Court not qualified to judge science

"But the theory of evolution is not science either. Scientists have attempted to test natural selection, but the only natural selection that has been observed is that which is grounded in genetics, and not evolution."

... Evolution has been tested by many experiments and observations which have all supported the theory. it's probably the most highly supported theory in all biology.

Regarding the above comment...

Really. What species has been shown to have evolved into another species? What life form has been experimentally proven to have evolved from non-life? There's a difference between microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (species into another species).

Mr. Morkis displays an admirable and well-informed understanding of the question at hand; unfortunately, most of his information seems to come from oft-repeated ID talking points. I myself am no philosopher, so I will not attempt to debate his philosophical reasoning (specious though it may be). But as a college-aged biochemistry major, I can answer a few of his points:

First, the trial was not a "trial on intelligent design" but rather an exploration of whether inclusion of intelligent design in a science curriculum would violate the stated purpose of a science class: to teach science. This court was extremely capable of judging the scientific merit of the theory. I would suggest that Mr. Morkis read Judge Jones’ reasoning in the decision – few professors could so eloquently and simply state the flaws in ID.

But let us assume that Mr. Morkis is right – that “Courts are not qualified to judge scientific matters; that is the scientist’s job.� Yet ID has not been included in a single peer-reviewed paper of note, the gold standard by which science is judged. Revolutionary theories have passed the muster of this theory before – symbiotic theory comes to mind, as does the chemiosmotic theory – and become included in the scientific canon through ultimately withstanding the harsh initial criticism. Although the Discovery Institute claims the existence of several peer-reviewed papers, the peer reviewers are either non-scientific (literary) or carefully selected by marginalized Italian journals. One peer-reviewed “paper,� still cited on the DI website, was actually snuck past the normal reviewing process; the proceedings in which it was cited eventually distanced themselves from its content. Mr. Morkis continues: “But though scientists are supposed to evaluate intelligent design, many have not, because they automatically dismiss intelligent design as false for its inclusion of a supernatural agent.� Scientific theories should be complete and parsimonious. Inclusion of a supernatural agent, in the presence of a more parsimonious theory such as evolution which excludes such an agent, would therefore be unscientific.

In the next paragraph, Mr. Morkis displays his unfamiliarity with the modern theory of evolution. He writes, “The theory of evolution is not science either. Scientists have attempted to test natural selection, but the only natural selection that has been observed is that which is grounded in genetics, and not evolution.� Evolution and genetics are inseparable. The theory of evolution, with the advent of modern genetics, found its figurative backbone. The presence of various genotypes, the resultant phenotypic effects, and the differential fitness for survival in a given environment are evolution.

Mr. Morkis’ contention that “the only observed genetic mutations are harmful to life� perhaps most strikingly displays his familiarity with common ID talking-points. This contention is both misleading and patently false. Genetic “mutations� has a negative connotation, popularly evoking imagery of cancer and debilitating disease. Genetic variation within a population is a naturally occurring phenomenon; mutations coupled with recombination, transposable genetic elements, and so forth have observably produced beneficial results within a species.

When I was Mr. Morkis’ age, I submitted a science fair project to the York County Science and Engineering Fair. Somewhat crudely, I cultured bacteria and exposed them repeatedly to antibiotics. The bacteria, as a population, became more and more antibiotic resistant with repeated exposure. Why? The bacteria in each generation that were, by virtue of genetic variation within the population, resistant to the antibiotics had a better chance of surviving and therefore reproducing. In science, we call this a “selective pressure� – here artificially applied; in nature constantly occurring. In a simple experiment such as this, the process of artificial selection can be seen to occur, and the same process in nature can be demonstrated to be possible. Would Mr. Morkis claim that the avian flu that appears from time to time doesn’t exist? Without evolution, our modern understanding of epidemiology would be baseless.

Certainly, the great majority of genomic mutations are at best neutral and at worst detrimental to the organism’s health. In a proper evolutionary view, however, one must consider the multitudes and multitudes of organisms in a population. Within this astronomical number of organisms with their astronomical genetic variation, the improbable beneficial mutation suddenly becomes possible and even likely.

