Atheism 37.Intelligent Design

Lawyers fire opening shots in Intelligent Design caseTuesday September 27, 04:30 PM By Celeste Biever, Dover, Pennsylvania

The opening shots were fired on Monday in the first court trial to scrutinise the Intelligent Design movement. ID proposes that life is so complex it cannot have emerged without the guidance of an intelligent designer - it is seen as a religion-friendly alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution.

"It is going to be the role of the plaintiffs to argue that ID is a form of religious advocacy," says Eugenie Scott of the US National Center for Science Education in Oakland, California, which is advising the plaintiffs. "The defence will argue that ID is actually science and is valid. We will argue the opposite."

Backed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the plaintiffs in the civil case are 11 parents who believe their high school's board is encouraging children to consider ID as an alternative to evolution because of their evangelical Christian motivations. It is unconstitutional to teach anything in US schools that does not primarily have a secular motive and effect on pupils.

The plaintiffs' attorneys are deploying a double-barrelled strategy, aiming to show that ID is not science and highlighting its similarities to creationism. Following a Supreme Court ruling in 1987, it is now illegal to teach creationism in schools.

In his opening statement, Eric Rothschild, attorney for the plaintiff, said: "ID is not new science, it's old theology. There is no controversy in the scientific community."

The plaintiffs then called their first expert witness to the stand, biologist Kenneth Miller of Brown University, Rhode Island. He criticised the content of a book Of Pandas and People , which promotes ID and was recommended by the Dover School Board for students.

Miller used several examples to argue that it inaccurately interprets Darwin's theories, e.g. that apes and humans share a common ancestry, and omits scientific research in order to denigrate the theory of evolution. He also said that ID could not be considered as science because it is incapable of providing testable hypotheses.

He explained the process of peer review - through which scientists critique each other's work - and the process by which hypotheses are generated and then tested by experiment. These approaches have been employed for evolution, elevating it from hypothesis to theory, but not for ID, he said.

A defence attorney cross-examined Miller, asking him to admit that evolution is "just a theory" and that there are "gaps" in Darwin's theory. Miller only partially agreed to modified versions of these statements, but defence lawyer Richard Thompsonclaimed at the end of the day that Miller had agreed to these statements. The case continues.

- Monday 26th September 2005: opening statements

- First week: testimony from plaintiffs' expert witnesses, including scientists Kenneth Miller of Brown University, Robert Pennock of Michigan State University and Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, followed by John Haught a theologian at Georgetown University

- Next two to three weeks: continuation of plaintiffs' case - more expert witnesses including Brian Alters at Harvard University and Kevin Padian at the University of California, Berkeley.

- Last two to three weeks: defence's case, including expert witnesses such as scientists Michael Behe, Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho and Warren Nord of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Also, Dick Carpenter of US Evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family and sociologist Steve Fuller of the University of Warwick, UK.

- Early November: closing arguments

- Early December: Judge's verdict

Evolution - Learn more about the struggle to survive in our comprehensive special report .


Please note that as part of Intelligent Design - ignorant Christians are trying to railroad "intelligent falling" into the education system as an alternative to gravity.
Andrea Keller even has a site set up to form a petition to advocate this. This is my email to him:

Your website seems to be of the opinion that the chronically ignorant idea of Intelligent Falling holds some water. In the first place there is no such thing as God,and in the second place even if there were,Gravity is still a consistent law that is seen to operate exactly as Newton suggested it does with the proviso that anything in science is a theory and is taught as such assuming that new data can and probably will follow,which is why theories of quantum gravity are now being posited in order to try and make the whole of science consistent.

The alternative "theory" which in fact is nothing of the sort,since it cannot ever be shown to be true in principle,is nothing but sour grapes on behalf of those who truculantly continue to believe in a deity who has long since been proven to be a figment of the ignorant mind's imagination. Such a bizarre and frankly laughable explanation is not in the same league as Newton and anyone pretending to be of his calibre should at least explain to the scientific community why this proposterous idea has any merit. It is merely a device to attack science- much as attacks on the evolution of the eye have been made to disprove evolution,only this time the attack is on science itself. It has no merit as a theory and certainly does not deserve to be taught as a realistic alternative,because its premise is false. There is no such thing as the Christian God.

Are we to assume Zeus might be pushing things down or Vishnu or Odin,or perhaps an invisible Pink Pig? Christian ideas are absurd and ignorant and it behoves them to actually learn science before making any claims to what is and is not a viable theory. By advocating intelligent falling you are merely indicating that your scientific education lacks in just about the largest capacity one can imagine.


Related Articles

Intelligent Design