Evolution vs. ID Ruling I'm really not going to cover anything new here, since this topic has been thoroughly discussed. However, I found it interesting that the ruling sounds like it was written by some illegitimate child of Redhurt, Charles, and Standingout.
"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
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."
"The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board's ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
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."
posted by Justin at 11:00 AM 
3 Comments:
yeah, I hope my illegitimate children write just like that someday.
I must strongly disagree with your post. Now I'm no lawyer, and don't know the case law that applies, but if you know the basis behind the theory you can see it’s NOT an attempt at government religion.
True, it has it's shortcomings much like evolution, and since it "should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed" as Jack posted, why not discuss it in science classes?
I see several problems with this post.
1. Jack, you make several unsubstantiated assertions. Do you have some proof of the "bedrock assumptions" and "presuppositions" you refer to? It seems to me that your "bedrock assumptions" are based on unproved assertions, which kinda weakens your argument. Besides which, many ID scientists started off with no assumptions at all. They came to this view after studying the incredible complexity of the universe. (You may want to read “Creation and Evolution 101” by Bickel and Jantz)
2. When you referred to an “untestable alternative hypothesis” were you referring to ID or Evolution? Neither of them can be tested, so they’re both kind of suspect from a scientific point of view.
3. The fact that members of the Dover school board lied has no bearing on whether ID is true or false, or whether the theory should be taught in schools. If they lied, bring them up on perjury charges, but you can’t be intellectually honest and toss out ID as a valid theory unless they lied about the basis of the theory itself.
4. You final paragraph illustrates very clearly the common misconception about ID. ID was not dreamed up by religious people who were looking for scientific validation that their beliefs in creationism were true. ID is a reasonable conclusion of scientists (many of whom hold no particular view on God) that our universe is too complex to be happenstance.
5. Since ID is not an attempt at establishing a government religion, how is it unconstitutional to teach it?
From the half dozen or so ID proponents I’ve either read or seen on a video, their argument is that our universe is just too complex to have happened without a designer. Depending on which scientist you talk to, there are a couple dozen different factors that require such precision that individually they are mathematically impossible, and together they are insanely impossible. Thus, the simple conclusion that this stuff didn’t happen randomly, but was intentionally designed. Many ID scientists won’t offer an opinion as to who designed the universe, simply that someone, or something must have. It could have been a Klingon from a parallel universe, but it DIDN’T just randomly happen. There’s no religion there, no worship of any God, just a reasonable conclusion that our universe is too complex to exist without some guidance.
How about scrapping ID and teaching evolution from a religious/Christian perspective (or as Charles would call it "theistic evolution")? Would that be allowed? Does anyone else think Teilhard de Chardin rocks house on that stuff?
Post a Comment
<< Home