in evolutionary theory, but yet it is presented as the leading option, with most kids walking away believing that human beings are the result of millions of years of permutations of single celled slime.  that is just as ridiculous to me.

 

1259082[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

i always thought creationism was the leading alternative to evolution. which brings me to my point: ID proponents often try to create a sense that millions of children have no choice but to be brainwashed in school with "theories" of "evolution," as you basically said in your quote. but they have plenty of choices: parents, church, private school, their own curiousity. to me, trying to deny that ID is anything but creationism in a lab coat is what's ridiculous. a judge already has said as much. but if parents are so worried that their children are learning about evolution, then here's my solution: talk to them. don't force a school district to do your job for you.