Intelligent Design fails the test
Feel free to go to Google News and look at about 1,000 different mainstream media acocunts of this, but here at stoush.net, I’ve got to say the decision against the Dover School Board that says that ID can’t be taught in schools is fantastic.
Consider - the scientific community as a whole comes to a conclusion: evolution is it.
Some ‘scientists with differing views’, funded to the hilt by fundy christian groups, start putting it about that there are ‘gaps’ in the theory, and that creation is so complex it could be the work of nobody but an intelligent designer (which, given their backers, hardly begs the question…).
To people who hold that view I’m sure there are significant gaps in the theory of evolution. The fact that it doesn’t account for the earth being created in 7 days would be a biggie.
Thankfully some reasonably sensible judges (including one apparently appointed by the Bush administration and confirmed by the Senate 96-0, so not your average ‘activist from the bench’ either) have ruled that as ID is clearly promoted by churchies as a thinly veiled creationism, it’s got no place in public classrooms because to do otherwise would violate the separation of church and state.
This decision should also ensure that only real science that has stood up to some modicum of scrutiny should be taught in schools’ science classes.
That means that the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should live on, right? Oh…
Shaun (not verified) wrote:
Trackback
http://larvatusprodeo.net/2005/12/21/science-wins-in-dover/
Yobb (not verified) wrote:
“This decision should also ensure that only real science that has stood up to some modicum of scrutiny should be taught in schools’ science classes.”
Actually it doesn’t ensure that at all. The decision merely upholds the Establishment Clause of the US constitution (separation of church and state). Schools are still free to teach grossly incorrent science in school, as long as it has no religious overtones.
For instance, it would be perfectly legal to teach that the earth is flat, or the humours theory of medicine, or that passive smoking causes cancer.
The only qualifier is that nothing with religious overtones can be taught.
dibo wrote:
fair enough point, but the thing is that as far as i know no-one is actually trying to (and being assisted by friends of the president) teach that the earth is flat or that the simple balance of four liquids influence your health. i reckon passive smoking probably does cause cancer, and apparently there are a few who agree, like the WHO and the US EPA.
junk science normally gets the arse pretty snappily, but it’s less likely to when well-resourced and well-backed god-squadders are pushing it from on high. now it’s been whacked on the head - and amen to that.
Post new comment