Arizona Republica columnist Robert Robb hit the nail on the head in his examination yesterday of Judge Jones’ decision to declare intelligent design unscientific. Robb is right to note, as have many others, that the courtroom is not where science should be, or will be, decided.
“Moreover, based upon the extensive expertise he professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial, he defined science and determined that the scientific claims of intelligent design were invalid, neither of which are exactly legal questions best decided by a single lawyer.”
In a rare occurence, Robb manages to both understand the basic nature of intelligent design theory, and Discovery Institute’s education policy position. That’s something Judge Jones obviously can’t claim.
“Intelligent design accepts that the Earth and life are billions of years old, and that life has evolved through adaptation, mutation and natural selection. It even accepts some degree of common ancestry among species.
It simply finds the claim that all life evolved from a single organism not to best fit the available evidence.
Far from wanting to ban the teaching of evolution in public schools, the ID movement advocates that it be taught. Moreover, it does not support the mandatory teaching of intelligent design as an alternative. Instead, it wants a more circumspect presentation of evolutionary theory as well as acknowledgement of its scientific critiques.
Those critiques, such as that some of life exhibits irreducible complexity that cannot be explained by evolution, are fiercely rebutted by evolutionists. But the notion of circumspection shouldn’t be controversial.”