Intelligent Design is dead

21 12 2005

I’m almost giggling while reading the accounts of the Dover trial sentence. PZ Myers has some of the best commentary here, here, here and here. What really made my day was the following quote from the sentence:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID 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 that doomed creation science in the 1980’s; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, 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.

Oh, sweet words!

Now I’m not familiar with the American judicial system, so I don’t know how much of a precedent this sentence will constitute. It’s even entirely possible that there will be an appeal and that the appeal court will overturn this decision.

However, I think that this sentence pretty much nails the coffin on ID. The ID-iots have been thoroughly and finally discredited and I foresee that they will abandon this avenue of attack. After all, ID was just an instrument that they used to try to “wedge” creationism in the classroom.

This is not to say that I think creationism is dead. We’ve had “scientific creationism” and we’ve had “Intelligent Design”. Both are dead, but creationism will find another disguise to try to make itself more acceptable and hide its religious motives.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

2 responses

22 12 2005
Doug

You know, I’m simply curious about the source of your malevolence.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned here before, but I think you might be interested in reading a book entitled The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll. Pardon the long link, but you can find it on Amazon here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0802841805/qid=1135266131/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-6399459-2700016?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

One of his key premises is that the natural order is God’s revelation to man, just as much as scripture. To ignore, or to dispute the natural order is missing half of what God has to give us.

I’ve been reading your blog on Planet Apache for a long time now, and it’s interesting to me that you seem to despise Christianity (or, more accurately, the organized Christian religions) almost solely because of their stance on evolution. I posit that not all Christians eschew evolution, but instead embrace what observations of the natural order have to tell us. I’m sure there are other issues you have with “the church,” but this definitely seems to be Issue #1.

Oh, and the “spoiler” on the book? The scandal of the evangelical mind is that there’s not much of an evangelical mind. Noll is an evangelical himself, so this thesis is obviously distressing to him. I encourage you to read the book.

23 12 2005
ugo

Doug, I know perfectly well that most Christians are not rabid creationists. From an atheist point of view, I rejoice at the outcome of the Dover trial, of course, but I think Christians should rejoice too. Liars and hypocrites are sinners and will burn in hell, after all, not be allowed to teach your children.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: