Quantcast

Discovery Institute 0, Intelligence 1

Monkey.jpgThis week, federal judge John Jones knocked down the mandate from a Pennsylvania school board that their science teachers present Intelligent Design as a valid alternative to evolution in their classrooms. While he was at it, he smacked the Dover School board for being a bunch of disingenuous liars. Scientists, teachers, and intelligent people from all walks of life, religious or otherwise, rejoiced.

The Discovery Institute responded with...diatribe. Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, is really ticked. Further illustrating his ability to suspend reality and spin a story however it fits his organization's needs, Dr. West accused the ruling judge of being "an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur" and is intent on stopping the "spread of a scientific idea". Everyone else not smoking whatever West was smoking has already noted that Judge Jones was appointed to the court by President Bush. Yeah, that guy. The one who isn't sure that the science really supports global warming, that the current line of stem cells will support all the research necessary for the next few decades, and who created an entire White House Office for aiding "faith-based" organizations.

In reading the Discovery Institute's response, it quickly becomes apparent who possesses actual intelligence in this debate, and who is skilled merely at verbal trickery, cliched expressions, and downright misuse of the English language to confuse people. According to West:

A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics...The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree.

So what West is trying to say is that there are scientific facts that can't be countered by law, but apparently evolution isn't one of them? Dr. West apparently needs some science education of his own, to better understand what the term "scientific theory" actually means. Thankfully, Jones proffers this explanation in his Opinion:

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

Amen. Er, QED. You can read Judge Jones' Opinion in its entirety on the Pennsylvania District Court site.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.
By Courtney in on December 21, 2005 1:00 PM

Comments [rss]

  • mike

    why cant we all get along? I have this half assed theory of evolution AND intelligent design that dosent rely on ignorant bible stories. how about god created the big bang and started everything. God created evolution. Is god not cool enough to be responsible for all of it? Even science? What if science is the true way to get closer to knowing what power started this whole thing. From quarks to supernovas i see god in all of it. ditch the 2000 year old fairy tales and get your mind around a bigger god.

  • Agreed, James. To lead with the idea that we are all idiots and then butcher the proper scientific meaning and useage of the terms "theory" and "hypothesis" doesn't get one off to a very good start. That's droppin' science like Galileo dropped the orange.

  • Clay Jenkins

    Seth posted "If God was such an intelligent designer, why did he make me impotent"?

    Well Seth I think you answered your own qustion.

  • Opening with "you are all idiots" and closing with "respectfully yours"? There's a flaw in that theory.

  • evgeni

    you are all idiots.

    You think you have a valuable opinion on something you've only heard about in a classroom or on tv, something you are taught to believe because it relieves you from doing some actual research.

    If you were really scientific in your method you would know that evolution is not even a theory but merely a hypothesis and you would'nt leave out the possibility of an intelligent creation based on a grudge against christianity or your incapacity of understanding the structure of the universe.

    When West said:

    "A legal ruling can't change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, it can’t remove the molecular machines from the cell, nor change the fine tuning of the laws of physics...The empirical evidence for design, the facts of biology and nature, can't be changed by legal decree"

    he meant that a court of law applies to human law, it has no power or authority to decide anything apart from human legislation

    and if you must know, humanity's most intelligent specimens have all believed in intelligent design, it is only a small fraction of humanitiy that is atheist and believes in evolution, therefor one might call it a deviation, an anomaly due to stastics.

    If you really want to we could alwys organize a global debate with scientific evidance and arguments and then we'll see what the outcome is of this debate.

    But i know evolutionists never accept such a challenge, they'll find an excuse.

    Hope you keep an open mind..

    respectfully yours,

    evgeni

    Ps: i apologize for any mistakes in my english, but it is not my native language

  • Michael

    Careful, Seth. People could argue that either way. And I'm only pointing that out before Audrey does.

  • Seth

    If God was such an intelligent designer, why did he make me impotent?

  • Yeah, that whole gravity thing seems pretty suspect if you ask me. Of course, there is always the Flying Spaghetti Monster, maybe he's responsible for such a wild idea.

  • Michael

    "Anyone who thinks a court ruling is going to kill off interest in intelligent design is living in another world," continued West.

    I really savor the idea that he thinks other people are living in another world.

    I also like the fact that ID folk harp on inconsistencies in "Darwin's" theory of evolution. Maybe they'll move on to "Newton's" physics next. That's got some *huge* holes in it.

blog comments powered by Disqus
Home

send a tip

tips@seattlest.com

about

staff / advertising / contact / archive

contribute