The ruse of Intelligent Design has been discussed here before and yesterday, an important ruling came down in the Dover, Pennsylvania case that puts a bright end to the dim Intelligent Design view of the science of evolution.
Here’s how the New York Times reported the story:

A federal judge ruled…. that a Pennsylvania school
board’s policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology
class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a
religious idea that advances “a particular version of Christianity.” In
the nation’s first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design,
Judge John E. Jones III dealt a stinging rebuke to advocates of
teaching intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in
public schools. The judge found that intelligent design is not science,
and that the only way its proponents can claim it is, is by changing
the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

The Chronicle of Higher Education had this to say on the historic ruling:

The judge cited the “breathtaking inanity” of the board’s
decision and the board members’ “striking ignorance” about the concept
of intelligent design, often called “ID.” (Eight board members who
supported inserting intelligent design into the science curriculum have
since been voted out of office.) “The citizens of the Dover area were
poorly served by the members of the board who voted for the ID policy,”
the judge wrote.

“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.” Judge Jones also had harsh words for
intelligent-design proponents in general, writing that the concept is
“at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent
evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed.” At one point in
the ruling, he stated plainly that intelligent design is “not science”
— a view that reflects the arguments of ID’s strongest critics.

It is good to finally see how the farcical idea of Intelligent Design is being outed in mainstream America,
in the courts and in the minds of reasonable people as we try to propel
ourselves properly into the future where science and education will
even more closely intermingle and we all continue to decode and
demystify the wonders of our world.

17 Comments

  1. That’s fine if the comfort remains private internal. Problems happen with that internal satisfaction seeks legitimacy outside the bodies and in the minds of those who do not need the familiarity of the everyday to live cogent and productive lives.

  2. While I am more than pleased to see intelligence win out over Intelligent Design, the ID proponents do have a point (a small one, but one I think important).
    Our students today are fed information, they are taught how to absorb information, they are taught how to memoriaze information. In most (but not all) cases, it seems that they are not taught how to critically examine information. I find this a dangerous precedent. Based on our history of scientific study, we can probably assume that what we believe to be true today, may be proven untrue tomorrow. If our children aren’t taught how to think (how to critically examine information), then they will simply swallow the tripe with the truth.
    Think about how we train the brain of children today. Think about how schools teach everything as simple, aristotlean Is True/Is Not True. If ID ever makes its way into the schools, it too may be taught with the same convictions, without our Children being trained in HOW TO THINK, then they will be unable to seperate the wheat from the chaff from the outright lies.
    I think it is good to teach children to be critical of any information they recieve (at school or otherwise).
    Ratatosk, Squirrel of Discord
    Muncher of The ChaoAcorn
    Chatterer of the Words of Eris
    POEE of The Great Googlie Mooglie Cabal

  3. I’m always torn on this subject because I’ve been exposed to too many different Christian denominations.
    I was baptisted in my grandmother’s Southern Baptist church. When I was an Army brat, I attended the generic military chapels on base. Later on, I was confirmed into the United Methodist church. Subsequently, when I was dating my to-be wife, I became interested in the Catholic church, went through RCIA, and became a member of the Roman Catholic church.
    I always find comfort in having a simple “black and white” set of rules. The Bible says the world was created in seven days, so it would be easy enough to go with that.
    However, the Bible is more complicated than that. God’s time line isn’t necessarily the same as ours, as it says in the New Testiment. One day in God’s time might not be the same as our 24-hour day.
    Could there have been intelligent design that incorporated evolution? It’s possible.
    Religion always requires faith. I believe that God created the heavens and the earth. But, I also think that God may have set into motion evolutionary processes that allowed species to develop and change in response to their circumstances.
    I wonder if our religious leaders are sometimes too focused on debate that does nothing to further Christ’s mission to help those who need our help. Someone needing love, or food, or friendship doesn’t care about ancient history. We need to focus more on the love and our common humanity than silly arguments that do nothing but divide people.

  4. Thanks for sharing your personal experiences, Chris.
    I was raised a Methodist but we were never terribly religious. My aunt is married to an Episcopalian minister and they are wonderful people with outstanding children and grandchildren.
    My wife was raised as a strict Baptist in Iowa and then grew up into a more progressive and independent “Deaf Church” association that was held in a non-denominational Unitarian kind of space and now we are both kind of wafting in the air between beliefs and finding it all fascinating.
    In an ABC News special yesterday Barbara Walters looked at the idea of Heaven from a Far-Eastern POV, a Jewish perspective and a Christian ideal. The end result was that if there was a real Heaven or not didn’t matter much — it was just the idea of Heaven that invigorates many and gives meaning to life and forces them to behave properly in the now so they might be rewarded later. It was a good show and it made a lot of sense on a lot of levels.

  5. Thanks for sharing your personal experiences, Chris.
    I was raised a Methodist but we were never terribly religious. My aunt is married to an Episcopalian minister and they are wonderful people with outstanding children and grandchildren.
    My wife was raised as a strict Baptist in Iowa and then grew up into a more progressive and independent “Deaf Church” association that was held in a non-denominational Unitarian kind of space and now we are both kind of wafting in the air between beliefs and finding it all fascinating.
    In an ABC News special yesterday Barbara Walters looked at the idea of Heaven from a Far-Eastern POV, a Jewish perspective and a Christian ideal. The end result was that if there was a real Heaven or not didn’t matter much — it was just the idea of Heaven that invigorates many and gives meaning to life and forces them to behave properly in the now so they might be rewarded later. It was a good show and it made a lot of sense on a lot of levels.