Court rejects ‘intelligent design’ in science class
Ah, great. The US judicial system can be trusted to uphold the US constitution: U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III pierced right through the crappy camouflage of the ID proponents and ruled that they’re trying to get creationism into the classroom.
Said the judge: “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.”
Yup. Good going, judge. Hope the ID bullshitters will lose the rest of the cases as well. Because evolution is real science and ID ain’t.
Stumble it!
Post to del.icio.us
December 20th, 2005 at 9:37 pm
As much as I agree with the outcome, I don’t like it coming from a court - because that displaces such arguments from the (elected) legislature to the (unelected) judiciary. In which case, judicial appointments tend to become proxy elections (see: any recent Supreme Court selection)
December 22nd, 2005 at 3:25 am
Looks like all Samlltalkers aren’t enlightened. The court was wrong and there is absolutely no scientific proof of man being the product of evolution. a hypothisis yes, proof no. Those who believe in ID or that man is God’s creation are just as entitled as those who don’t to have theories they believe in presented in parallel to those believed in by evolutionists. Come on Cees, why do you think your religion is justified to be taught but mine isn’t.
December 18th, 2006 at 5:11 am
Intelligent design in the Science Class
If the concept of intelligent design is forced into the science class it should be brought in with a scientific bent, and not a religious bent. A religious bent teaches that evolutionary advancement is driven by a single perfect, omnipresent God. A scientific approach would start with a hypothesis that something beyond the physical as defined by the force not yet identified drives evolution. A God would be one possibility. But that is only the start the investigation. Other possibilities are many Gods working together; deities not so perfect and not omnipresent. A multi-dimensional matrix of attributes should be created. Some attributes of creative deities could be: competence, compassion, jealous and ability to work with others. Lets consider a platypus. Here is a classic case of an animal apparently created by a committee, and not a very good committee at that. A bill like duck, a tail like a beaver and flippers like a seal and then only the rudiments of mammary glands.
So yea, bring intelligent design into the science class, but bring all it complexities with it.
Bill
December 23rd, 2006 at 12:01 am
I think not. Because why would you bring a non-scientific non-theory into science class? Maybe into philosophy 101, or something like that.
BTW, if you like this sort of thinking, check out Davie’s “The Goldilocks Enigma”.