Mr. Morkis further contends that, “even worse for the theory of evolution, evolutionists explicitly state that the processes that govern evolution take so long to work that they are unobservable, thus putting them out of the range of science.� This is simply false and ill-informed. Since the ability to sequence genes and entire genomes, for instance, scientists have compared similarities and differences within gene families in order to determine the relationship between the species in question. Speciation has in fact been observed: see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html for a large number of examples. Furthermore, the contention that “the processes that govern evolution take so long to work that they are unobservable, thus putting them out of the range of science� is absurd. Evolution is observable, directly and indirectly, in the lab and out of it. Such a contention displays a lack of familiarity with any basic biology textbook, not to mention the scientific literature.

“If intelligent design went against all relevant data gathered on the subject of the origin of life, scientists could rightly say that intelligent design is probably wrong,� Mr. Morkis writes, “and if all the relevant data went against the theory of evolution, scientists would have to say that evolution is probably wrong.� Indeed they would. Unfortunately for Mr. Morkis’ argument, the relevant data of more than a century’s worth of scientific data and literature, investigations and criticisms, have all contributed to solidifying evolution’s spot at the core of our understanding of biology. All that “intelligent design� has to show are a paltry few papers in marginalized or non-peer-reviewed publications, hardly enough to count at this time as a scientific theory and hardly worthy of inclusion in any purely scientific curriculum alongside evolution.

No, ID fails by trying to circumvent the normal scientific processes. Mr. Morkis exhorts scientists to interpret the information that the earth gives us and apply that information to intelligent design. With ID, however, this is impossible. Tellingly, when confronted with piles of textbooks, journal articles, and other peer-reviewed scientific data on the evolution of the immune system, the defense’s star witness (Professor Behe) could give no answer other than that it was simply not enough to convince him. It has been said time and time again, but apparently the mantra of science’s supporters bears repeating: ID is not a testable hypothesis and therefore unscientific.

All of this to say one thing: as a Christian, I am ashamed of the religiously-motivated actions of so many in baselessly defaming evolution without any attempt to educate themselves whatsoever. As one who actually believes in an intelligent designer whose hand guides this entire process, the strategy of attacking evolution – a tool of a minority of mainstream Christians, most of whom believe that God is the Creator and that evolution is the best scientific explanation for the origin of species at this time – makes my beliefs seem ridiculous to those who are educated around me. If evolution and God are unnecessarily opposed to one another, then those who recognize the validity of evolution will automatically dismiss the existence of God. Such a proposition is, indeed, the tragedy of the Intelligent Design movement.

Scientists do not automatically dismiss ID as false, they dismiss it as science. You admit as much in your statement "Thus, by definition, intelligent design is not science, because the act of design no longer occurs and is not testable." To consider ID as science, the very definition of science must be changed.

As soon as a supernatural agent is introduced as part of ANY theory, it falls outside the bounds of what is considered science. This does not make it a false theory, it only makes it a theory that cannot be considered within the framework of what we call "science".

You certainly have an interesting view of what science actually is and is not. One can perform experimentation all day and not perform science. Science is much, much more than just experimentation.

Scientists have attempted to test natural selection, but the only natural selection that has been observed is that which is grounded in genetics, and not evolution.

Beg to differ. Read the Pulitzer Prize winner by Jonathan Weiner, "The Beak of the Finch." The surprising thing scientists found by observing evolution taking place in nature was how quickly it takes place.

Since evolution is observed taking place in nature, an explanation is necessary. ID does not explain why we see evolution taking place, is not falsifiable, does not permit any predictions, is not testable, and is useless for any scientific purpose.

I guess that means it isn't science. Teach it in church if you wish, but don't ask to spend my tax dollars teaching a fairy story.

Mr. Morkis has expressed a well stated and ernest opinion on what he considers to be the problems with modern evolutioary theory and the philosopy of science.

While his position is well stated and his thoughts well expressed I have to conclude that he is wrong and ill informed. If he, or others, wish to discuss ideas about evolution and science with those most informed and competent to reply, I would suggest that you post your ideas at www.pandasthumb.org or at a similar website (www.talkorigins.org comes to mind as another good web-based resource).

As a regular reader at "pandasthumb", I look forward to the start of Mr. Morkis's exploration of the facts and hope he thouroughly enjoys the journey.

