In a comprehensive 139-page opinion, the federal district court in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania has demolished the arguments of those who advocate for the teaching of the so-called “theory” of “Intelligent Design” (or “ID”) in science classrooms. It’s an extraordinary opinion that will from today forward define the terms of the ID debate in a way very favorable to those who prefer that actual science be taught in science classrooms.
A couple of choice quotes:
An Objective Observer Would Know that ID and Teaching About “Gaps” and “Problems” in Evolutionary Theory are Creationist, Religious Strategies that Evolved from Earlier Forms of Creationism…. We conclude that the religious nature of ID would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child.
Well, there you go. Note, also, this comment about Professor Behe, perhaps the leading advocate for the “scientific” nature of ID:
Uh huh. And again:
There you go. But here is perhaps the most impressive part of the Court’s opinion:
Relatedly, here’s another particularly good section:
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 ID [movement] is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.
Wow. Gotta give this judge a lot of credit. He knows what’s coming, and he takes it on, guns a-blazin’:
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, Plaintiffsâ 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.
* * *
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.
* * *
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 Boardâs 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.
Wow. And again, I say, wow. Who is this judge? Some activist Clinton appointee, no doubt? Sorry – he was appointed by none other than George W. Bush.
The refusal to even acknowledge the existance of a differing viewpoint on a subject so vast, so unproven, so riddled with conflicting theories and propositions, is arrogant.
I am not sure where exactly you stand but if you are suggesting the the left is afraid of the ID and we sought to block it from being taught in our schools because we are afraid it could be “right” I would suggest you are wrong. You need to isolate the issue. The issue was not the merits of ID per se but rather the notion that ID should be taught in in science class. I am sure you are aware of something called the scientific method. This is the method by which theories are rigorously examined. The proponents of ID wanted to skip the rigorous examination part and skip right to the generally accepted theory part. Evolution, like it or not, has been vigorously examined and debated for decades. It bears the indicia of validity because of the debate, examination, and refinement the theory has endured. To place ID on the same level of scientific credibility is preposterous and, at least for now, it should rightly be excluded from our science classrooms.
<
p>
There are periphery issues like the constitutionality of such teaching ID as well as where to place ID in a cirriculum. The constitutionality has now been decided: the purpose of the proponents of ID was to sneak a little organized religion through the back door and this cannot stand based on the laws of this country. If students are interested in debating the merits and validty of ID they are not barred from doing so in the classroom or in extra cirricular groups. ID is not outlawed, it is still open for debate, but instead of being mandated as was the wish of the Dover School Board, it is now up to the facilitaion of the teachers which is hardly arrogant. Rather I would suggest that the mandating of an idea on an unwilling population is the act of arrogance.
I agree with the theory of evolution of species, insofar as it goes.
<
p>
I am mindful, however, that evolution remains a theory, and has not been proven empirically or conclusively .
<
p>
To mandate the teaching of one unproven theory as superior to another unproven theory smacks of bias, and yes, arrogance.
<
p>
I do not favor the teaching of creationism, a la Genesis, in high school biology classes. Nor do I wish that students be told that Darwin is the last word on the subject, or that our existance is a “happy accident” of nature.
<
p>
Surely, a reasonable person does not object to a caveat, a simple paragraph, when teaching subject matter which is in a state of flux or dispute, that acknowledges that there are other theories, equally unproven, perhaps, yet equally worthy of consideration.
<
p>
Like David said below, no one says it can’t be taught, just don’t teach it as science because science it is not.
to equate ID with evolution, as though they are two equally “unproven” theories. As any scientist knows, no theory is ever “proven” to be “true” in some absolute sense. Scientific theories are tested by experiment. And there have been A LOT of experiments that support the theory of evolution. There have been ZERO experiments that support ID (and really, what would such an experiment look like? It’s not only untested, it’s untestable). Ergo, we are not dealing with two “unproven theories.” Really, this is all in the Judge’s opinion, and you should read it.
