Yesterday, a judge in Pennsylvania handed down a decision on a court case involving intelligent design. If you'd like to read the decision you can see it here: http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Intelligent_Design.pdf
I've read most of it, and it is a disturbing argument. He argues that the teaching of Intelligent Design by a public school is equal to government endorsement of religion. His basis for his position involves the point that ID theory makes a case for a "designer," therefore it is a religious teaching. So I guess any scientific theory that points to supernatural or intelligent direction is outlawed. I wonder if he would also banish scientist's vocabulary that personifies the universe or speaks of evolution as an article of faith:
George Wald: “The universe wants to be known.”
George Greenstein: “If this is the best way to make a universe, how did the universe find that out?”
Professor Harold C. Urey, Nobel prize winner in Chemistry once wrote, “All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere…. And yet we all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great that it is hard for us to imagine that it did.”
Scientist, L.T. Moore writes, “Our faith in the doctrine of evolution depends upon our reluctance to accept the antagonistic doctrine of special creation."
Judge Jones also spends dozens of pages explaining why Intelligent design is not science. This section may just be the most incredible and mind-boggling of the 130+ pages. How can a judge define what is or is not science? That's like a scientist adding a section to his research paper about constitutional law. During the trial he was presented with expert testimony from scientists on both sides of issue. Both sides had scientists that were equally qualified and educated. Yet the judge chose to affirm the arguments of scientists against ID theory, in his definition of what science is. As you'll see in his decision, he affirms a completely naturalistic, materialistic view of science that procludes the possibility of outside influence (designer) in its very definition. Anyway, there is much more to be said about Judge Jones' decision. If his argument were taken as law in the future, no scientific discovery that points to a higher power would be allowed to be taught in a science classroom. I wonder if teaching the history of science should be outlawed in schools also, since most of the early scientists were Christians who went about their studies because of Christian presuppositions of a ordered, consistent universe created by a rational God.
If you'd like to read a more thourough and articulate critique of the judge's opinion go to:
Have a great day!