Replies

If this is a direct quite of the judge's ruling (I haven't read all of the court document yet) then he is clearly mistaken in his effort. The theory of evolution today is not even the same as it was a few months ago (I'm referring to the version that would be used by a molecular biologist, not the popular media.) As new evidence becomes available (genotypes of different species, fossil and dating information, etc) the theory is revised and refined to accommodate.

The difference is that a theory (under the scientific method) must both provide testable predictions and be disprovable if those predictions fail to be realized. Claiming observations to be the work of an intelligent designer does neither- we can't make predictions since we have no idea what He will do tomorrow, and any conflicting evidence can be said to be an intentional feature of His design. Evolution, in contrast, MUST be revised when conflicting evidence is found, in order to remain a useful theory. Notice I said conflicting, not missing. Gravity is still not completely understood, but that doesn't make it any less useful (or correct) for predicting the orbits of the planets.

The base issue is that we should teach science in schools, and id is not science. All of creation and evolution may be the design of a Creator, but that is not provable (or disprovable), and as such is not science. Science, for its part, should be more forthright where its theories have shortcomings- such as the line between evolution (does happen) and the origin of life (no idea how it happened).

CDG

. . . but that is not provable (or disprovable), and as such is not science.

Do you believe the essence of science consists only what is provable or disprovable; that science may not engage inference, assumptions, reasonable guesses, etc. lest it no longer be science? Let's try disproving the presence of gravity. Oh! Can't be done? Guess it isn't science when we attempt to quantify it and explain it.

Also, how is it that science considers itself qualified to assert that God is outside of its purview when it refuses to consider God in the first place? Not exactly a minor contradiction. The Dover decision was a bald faced attempt at establishing an atheistic principle in public schools. As such it should be overturned as an unconstitutional ruling. Public schools should be for people of all beliefs, including atheists.