In Mr. Morkis's commentary, he notes that "the courts are not qualified to judge scientific matters". This is clearly wrong. The reason these trials run to such great lengths is so that all the evidence can be presented. The defense has all the oportunity to make the science understandable so the judge can make an informed decision. Our courts are decigned to make the judge and jury informed on any issue the defense or prosecution offers. If in this case there was any issue that the judge didn't understand it was the fault of the presenter not the judge.

But if in fact you wish to place blame for an uninformed judge(not my opinion)look to the Discovery Institute. These people lured the school board into an Intelligent Design statement, told them it was defenseable in court and then bailed out and pulled their witnesses leaving the school board on the rocks of justice. I believe that there should be one more law suit. That should be Dover School Board versus Discovery Institute for the 1.5 million dollars that this fiasco will cost the community.

RE: "Courts are not qualified to judge scientific matters"
This may be true, however it is happening more often, especially in areas where the moral implications affect the science. Terry Schiavo, stem cell research, euthanasia, all questions of life that could not be resolved between scientists and so were taken to court. Should we now add the origin of life to this list? Logically courts are only qualified to judge matters of law. As far as I know, there is no law stating evolution as the only permissible answer to the question "How did life begin?" Well, until now. If it isn’t an actual law, all the better for evolutionists, since we all know that in modern day America, precedent rules. The only issue the court should have been addressing is this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.� How does calling evolution a theory establish a religion? How does informing students of another theory establish a religion? Obviously, it doesn’t. It seems the courts are not qualified to judge legal matters either.

Hmmm...testable by the scientific method or poofed into existence by magical fairies. Which one belongs in a science class again?

OK this whole separation of church and state kills me! Evolution is based on the religion of atheism!! Hello have we all forgotten that?? And yet it is taught day in and day out as "Gospel" often the theory part is never really mentioned! It was not mentioned to me at any point in time in 12 years of school by any teacher I had?? So Intelligent design is another "Theory" based on much more fact then fiction as evolution is based. I do not get how so many people swallow this pill of evolution, and forget it is just a "THEORY" and is also based on a RELIGION called atheism , so many seem to forget that part!

Not just are they unqualified to rule of what's science and what's religion, but their entire decision is off-the-wall.

Here's my two cents:

The public schools have succeeded in leading students into immorality ever since evolution officially conquered the textbooks in the latter portion of the 20th century; for since the ‘60s, violent crime offenses have skyrocketed 995%, pregnancies in females ages 10-14 have increased by 553%, divorce rates rose by 111%, unmarried couples cohabitating up by 536%, and sexually transmitted diseases swelled by 226%. Simultaneously, we discover that since the number of words in textbooks devoted to evolution jumped from 2,500 to over a staggering 32,000, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores plummeted from 980 by nearly 100 points between 1963-1975. It can be safely concluded that evolution is the prime cause of this, teaching that man is nothing but an animal that is ultimately subject to no moral standards or eternal authorities, followed by the outlawing of prayer in the public schools, persuading students to not make spiritual contact with their Creator even if silently thanking Him for their lunch. Suddenly, the warning of 2 Peter 3:17 makes sense.

Fortunately, several men and women--both Christians and nonbelievers--have recognized the consequences that unchallenged evolutionist indoctrination has upon students of the public schools and have set out to combat it with a fair and balanced education. Among those right-thinking group of individuals are the members of the Dover Area School Board, who early this year rose up and proposed that students be told about the possibility of intelligent design and that evolution still to this day remains nothing more than an unproven theory. In this proposal the school board succeeded, reminding the students in a statement at the beginning of the biology curriculum that intelligent design is viable means of explaining the origins of the universe, evolution is an unproven theory, and reading Of Pandas and of People (a pro-intelligent design textbook) would supply the students with further information.

Yet in a society like the one we live in today, the truth never goes unchallenged and good deeds never go unpunished.

