Evolution textbooks row goes to court
OK, seriously, this debate was a joke to civilized people in the 1920s. What the hell is it in the year 2004?
And for a little extra scare think about this paragraph in light of the election results:
In 1987, the supreme court ruled that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.
I weep for America.
Where are the reporters who are admired for their detestability? Where is the Great Defender of this generation? And why do we still need them?
So, hyperbole aside, it seems like the two things this case will hinge on are:
1) Is ‘intelligent design’ a religious concept (and thus covered under the 1987 decision) or a valid scientific theory (and thus eligible for inclusion, etc.)
and
2) If the concept of intelligent design is found to be religious, do the disclaimer stickers violate the separation between church and state?
My take on these two things:
1) I don’t see how anyone can claim ‘intelligent design’ is non-religious, unless they think we were designed by aliens, which sort of begs the "who made them" question.
On a stricter semantic level, ‘intelligent design’ tends to rest on a notion of ‘irreducible complexity’. Since this notion can neither be proven, nor disproven, and since it certainly can not be independently verified, I would argue for "this is not science".
Has anyone heard a convincing, or even reasonable, pro argument?
2) This one is trickier. If all the stickers say is "Evolution is only a theory, have an open mind and think critically" I’m pretty sure you can’t use the 1987 case as any kind of precedent for removing them. The statement is true on its face, and applies to pretty much any scientific theory.
I don’t see how the stickers could be booted out.
So, from my point of view the ideal outcome is that the court holds that intelligent design theory is just religion (which should shut the door on the next argument), but says that has no bearing on these particular stickers.
