"Intelligent design" is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.I've posted on this before, and there really isn't much to add to the article. It's only a shame that they ended with Thompson's quote, because it's a lie. While there may be a few in the scientific community who deny the merits of evolutionary theory, Prof. Miller spoke accurately in saying, "There is no controversy within science." And this is what is most frustrating: that proponents of this alleged "theory" of intelligent design insist that it is some kind of science. By their own admission, we cannot test the possibility of a designer. It therefore fails one of the basic principles of science: that hypotheses be testable and that procedures be repeatable. The Theory of Evolution is like the Theory of Gravity: questions remain about each, but they have been supported by huge amounts of research and data. Each was a hypothesis at one point in time, much like "intelligent design" is now. The difference between them, however, marks the difference between science and, well, philosophy. At best, "intelligent design" could be argued as a theory for philosophy (I mean, given that its proponents are fighting hard not to have it labeled a religious doctrine).
...
But in his opening statement, the school district's attorney defended Dover's policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.
...
Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district's own policy made clear its religious intent.
Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.
...
Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."
On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
...
The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg. President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
...
Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center's president and chief counsel, said Dover's policy takes a modest approach.
"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.
As a matter of fact, in many collegiate introductory philosophy classes, questions as basic as the beginning or origins of life will be considered. My Philosophy 101 class considered Creation as proof of a Creator (or Designer or Engineer or whatever) in a week, maybe two, then moved on. There simply is no science involved in "intelligent design" and it has no place in the science classroom. At the same time, accepting tenets of evolutionary theory does not therefore rule out the possibility of God (or any other creator, for that matter). We need to do a better job of religious education in our churches. And we need to stand up to those who would divide us for political purposes. A reasonable, Bible-believing person can accept evolution and believe in a God who is Creator of all that is and not be caught in a contradiction.
Our children deserve the best education we can provide. That means teaching science in the science classroom, philosphical reasoning and argument in philosophy, and religon in religious studies curricula and especially in the church.
No comments:
Post a Comment