As we saw in Genesis News issues 64, 65, 66, and 123, this act of alluding to intelligent design in the Dover schools was drawn into controversy with the coming of a lawsuit against the Dover Area School Board. The eleven plaintiffs argue that because the public schools are government-controlled and government-paid, the teaching of (or even simple allusion to) intelligent design in the science curriculum is a form of government respecting an establishment of religion, in clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. They argue that because intelligent design is a “religion�, it should not be taught in science class but in a world religions class of some sort, even then not regarded as a viable means of explaining our origins. Unsurprisingly, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers is a card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union, notorious for attempting to replace “freedom of religion� with “freedom from religion�.
In what should be needless to say, the argument of the eleven plaintiffs is unsubstantiated. At the time the First Amendment was written by our Founding Fathers, Europe was a place were certain religious beliefs were imposed upon the citizens of the nations by the individual governments, making persons who attempted to practice religions different from those the government adopted liable for severe punishment under law. Where the First Amendment says, “Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion…�, it means the exact opposite of what liberals usually interpret it as: (1) The United States is to endorse no state religion, (2) The United States is not to enforce one religious belief over another by punishing those who disagree with the state religion, and (3) The Congress itself literally is not to pass no law that respects one religious belief over another. In this, there is no room for interpreting the First Amendment to mean religion is not to be involved with government, for this would directly contradict not only the above three points but the very next clause of the same Amendment, “…[Congress shall make no law] prohibiting the free exercise thereof (religion); or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.�

Yet one fact that is commonly overlooked by the so-called “mainstream� media is the fact that many of the plaintiffs are largely in no position to bring about such a lawsuit that has already entered into the international spotlight, especially considering the fact that ten out of the eleven plaintiffs currently do not have a student in ninth grade (possibly 9/11; one of the plaintiffs had a child who was simply referred to as a “high schooler“), most of the children either past 9th grade or in the preschool-2nd grade range. In a country like this, where homeschooling is an option for your child’s education that is constantly growing in popularity, these parents could have just as easily moved their children to another school or began educating them themselves. This is exactly the thing that many Christians have chose to do with their children, and this option is no different for atheistic parents who wish to shield their children from the few good things the public schools have done. Homeschooling is an excellent alternative to the public schools in general, whether or not they (public schools) balance evolutionism with intelligent design, because it gives the parent an opportunity to become a part of what the child’s learning, in addition to eliminating peer pressure and liberal agendas from education. Students no longer rely upon government standards of education for their twelve years in formal schooling, but have the privilege to learn by the standards the parent deems necessary. This is especially beneficial in Christian homeschooling situations, where what the parent deems necessary for the child’s education is guided by what the LORD deems necessary for the child’s education.

And of course, there is the option that almost no one on either side of the debate has even dared to consider--perhaps it would be an even better alternative to keep all religion completely absent from non-private schools, neither teaching intelligent design nor evolutionism, but simply instructing students to consult their parents with any religious or origins questions they may have.

How could it be that these eleven parents, most of which not even having children who would be immediately affected by the introduction of intelligent design into the schools, have filed a lawsuit against an entire school district in a court case that has already attracted the attention of several media outlets overseas? Perhaps an even better question to ask would be, “where exactly is the media attention given to those who simply wish to remind students there are alternatives to the unproven theory of evolution?� Unfortunately, to answer these questions would simply be to restate the first paragraph of this very article, which reminded us that we live in a society fully of moral injustices and unjust stipulations that make the public expression of our Christianity grow more difficult day by day.

2 Peter 3:3-7 expresses this same truth, stating, “There shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.� It can be called nothing other than a fulfillment of the Word of God’s end-time prophesy, which tells us that the world in the final age of earth’s existence shall grow especially bitter to the message of Jesus Christ and even engage in the persecution of Christianity once more. But the true hope for followers of the true God lies entirely within the verses of John 3:16-18, which boldly declare, “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.� We may be living in a society that no longer respects the truth Jesus Christ taught to the world when he dwelled on earth in human form, but we can draw joy and hope from the fact that we know that we have been sanctified through the sacrifice Jesus made on our behalf, and that He shall one day return to the earth for a second time to rapture up those who believe in Him to live with Him. Simultaneously, we know that someday those who have lived on earth and denied the message of Jesus Christ shall be cast into the Lake of Fire, eternally in the agony of both flames and being perpetually cut off from God‘ abounding love. Where will you be?

If it were not for Jon's comments, then I would have to say that Christians can't think their way out of a paper sack. Fortunately for you Christians, Jon explained very, very well what the claims of the scientific theory of evolution are, and what they are not.

In spite of that, MamaT and shanna come back with the same, worn-out inanities we've heard over and over again from people who wish to remain in ignorance.

