Today marks the 11th anniversary of the conclusion of Tammy Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. This, of course, was the court case that made it clear that the Intelligent Design movement is nothing more nor less than yet another incarnation of creationism.
The Dover trial had a number of memorable moments. Just months before, William Dembski posted his Vise Strategy at Uncommon Descent, talking tough about facing “Darwinists” in court. When he found out that his deposition would be attended by Wesley Elsberry and Jeff Shallit, Dembski suddenly found himself unable to participate.
Another highlight was the NCSE’s discovery that the intelligent design creationist textbook at the center of the trial, Of Pandas and People, had been modified shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in Edwards v. Aguillard that the teaching of “creation science” is unconstitutional. Every instance of “creationism” and “creationist” had been replaced with “intelligent design” and “design proponent” respectively. Every instance but one, that is. “cdesign proponentsists” survived the edit to demonstrate that the terms are synonyms.
Judge John E. Jones III’s decision is well worth reading. His conclusion could not be more clear:
The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, Plaintiffs’ scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
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.
The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.
With that said, 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.
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID. We will also issue a declaratory judgment that Plaintiffs’ rights under the Constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have been violated by Defendants’ actions. Defendants’ actions in violation of Plaintiffs’ civil rights as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 subject Defendants to liability with respect to injunctive and declaratory relief, but also for nominal damages and the reasonable value of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ services and costs incurred in vindicating Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.
Merry Kitzmas!
He isn’t even a scientist. But anyway once again:
“The Design Revolution”, page 25, Dembski writes:
He goes on to say:
In his book “Signature in the Cell” Stephen C. Meyer addresses the issue of Intelligent Design and religion:
and finally:
“Intelligent Design is based on scientific evidence, not religious belief.”- Jonathan Wells “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design”
And then there is Behe’s testimony during the dover trial
Frankie,
Gotcha Frankie / Joe / Jim / ID Guy / John-paul….
Johnson is NOT ID just like Dawkins is not evolutionism. And Darwin used the word “Creator” which can only mean God. Are you admitting evolution is religious?
Sure sign of insanity is repeating yourself in hopes of a different response. Way to go Richie.
Frankie,
Are you still writing for that YEC mag?
Richie, are you still playing scratch and sniff with your anus?
“We’re gonna take a creationism textbook, change all the “Creationists” to “Intelligent Design Theorists”, change “Created” to “designed” etc, then we’re going to spend 20 years blogging that we’re not creationists.”
That YEC magazine, with your oversized picture. Was that pre Stratus?
I suggest you reread the first paragraph of Judge Jones’ conclusion:
“The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.”
ID is a variant of creationism.
OHH…so Phil, Meyer, Nelson, Dembski, were lying when they said that ID is really about the Christian God? Wonder why they’d do that?
“I’m sure we’ll be taking over research labs like wildfire by then.”
It’s funny, creationists here denying the descent of ID from Creationism.
Wrong. Creationism is a subset of ID.
MY ID DIDN”T COME FROM NO CREATIONISM!
ID was first- see Aristotle et al.
That is their personal belief- PERSONAL. Just like Dawkins’ atheism is personal and doesn’t mean evolutionism is atheistic. Otherwise it would be subject to the est clause.
Creationists rely on the Bible. ID doesn’t
I suggest that you buy a vowel and he doesn’t even know what science is. He was fooled by a literature bluff and he proved he didn’t understand ten debate.
Science can not be adjudicated and only morons think otherwise
Meltdown. Have a donut, Joe – think of your blood sugar.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! What the frick difference does that make? It’s not like Dembski is a scientist either. Heck, only a handful of folk associated with ID could even be remotely considered scientistis, so I have no clue what you were thinking when you posted that.
But of course, since ID is just a religious movement, it really doesn’t matter anyway…LOL!
It’s almost like they say one thing publicly and another when talking with their co-religionists.