Doesn’t anyone remember their goddamned high school classes?
<
p>
sighs
<
p>
The use of the word “theory” in science has a different meaning than when, say, they use it in Buffy the Musical (“I’ve got a theory, that it’s a demon, a dancing demon no something isn’t right there…“).
<
p>
Gravity and electromagnitism are still fracking theories too, BTW. Wanna go back and tell me that evolution is ‘only’ an ‘unproven’ theory?
<
p>
Dictionary. They’re good for something usually.
<
p>
the·o·ry
n.
<
p>
A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
I loved that! 🙂
Actually, a THEORY, once proven, is a FACT.
<
p>
Evolution is an assumption based on limited information.
Evolution is, therefore, a theory.
<
p>
ID is an assumption based on limited information.
ID is, therefore, a theory.
<
p>
A theory may be proved by empirical evidence.
It may, conversely, be disproved by such evidence.
<
p>
The lack of observable, existential proof is not sufficient to authoritatively discount Intelligent Design as a plausible theory.
<
p>
The problem, as I see it, is that some insist that the children in our public schools, who are there by law, be force fed one set of unproven, convenient theories, to the exclusion of all others.
<
p>
The refusal to ACKNOWLEDGE (note that I did NOT say TEACH) the existance of alternate theories is intellectually dishonest.
you need to do some reading on what science is, and how it works. Start with this classic work on the nature of scientific theories, and take it from there.
This argument has been going strong since the Victorian Era, and I don’t think we will settle it here. The ID position is (as the judge rightly puts it) essentially anti-science, and I think, largely political and insincere. For all the politicians who believe evolution is just a theory, we should watch what they do rather than what they say. Find out if they got a flu shot this year. Find out if the flu shot was current. If it was, ask them why they didn’t just get last year’s flu shot.
<
p>
Then ask them about evolution.
<
p>
If it’s really just an unproven theory, why do they insist on this year’s flu shot? did something happen to the influenza virus since last year that would make the old shot ineffective? What could that be called?
<
p>
Intelligent Design?
You state:
<
p>
Surely, a reasonable person does not object to a caveat, a simple paragraph, when teaching subject matter which is in a state of flux or dispute, that acknowledges that there are other theories, equally unproven, perhaps, yet equally worthy of consideration.
<
p>
The fact that you clearly do not understand what constitutes a “theory” goes far in explaining your well-intentioned but deeply flawed comments on this topic.
<
p>
ID is not a theory. Evolution, however, is a theory which has been subjected to the rigors of scientific inquiry and reproducibility and vetted as valid. As described in the decision, intelligent design, by its very definition, cannot and will not meet the standards required for theory status in science, science, as we understand it today.
<
p>
ID belongs in a comparative religion class in a unit dealing with creation myths. Period.
geo, did you even read the 139-page opinion? The Judge didn’t “refuse to acknowledge” anything. He heard weeks of testimony from the foremost ID experts in the country. And he drew his conclusions based on the evidence. That’s what’s so impressive about the opinion – it’s the first time that ALL of the information, both pro and con, about ID has been assembled in one place, and the Judge did a great job of sifting through it. Go read the opinion, and then if you have specific complaints about what the Judge did, we’ll be glad to listen.
the Judge’s decision didn’t “silence” anyone (the voters of Dover did that by sweeping out the pro-ID school board). All he did was say that you can’t teach ID in science class – because it’s not science.
I’d like to silence those who don’t know what they’re talking about. Arrogance indeed.
<
p>
The issue has never been whether or not to acknowledge that a “differing viewpoint” exists. The issue has been whether or not “intelligent design” is science, thus earning a place in the science classroom. ID is not science; consequently, it does not belong in the science classroom.
i think that ID should be taught in science, but as an example of BAD science. in psychology classes we still learn about ideas that are now discredited because they are illuminating to the way people attempted to figure out phenomena.