There is nothing, not one single thing in the observable world that points to any kind of divine intervention. Every single thing I've ever seen or experienced has had a natural cause. I have been looking for over 20 years for even the slightest evidence of an Intelligent Designer and have found none.

And I suppose someone who cannot distinguish between what is meant by a "scientific theory" and what is meant by the everyday use of the word "theory" would have an equally hard time figuring out that atheism is not a religion: Nothing is worshipped, no person is anointed as the spiritual leader, and there are no collection plates. As Orson Scott Card once remarked, "I've never heard of a religion without a collection plate."

“Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night.�
Isaac Asimov

Re:
There is nothing, not one single thing in the observable world that points to any kind of divine intervention. Every single thing I've ever seen or experienced has had a natural cause. I have been looking for over 20 years for even the slightest evidence of an Intelligent Designer and have found none.

This is the amazing thing about our Creator--He chooses to work within nature to awe us. Remember, in the Book of Exodus, God did not zap the Egyptians and teleport the Israelites from one side of the Red Sea to the other. He used fire to stop the Egyptians and parted the water for the Israelites to cross.

God performs miracles around us all the time. You will only observe them if your heart is open to accept the Truth.

Spike said:

" . . . atheism is not a religion: Nothing is worshipped, no person is anointed as the spiritual leader, and there are no collection plates."

You might assert that atheism is not a religion, but just take a look at the mere definition of religion and compare them with your own words:

"Religion: 1. beliefs and worship: people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life

"Religion: 2. system: an institutionalized or personal system of beliefs and practices relating to the divine

"Religion: 3. personal beliefs or values: a set of strongly-held beliefs, values, and attitudes that somebody lives by"

You: "There is nothing, not one single thing in the observable world that points to any kind of divine intervention. Every single thing I've ever seen or experienced has had a natural cause. I have been looking for over 20 years for even the slightest evidence of an Intelligent Designer and have found none."

Seems to me that you do hold personal beliefs or values, and that would be a religion. Everybody has one. Let's give equal time to those beliefs as it relates to the origins of man: if Darwinism in the science class, then creationism in the science class.

I will make this post brief, because there is virtually no point in arguing (excuse me.. "discussing") a topic so controversial. It seems important, however, to let the author of this editorial know that there are many other fellow highschoolers that agree with him. There are those on this site who call us "ignorant" and "ill-informed," but perhaps that observation stems from the whole issue of the Dover School Board and ID: Whether or not to allow students the opportunity to decide for themselves what they will believe. To simply expound on the theory of evolution is an injustice to those students. I believe that the parents who protested to ID had, quite frankly, just declared that they think their children too unintelligent to decide on their own what they will believe. If a school teaches only one theory, while neglecting to even mention that another one exists, that is an explicit form of brainwashing.

I will end with one thought... there are 4 words on every piece of American currency. Everyone knows what they are. Whether or not you believe these words, this nation was founded on the belief of THE Intelligent Designer. That fact alone gives highschool students the right and obligation to hear the Creation side of the story.

If you want to learn science, you have the choice to either become an expert in science (an option open to anyone, reguardless of personal beliefs), or rely on the expertise of established science. Evolution is established science. Intelligent design creationism is clearly not. Judge Jones relied upon the expertise of established science as presented in his court, and as decided in previous court rulings.

The citizens of Dover are victims of lying, deceptive conmen and inane, gullible lackies. I'm glad that courageous citizens were able to stand up to these shysters.

Re:
"If you want to learn science, you have the choice to either become an expert in science (an option open to anyone, reguardless of personal beliefs), or rely on the expertise of established science. Evolution is established science. Intelligent design creationism is clearly not. Judge Jones relied upon the expertise of established science as presented in his court, and as decided in previous court rulings."

This is, at best, laughable. Evolution is not science, because it is not (a) obversable, (b) testable, or (c) provable. Science is defined by what we know as fact about the natural world. Evolution is anything but this. It is certainly not accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community, but perhaps (to be quite generous) 60%.

You coined the phrase "ID creationism." Yet if you've ever heard a peep out of the Author of Darwin's Black Box, you will be assured ID is a far cry from Biblical creationism. ID is the notion that something other than blind chance, which may or maynot be God, created us. ID is much closer to theistic evolution than anything. ID is certainly not rooted in "religion."