Richie, scratch and sniff. Only a desperate loser would say someone is having a meltdown because they are presenting facts. But we know Richie doesn’t let facts get in the way of his diatribe…
Naaaww…Johnson is just the FOUNDER of the whole movement. Dawkins visa vis evolution…not so much…
Oh please. It’s not like anyone is doing any science on your side. But anyway thanks for admitting evolution is religious.
It’s the little signs, Joe. Like when you’re so excited and type too fast..
Wrong. ID has been around since Aristotle and most likely before. And DARWIN used the word “Creator” which can only mean God.
Well that is the same for evos. They talk about evolutionism making one an intellectually fulfilled atheist and then say evolutionism is OK with religion.
Great thread Patrick!
No one will answer the challenge. They all must be afraid.
ID is based on three premises and the inference that follows (DeWolf et al., Darwinism, Design and Public Education, pg. 92):
1) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of (past) intelligent design.
2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity.
3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity.
4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanations for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems.
Where is the religion?
Gosh…except they don’t say that ID being creationism is their belief…not once. Phil, Dembski, and Nelson make that pretty clear.
You try reading all that again, m’kay pumpkin?
Hey, that is my line!!!
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=7640;st=30#entry230019
“It just dawned on me that ID is dead.
Dembski is off all radar. He doesn’t even show up in the search box at South Carolina bible college or whatever. The last post on the Design Inference is a year old.
Meyer’s book went up like a firework and came down with the stick.
Most of the static websites are moribund. UD has banned virtually all dissenters. The few brave enough to wander over to TSZ bail out after a couple of rounds. The biologic institute inflates its “selected publications” with publications that have nothing to do with the biologic institute and seems to be doing no more than pretending to produce output.
Bio-Complexity is moribund.
Behe doesn’t seem to have much to say.
The big guys won’t come out to debate. The small ones mostly won’t leave heavily censored sites. Even the UD newsdesk peddles 6 year old stories as “news”.
And all the threads are about religion. Or tossing coins.
I don’t know why I hadn’t seen it before.
It’s dead.”
And I suggest you re-read your first paragraph.
That’s false.
They don’t say ID is creationism. They don’t say ID is religious or based on religious texts.
For once we agree. ID was dead on arrival and the leading lights of ID are mental midgets like Joe, Barry, Gordon (call me KairosFocus) Mullings, WJM, Mapou and News. None of this has changed.
No need reminding everyone that Elizabeth is a false prophetess is there?
Lizzie needs to concern herself with the claims of her position, Richie. Just as you should. It is your failure to support your position’s claims that has allowed ID the opportunity to break free. Thank you.
Anyone saying anything bad about ID is a prophet Richie will listen to. Again he doesn’t let the facts get in the way
I am a mental widget.
…and it’s only Tuesday! This is gonna be a good week!
Whenever I think of Joe, the word “movement” often comes to mind. But it is never preceded by “ID”.:)
Frankie,
I’m pragmatic. still waiting for CSI calculations and objective tests.
I see that you are too chicken-shit to answer my question. Looks like the meltdown is all yours…
Yes Richie, I have been waiting for objective tests from evolutionists for decades. It seems you and your ilk are too afraid to test your own concepts.
In a world in which all you have to do to refute ID is to support the claims of your position you choose to flail away with your ignorance.
Oh yes they do Joe. They state it explicitly too! The quotes are all over this thread (among other great records of those statements).
You’re a riot Joe…I don’t think you could look much sillier than outright denying the plain quotes and contradicting your earlier complaints! LOL!!
We use evolutionary algorithms and computation at work for NP Hard problems. The fact you don’t need them for toaster repair doesn’t mean they’re not valuable.
Reference please. I went back and read the quotes. They do not say ID is creationism but I may have missed something. Nelson is a YEC but he doesn’t say ID = YEC.
LoL! @ Richie- evolutionary algorithms model evolution by intelligent design. They have nothing to do with blind watchmaker evolution. The fact remains you have no idea how to test the claims of your position.
In a world in which all you have to do to refute ID is to support the claims of your position you choose to flail away with your ignorance.
Why is that?
Man…you can’t even come up with good insults Joe! C’mon Joe…try harder!