December 21, 2005

U.S. Legal System says 'No' to Intelligent Design

Once again common sense prevailed. Religious advocates who seek to subvert children to their particular brand of religion has for the time being, set back.

Judge Jones' findings addressed several important points in the debate between Intelligent Design advocates and the general science society. Briefly, the points are:
  • Intelligent Design is not science.
  • Intelligent Design is religious.
  • Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes.
  • Intelligent Design is not an alternative to evolution.
I am elated at this ruling, and hope it will send a message to educational institutes in Australia, private, public or Catholic - that Intelligent Design should not be taught in science classes.

There is not doubt that this ruling will be contested by Intelligent Design's advocates. Yet equally there is no that the men and women who have fought preserve the integrity of State and Science will continue their fight.



  1. I absolutely disagree. I think it is imperitive to give a fair and unbiased education to children, and that should include the teaching of 'Intelligent Design'.

    Darwinism, and all it's offspring are not proven - and thats not to say that ID is (because it isn't). Neither creationist theories can be proven, but to deny that one does not exist is the biggest act of ignorance that we can make as a human race.

    The basis of science is to explore every angle; to question everything.

    I also disagree that Intelligent Design is purely a religious idea mashed into science - there are simply religious zealots (and there are many Darwinist zealots too) who try and ram it down people's throats.

    I'm severely disapointed by the ruling here, and even though it has no legal bearing or ramifications in Australia, I do hope that people don't try and do the same thing here.

    This isn't common sense, it's pure ignorance.

  2. I am going to have to disagree strongly neo.

    Firstly, evolution has been observed and documented. It is supported by fossil evidence and under pins modern medicine. The fact evolution occurs in nature is undeniable the way water is undeniable wet.

    You are correct in that evolution has not been "proven" to be responsible for all the diversity of life we observe today. However it is strongly supported by what evidence we can gather.

    The same can not be said of ID. ID has never been observed in nature, nor is it supported by evidence. It finds footing in the lack of evidence - its the "God of the gaps". Further more, ID is not scientific at all. Not only is it infallible and with out merit (mathematical, logical or otherwise) it's also internally inconsistent. This inconsistency comes from one of the its pillars of support - irreducible complexity. It holds that any irreducible complexity can not arise by chance alone, and thus the hand of the designer is inferred. Yet this designer they require is also irreducibly complex by , so there must be another designer behind that one. And another, followed by yet an another all the way to infinity. But the theory only calls for one designer, so then our irreducibly complex designer exists with out being designed, which violates the requirement that irreducible complexity must be a sign of design. ID is self contradictory.

    Thirdly, Darwinism is not creation science. Science does not teach how life begun because science doesn't know how life begun. Children are taught how life _could_ have begun, but it is never taught as a fact.

    This is in direct opposition to ID which in no uncertain terms state all life is created by the Designer. Yet what evidence is there except for the lack thereof?

    Also, the ruling does not deny that ID doesn't exist, it denies ID being taught as a science theory, which it isn't. It denies ID a place in science, and rightly so. Science can not prove or disprove religious faith or myths - it is up to each individual to decide whether or not they are true.

    Lastly, science does explore every angle. There are theories which propose life on Earth was seeded by meteoroids, or theories which propose we are the result of intelligence. These theories are scientific while ID is not. The distinction lies in their domain - scientific theories do not invoke the supernatural in order to explain the natural world.

    But if you insist in teaching "every view" and "teach the controversy" which doesn't exist, why limit yourself to darwinism and ID? Why not any of the thousands of creation "theories" (myth would be a better word)? Aboriginal Dreaming comes to mind, and its has more evidence for it (in geological features) than ID?


    P.S. Merry Christmas neo!

  3. Fossil evidence has also been widely disproven. Almost all of the fossilised remains of humans that are supposed to be the journey of man down the evolutionary process have almost always been proven as fake.

    And what of the Horseshoe crab? Surely it could do with a decent set of eyes.

    Evolution is taught as fact in schools - because its the _only_ theory taught in schools (excepting for Christian schools). How can this be interpreted as anything but teaching it as fact?

    You say that ID doesn't hold to irreducible complexity - actually, evolution pretty much fails the second law of thermodynamics off the bat.

    You ask for evidence of creation - life itself is evidence. I can't believe that my ancestor was a single celled amoebic lump of plasma; or as someone once said 'Goo to you via the zoo'.

    Anyway, I know that you will stick with your guns, and thats great :)

    Merry Xmas, *hic* and a shnaphappy *hic* new beer *hic* year.

  4. Fossil evidence has been widely disproved by who? To what end? Why?

    Evolution doesn't violate the second law of thermodynamics either, though its a popular misconception.

    And see, evolution does happen. That is evident in our medicine, been observed in the wild and in experiments. It is the only theory taught in science because it is the only theory science has to offer that has evidence backing it.

    Every theory taught in science classes had undergone many decades of scrutiny by the scientific community which contains many religious members. Evolution has faced the trials and came through. Intelligent design is barely out of infancy if not still born. Why should we teach it over or along side a well established theory? When ID has undergone the same amount of examination as all other theories taught in science classes, then perhaps we can consider teaching it in science.

    I also perhaps muddled my words. I did not ask for evidence of creation - that it happened is fairly obvious. What I asked for is evidence that life was created by an intelligent Designer. What evidence for that except "God of the gaps" ?

    As for the horse shoe crap, if it needed eyes, it would have evolved them or died out. That it didn't do neither means it doesn't really need them :-)

    You are right, I will stick to my gun. I only hope I do not frustrate or offend you in the process. Thank you also for respecting my believes.

    I shall also respect your believes, and say no more on this matter least it comes between us. Though it won't mean I'll stop "preaching" to others :-P

    Happy new year too neo :D

    *off to get smashed*



  5. ...say no more on this matter least it comes between us...

    I think that would never happen :)

    I think it's fantastic that we can freely debate the two ideas, and I absolutely respect the opinions that people hold... I'll still believe you're wrong though :P