ID is a theory. The theory of evolution is also a theory. These two theories are both somewhat valid. Therefore, it WOULD be government endorsement of religion if only one of these was taught--just as evolution is. These "lying, gullible lackies" simply want children to learn different viewpoints and choose which one they will believe. Anything short of that is taxdollar-funded indoctrination.

...And it is important to note that ID was not, in the plan of the Dover school, actually being taught. THIS ENTIRE CONTROVERSY IS ABOUT A STATEMENT AT THE BEGINNING OF A BIOLOGY CLASS STATING, "ID IS AN ALTERNATIVE TO EVOLUTION. TO FIND OUT MORE, CHECK OUT 'OF PANDAS AND OF PEOPLE.'" Evolution would still be the dominant viewpoint being taught in classes.

"Science is defined by what we know as fact about the natural world."

Nope, not even close. ... Perhaps you want to change the very definition of science to include astrology, like the intelligent design creationists do. You certainly don't know what science is.

Glad that we both agree that they're lying, gullible lackies. Why is it you're supporting them? Why is it you're prepetuating the same lies and fallacies that the judge found lacking? It's over. "The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Shana writes " This may be true, however it is happening more often, especially in areas where the moral implications affect the science. Terry Schiavo, stem cell research, euthanasia, all questions of life that could not be resolved between scientists and so were taken to court. Should we now add the origin of life to this list? Logically courts are only qualified to judge matters of law. As far as I know, there is no law stating evolution as the only permissible answer to the question "How did life begin?" Well, until now. If it isn’t an actual law, all the better for evolutionists, since we all know that in modern day America, precedent rules. The only issue the court should have been addressing is this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech.� How does calling evolution a theory establish a religion? How does informing students of another theory establish a religion? Obviously, it doesn’t. It seems the courts are not qualified to judge legal matters either."

Apparently Shanna couldn't be bothered to read the decision, but decided to pass judgement anyway. The judge had little regard for this type naiveness.

First, evolution is both fact and theory. Theories don't get promoted to facts, theories explain facts. For example, when I drop something it falls to the floor. Planetary orbits are ellipses with the sun at one focus. These and many other "facts" are explained by the theory of gravity called "General Relativity".

Life on earth has changed during the course of geologic time, observed instances of speciation, geographic distribution of species, Australia has no indegenous placental mammals. Why? Because placental mammals evolved in the Americas after Gondwanaland broke up (Evolution dovetails nicely with Plate tectonics). These facts and many other are explained by the Theory of Evolution.

The late Pope JPaul understood this, and that is why he called Evolution "more than a theory". This is why the Pontifical Academy sciences issues statements that ID is bogus.

The battle here isn't between, science and religion, its between science/religion and a buch of religious fanatics trying to protect their insecure fundy god.

With that out of the way, now to the meat of your questions. If the school board felt the need to issue disclaimers calling biological evolution a thoery, why not also issue disclaimers saying that Newtonian physics is "just a theory" (a failed one at that) in high school physics classes?

Why because fundies have learned to live with the fact that the Earth does go round the Sun and it is not the center of the Universe. But the factual and evidentiary basis for evolution is as strong as for any other major scientific theory. Religious fundamentalist aren't at war simply with evolution, they are at war with anything that conflicts with there religious beliefs.

The judge found (had you read the decision) that there was no rational for singling out evolution or calling it "just a theory".

Second, the 1st ammendment became further entangled when school officials, agents of the state, endorsed the reading of a statement which had no secular purpose.

As for the origin of life, I agree with you that is perhaps the greatest mystery. But evolution concerns itself with what happens after life comes to be, not how it comes to be.

At any rate, consider that 3000 years ago, what causes rain, why is there day and night, and why did the moon go through phases were thought to be every bit as imponderable. Today every school kid can answer these questions. One can only imagine what questions they'll have answers to 3000 years from now. But if we teach our kids pseudo-scientific junk like ID.

In short ID is a counsel of despair. Once you chalk things up the agency of the supernatural, there is no point of doing research. "The Designer did it that way. End of inquiry".

Its to bad you and Behe and that ilk are willing to throw in the towel to protect a literalist interpretation of the Bible.

And then claim, well this doesn't have anything to do with relgion.

