Friday, August 31, 2007

Kitzmiller ruling

Since the Kitzmiller ruling, this particular question has occasionally surfaced:

Judge Jones made the ruling that ID is religion, so hasn't that pretty much put an end to Intelligent Design being considered science?


Here is a response to Judge Jones' decision.

Also read this link which provides information about the book, Traipsing into Evolution, along with several other relevant links.

From the link:

Traipsing into Evolution is a critique of federal Judge John E. Jones's decision in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. In this concise yet comprehensive response, Discovery Institute scholars and attorneys show how Judge Jones's Kitzmiller decision was based upon faulty reasoning, non-existent evidence, and a serious misrepresentation of the scientific theory of intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is becoming increasingly more acceptable as people better understand the inference. Kansas board of education member, Sue Gamble, who is no friend to ID, made the statement during a panel discussion at KU last December that during the 1999 Kansas science standards discussions, questioning evolution and considering ID was a "problem" that occured primarily in United States public schools. But, by the time we reached the 2005 discussions about the science standards, she was receiving emails from people worldwide complaining that ID was becoming a "problem" for them as well.

It's interesting that next February the controversies surrounding Darwinism and Intelligent Design will even hit the big screen in a movie titled Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

It appears that as the misconceptions about Intelligent Design are addressed, people become more open minded about what the theory encompasses and are becoming more aware that it is not a religious argument, but rather a scientific one.

In regard to the religious *implications* of ID, there should be no reason why any particular religion should be opposed to the inference. It says nothing about a specific creative source, it merely infers from the scientific evidence that there is a source of intellect responsible for the design we observe in nature.

Certainly, Christian, Islamic and Jewish belief systems consider this designing source to be "God" or "Allah", but it appears that even pantheistic religions question Darwinism (in it's materialistic definition) as is seen in the views of the Dali Lama.

In theory, philosophical naturalists shouldn't even have a problem with ID because the source of intelligence could be a natural one such as extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). But, as we have seen, scientists who hold a purely materialistic viewpoint in regard to origins are the ones who are the most ardent activists against the inference of design.

The beauty of ID is that, while some may view it as the enemy of the materialistic worldview, it does not demand that the materialistic viewpoint of Darwinism has no place in the world of science. The Darwinian view on origins is a very distinct possibility, and if the two ideals were working peacefully side by side, we may find that a friendly competitive spirit pushes scientists into making a vast array of new discoveries in this regard.

No comments: