Subject: "intelligent" design decision
I'm making my way through the text of the decision. It's terrific, so far. Basically, the School Board tried to argue that they were not promoting religion, but offering a critique of science (evolution) by offering another scientific view (intelligent design):
After searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID [Intelligent Design] arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism [either believe in God and creationism or believe in evolution and be an atheist] the doomed creation science [struck down by the courts in the 1980s]; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. ... It is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.Hurry! The enlightenment is coming!(Read the complete opinion in a PDF file)
Great phrase from the opinion: "illogical contrived dualism". I had always called them False Implied Binaries (FIBs).
Thanks, Clare. And thanks, Judge. I guess you're the new guy on Bill O'Reilly's Enemies List.
6 comments:
So much for future career advancement for this Judge (whom was appointed by Bush). The war on Christmas continues! Onward Leftist Soldiers!
Follow this up with another great decision today from the (usually conservative) 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 4th slammed the Bush Administration for its attempt to move a prisoner from military custody -- where he'd been floundering for more than three years -? to the jurisdiction of the civilian courts. The prisoner -- an American citizen -- had been labeled an "enemy combatant" by the BushAdmin. As such, they said, he had no Constitutional protections and should be tried by the military court.
But, when it looked like the Supreme Court was going to weigh in on this, the BushAdmin tried to preempt it by reclassifying the prisoner to the civilian side and then saying the issue was moot. Basically, the court called the BushAdmin on this, saying that it appeared that the admin was trying to manipulate the court system.
To read the NYTimes story, click here.
You know, this is getting a little frightening . . .
I want to say that it looks like we might be gaining back a tiny bit of ground on the Bushies, but I hate to put the whammy on it.
Thanks for the follow-up, Clare. And good to see you posting here, TimK!
. . . and I should have said this in the previous comment, but wow, this judge was a W appointee!?!
Waaaaaaaaay cool!
Now I'm wondering when the taxpayers of the Dover Area School District are going to sue those board members who supported implementing the "Intelligent" Design curriculum (and lied under oath about the sources of funds for the ID textbooks). Cause of action: Among other things, breach of fiduciary duty.
Obviously Intelligent Design is a viable idea. But after a little thought, it clearly takes about 15 minutes to teach it and move on:
Yes, of course, we might have been created by another being. After all, here we are in the 21st century, basically capable of creating viruses and primordial soups from whence more complex beings might arise.
We are Creators!
So who's to say we weren't the product of another intelligent being such as ourselves, a billion years ago or less?
Great! So we should keep our eyes out for EVIDENCE that there were creatures with large brains about a billion years ago. Great... I like that theory. It's always nice to have another thing to hope for, or is it another thing for which to hope?
But then... let's say we find some large skull fossils from a billion years ago, providing evidence for Intelligent Design.... Wow... that's fascinating and important. Then we will have to answer the question:
How were our creators created?
And that's where the Intelligent Design Theory crumbles. Because it can only be applied recursively and eventually there has to be another explanation to support the origin of the "first" creator.
Evolution is merely a restatement of primordial logic; complexity arises from the components of simplicity. And it's nice to think about the permutations and hope that we have a purpose, but in reality we are merely a MANTISSA; a product of chance directed by survival.
Amen.
Post a Comment