Sorry, but Judge Jones saw right through the true-believers and ID. Its funny how none of those in this forum that didn't like the decision had nothing to say about the obvious mendacity of the school board. I guess lying to protect your "jealous God" is ok.

A. of Genesis writes "
There is nothing, not one single thing in the observable world that points to any kind of divine intervention. Every single thing I've ever seen or experienced has had a natural cause. I have been looking for over 20 years for even the slightest evidence of an Intelligent Designer and have found none.

This is the amazing thing about our Creator--He chooses to work within nature to awe us. Remember, in the Book of Exodus, God did not zap the Egyptians and teleport the Israelites from one side of the Red Sea to the other. He used fire to stop the Egyptians and parted the water for the Israelites to cross.

God performs miracles around us all the time. You will only observe them if your heart is open to accept the Truth."

I agree. Evolution is but one process God uses to perform miracles.

This whole case/argument is an example of our science (what we observe), our philosophy, and our politics converging. While the Dover school board was mistaken to claim that their policy was not influenced by their religion, so is the judge mistaken that we can and should separate these disciplines. Our philosophy will affect how we view science and how we believe that political issues should be decided. Jake is right. No one has been present to view the first creation of a new life form or the first creation of life itself. The judge should not be deciding these issues.

"This whole case/argument is an example of our science (what we observe), our philosophy, and our politics converging. While the Dover school board was mistaken to claim that their policy was not influenced by their religion, so is the judge mistaken that we can and should separate these disciplines."

THis unfortunately is wrong. While the sentiments expressed above are well intended, there is a serious flaw.

Science is a method, a method of understanding how nature works by interrogating nature for its secrets. Yours, mine and anyone else's opinion is irrelevant to how nature operates. Nature does what it does regardless of anyone's philosophy. Science teases out the workings of nature through observation, experimentation and constructing testable hypotheses (scientific theories) which pave the way for new avenues of research and understanding. Science has nothing to do with politics (unless science determines things that politicians don't like, then they try to politicize science) or any philosophy in particular. Using Newton's laws or Quantum Mechanics, a Hindu, Jewish, Afghani etc. astronomer or physicist will arrive at the same answers for problems I would. Science transcends politics, political boundaries etc. It is not democratic either. Either scientific theories work or they don't; nature is the sole arbiter, not popular vote or a personal philosophy or religion.

I'm appalled at how little understanding of science many people have. This isn't a dig at Kathy; its a symptom of something widespread in this country, "scientific illiteracy".

"Our philosophy will affect how we view science and how we believe that political issues should be decided."

That it may. However, whether or not a scientific theory is successful does not depend upon politics or a personal philosophy.

"Jake is right. No one has been present to view the first creation of a new life form or the first creation of life itself."

THats irrelevant and wrong. Essentially Jake is trying to claim that without eye-witnesses one cannot draw firm conclusions as to events that happened in the past.

Of course, this is silly. If it were true, we might as well fire all detectives and close down CSI labs, after all, if the new standard of "proof" is that you must have eyewitness testimony, then there is no point to these things correct?

Would you free all prisoners convicted solely on the basis of forensic evidence? If Jake really believes in what he said, then to remain logically consistent he must believe that.

The Theory of Evolution, Cosmology, Geology are forensic sciences; they reconstruct what happened in the past by using numerous clues found in the present.

Second, the point is irrelevant, because the Theory of Evolution is not a theory about the origin of life, but about how life has changed after it came into existence.

"The judge should not be deciding these issues"

He should. We can't make science "relgiously correct" and then teach it as if it wasn't promoting religion.

Kathy wrote:

"Really. What species has been shown to have evolved into another species?"

Here are a few examples:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/158550.stm

http://www.santarosa.edu/lifesciences2/ensatina2.htm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.htmlfile=/chronicle/archive/2001/03/26/MN172778.DTL

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

"What life form has been experimentally proven to have evolved from non-life?"

http://www.siu.edu/~protocell/

"There's a difference between microevolution (evolution within a species) and macroevolution (species into another species)."

No there isn't. Speciation is what happens when enough micro-evolution occurs that members oif a population no longer recognize each others as mates.

School boards can BS all they want, but they can't legislate out the facts, even if their consituents are similarly uninformed.