Keith Devens .com

Totally unrelated, here's a new verdict which calls it "unconstitutional" to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution:

We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed. As stated, our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.

Complete Verdict

Thanks. I may post about it later. The ruling is bogus on so many levels. It reminds me of Roe vs. Wade: I was shocked when I read up on that case and found the ruling saying the following:

We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

And I'm like, "Hello? Isn't that the most important factor under consideration in the case?" But they ruled anyway without ever stopping to define what they were ruling about. In this case, did they stop to define what "science" is? What "religion" is?

And does the state really want to dictate that any view of our origins that isn't evolution (which states that life arose "accidentally", without a designer) is unconstitutional to even discuss in the classroom? Not only is that inconsistent with the founding principles of our republic ("inalienable rights endowed by our Creator", and so on), but, it's unconstitutional how exactly? When the U.S. was founded many states even had state religions, and that was constitutional! The constitution only states that the federal government can't establish a religion. States are explicitly free under the constitution to do what they want in any matter the constitution doesn't rule on. So, like Roe vs. Wade too, you have a federal ruling without constitutional basis, usurping the rights of the states that are given to them under the constitution and calling what they did unconstitutional!

In addition, the way the media is playing this is extremely misleading. The Pennsylvania school board didn't attempt to "teach intelligent design". They merely wanted to have this statement presented to students:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s theory of evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The theory is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, “Of Pandas and People,” is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what intelligent design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the origins of life to individual students and their families. As a standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on standards-based assessments.

That's it. That's what this whole thing was over. The statement in unquestionably factual. Can you imagine if string theorists had this much political sway and legislated string theory be the only official foundation of physics that can be taught? Of course, as I've argued elsewhere, I don't think the question of our origins is by nature a scientific question, and as I've also argued elsewhere I think that any statement along the lines of "the theory is not a fact" is silly because no theory is a fact (i.e. theories and facts are different types of things). But my point remains that this ruling is absurd on so many levels.

I've argued elsewhere, I don't think the question of our >origins is by nature a scientific question

In science class it absolutely is.

"I don't think the question of our origins is by nature a scientific question"

This is such a cop-out. As soon as science contradicts your beliefs, you say it's not a scientific issue.

WHAT?? BOGUS?

ID isn't science. It isn't fact based. It isn't provable or disprovable.

A THEORY in biology is inherently unprovable and therefore not a fact. Biology is stochastic and random and driven by a multitude of forces, but you can make predictions. And furthermore, just because we can't prove theories in biology doesn't mean we cannot DISPROVE them. The Theory of Evolution has withstanded about 200 years of attempted disproof.

Biology is not chemistry or physics, which are both mathematically based and therefore provable. To invoke that the T of E hasn't been proven is silly. It's apples and oranges.

As far as law: ID is creationism re-wrapped for the millennium. You cannot teach religion in public schools. PERIOD. The Constitution isn't a buffet table where you can pick and choose what you want to eat. Even people without a law background know that.

> I've argued elsewhere, I don't think the question of our origins is by nature a scientific question

In science class it absolutely is.

So, you're saying that we should teach Intelligent Design in science class?

"I don't think the question of our origins is by nature a scientific question"

This is such a cop-out. As soon as science contradicts your beliefs, you say it's not a scientific issue.

It might be a cop-out if I merely asserted that it wasn't science. However, I've argued for my position extensively, and I think persuasively, in the past. Just ask if you'd like me to round up some links to relevant discussions.

And, I'm trying to think of how to respond to this anonymous commenter's one-off (i.e. he'll probably never be back) comment. Since he seems to ignore pretty much everything I wrote in my post, and since he'll likely never be back, I'm not going to waste my time.

No, I do not think ID should be taught in science class.

There are some interesting articles on ID in this month's Skeptic magazine. The guys from "Mythbusters" are featured in the cover story.