Viewpoint has a thoughtful, five-part series on Judge John Jones and his opinion in the Dover intelligent design trial.

Many of the most vocal defenders of Darwinism aren’t behaving like dispassionate scientists, secure in the truth of their theory and, therefore, unruffled when others put forward an opposing scientific theory of life’s origin. They’re behaving as if ID theorists have touched a nerve. Three recent essays treat the subject incisively.

I wonder if Krishtalka could at least take the time to show that intelligent design is a religion-based argument. Let’s set the bar really low for his opening statement. Find a passage anywhere in Dembski’s Cambridge University Press monograph, The Design Inference, or in his follow-up academic book on the subject, No Free Lunch , that bases one of its arguments on a religious premise, that is, appeals to religious authority.

Among the many, many errors in Judge John Jones’ Dover vs. Kitzmiller opinion is the charge that intelligent design (ID) makes no empirically testable claims (see pp. 66 ff.). Similarly, other ID critics assert that intelligent design makes no testable predictions.1 In fact, intelligent design fulfills both criteria since it makes numerous empirically testable predictions.