Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Take that, ID!

In October, there was a trial in Dover, Pennsilvania about whether Inteligent Design could be taught in public schools. Personally, I find the ID hypothesis to be weak but it could be considered separately from fundamental Christianity in the same way Communism could be considered separately from the USSR or China. The problem is, with Communism or ID, there are no other examples to be seen. ID doesn't have to be promoted or researched by fundamental Christians but they are the only ones doing so.

Judge Jones passed down his ruling today on the case. He tore ID, as practiced in Dover, to shreds, in a very fair and well-documented way, with links to the evidence involved throughout his ruling. From Panda's Thumb

Judge John E. Jones wrote:
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.

In other words, Evolution is good science and ID is not, and you can accept both Christianity and evolution - they are not opposed to each other.

One of the problems with ID is that even the top scientists supporting ID say it is only science if you change the definition of science. From Pharyngula:

First, 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.

Call me vindictive or too eager for strong punishment, but I would like to see one of the defendents, Bonsell, face perjury charges. In his deposition before trial he said one thing and changed his story in the witness box.

I may feel lonely in wanting him charged Immediately after the trial, he lost his seat in an election - but not by much: Source here.

Bonsell got almost 2500 votes in spite of having been on the witness stand the week before and showing himself to be a liar -- 2500 people _like_ the lies he told.

No comments: