|Blogs - Entry for Steven Shelton
|Syndicate Steven Shelton's entries|
Federal Judges: More Intelligent than Creationists
Author: Steven Shelton (8:56 am)
I've been ranting about this for weeks: I know that "intelligent design" is a feeble attempt at disguised creationism. You know that "intelligent design" is a feeble attempt at disguised creationism. The proponents of "intelligent design" know that it's a feeble attempt at disguised creationism. And yet, the creationists seem to think that federal judges are too dumb to figure it out.
And once again, they've been proven wrong.
U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled today that the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania violated the First Amendment when it required "intelligent design" become a part of the curriculum. The opinion is a beautiful thing, and should be displayed on the capitol grounds of every state in the country. It goes to show that you can't fool the judge. At least, not with this crap:
"The history of the intelligent design movement (hereinafter 'IDM') and the development of the strategy to weaken education of evolution by focusing students on alleged gaps in the theory of evolution is the historical and cultural background against which the Dover School Board acted in adopting the challenged ID Policy. . . . [A]reasonable observer, whether adult or child, would be aware of this social context in which the ID Policy arose . . . ." (pp. 18-19)
And, it goes on, noting that "intelligent design" is no different from "creation science":
"Next, and as stated, religious opponents of evolution began cloaking
religious beliefs in scientific sounding language and then mandating that schools teach the resulting 'creation science' or 'scientific creationism' as an alternative to evolution. However, this tactic was likewise unsuccessful under the First Amendment. 'Fundamentalist organizations were formed to promote the idea that the Book of Genesis was supported by scientific data. The terms "creation science"
and "scientific creationism" have been adopted by these fundamentalists as descriptive of their study of creation and the origins of man.' McLean, 529 F.Supp. at 1259." (p. 21)
Some other gems:
And on and on and one.
Oddly enough, neither the Discovery Institute or the main mouthpiece blog for the ID crowd, "ID the Future", has yet to respond. You'd think they would have something to say about this, even though it's only been a few minutes. They do, however, tend to be pretty darn quiet when faced with reality. I noted in an earlier post that my trackback and comments to the ID The Future blog had been edited and/or removed. Turns out I'm not the only one they've done this to. For what it's worth, ID fanaticist William Dembski acknowledges he does this, with what can charitably be called a "crybaby attitude": "Darwinists tend to think that simply by telling an evolutionary story about some phenomenon that they have achieved remarkable insight. I don’t. There are plenty of other forums where I mix it up with Darwinists. Think of this blog as my playground. If you have to take a whiz, do it elsewhere." In other words, I'm going to put my fingers in my ears and scream "NYEAH NYEAH NYEAH NYEAH NYEAH" until anyone who disagrees with me goes away.
Geez, Bill, if you can't take some criticism, maybe you shouldn't be doing science.
Oh, wait . . . you're not. Nevermind, then.
Trackback URL of this entry