theTable

from CNN - 'Intelligent design' debate back in court - Sep 26, 2005:

"Intelligent design" is a religious theory that was inserted in a school district's curriculum with no concern for whether it had scientific underpinnings, a lawyer told a federal judge Monday as a landmark trial got under way.
...
But in his opening statement, the school district's attorney defended Dover's policy of requiring ninth-grade students to hear a brief statement about intelligent design before biology classes on evolution.
...
Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district's own policy made clear its religious intent.

Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.
...
Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: "There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory."

On the other hand, he said, "Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
...
The clash over intelligent-design is evident far beyond this rural district of about 3,500 students 20 miles south of Harrisburg. President Bush has weighed in, saying schools should present both concepts when teaching about the origins of life.
...
Richard Thompson, the Thomas More center's president and chief counsel, said Dover's policy takes a modest approach.

"All the Dover school board did was allow students to get a glimpse of a controversy that is really boiling over in the scientific community," Thompson said.

Here's a good topic for group discussion. How can we rationally talk about evolution and "intelligent design" without continuing the culture war? I think the burden in many ways lays on proponents of "intelligent design" in this way: They need to show how this is science, according to the basic premises of science. In other words, what they've done is establish a hypothesis, in scientific jargon. Now, how can it be tested? How can data be gathered? What repeatable experiments can be performed? Once all of that is clear, let's do the experimenting! Then we'll be in a position to accept or reject or modify their hypothesis. The problem is clear: there is no experiment yet that can prove the existence of God. Their arguments, carefully considered, may seem valid: but they belong, perhaps, in a philosophy class, not in the science classroom.

Or, maybe I'm wrong. But why don't we talk about this, the religious and scientific community together, instead of legislating it or asking judges to rule on it. I believe there are some who are pushing this issue because they know how judges are likely to rule - and they want to continue to increase the divide between us. We religious folk should not allow ourselves to be so easily manipulated!

I should also state my belief that it is not contradictory to be a Bible-believing Christian and accept basic tenets of evolutionary theory; it is contradictory to believe in a certain ordering to creation, or to deny evolution, based on a literal reading of the Bible's Creation stories. (Genesis 1, in fact, could even support evolution. But read carefully the first 2 chapters of Genesis. Make a list of the order in which God created in each chapter. Study the accounts of the creation of man and woman. If they are literally true, they contradict each other on several important points!)

I also believe that our children deserve the best education we can provide. That means teaching science in the science classroom, philosphical reasoning and argument in philosophy, and religon in religious studies curricula and especially in the church.