Does Intelligent Design Have Merit?

With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.

Next question in Religion in Society

You are seeing 25 Comments on this Objection. See all 1083 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Objection

Will Americans United Retract Their Demonstrably False Claims?

- From Discovery Institute

Open Objection Go to this Objection

The sound of silence

--As explained on that page, some of the scientific journals and other prestigious academic sources that have published peer-reviewed scientific publications by ID proponents supporting core ID arguments include:--

And then the Discovery Institute continues to claim some journals, without providing much of any reference to the actual papers. And for good reason because there are trivially few if any, ID relevant scientific papers. While ID is known to quickly claim that papers support their viewpoint, the many authors of said papers have come forward, strongly disagreeing with said claims. ID has few if any ID relevant papers. It's as simple as that. Perhaps the poster would like to identify a single relevant article for us to address in more depth?

As to Judge Jones extensive use of the ACLU's "proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’", the DI initially suggested strongly that something was fishy about this, of course, over time they may have toned down their rhetoric showing that the ACLU was well prepared in briefing the Judge about the case.

As to evidence, all that ID can do is use ill defined concepts to argue that our ignorance should indeed be seen as evidence of design, combine this with an equivocation on such terminologies as design and information and one quickly realizes that ID is all about Bait and Switch.

If ID has merit, then explain how ID explains the bacterial flagellum.

The silence will be deafening I predict.

- PvM September 10, 2008 9:16PM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Regarding Response

You Lost the Case -- Get Over It

- From AUSCS

Open Response Go to this Response

Having a 'lemon wedge' in my tea makes more sense ...

" We focus only on the constitutional aspects to this issue. Americans United's main point is that the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional. It is religion, not science. Judge Jones agreed with us. The Kitzmiller case is over. "

Oh really? The 'unconstitutional' premise, which resulted in a legal 'conclusion' by Judge Jones, was based on his interpretation of (1) The Establishment Clause, (2) The Lemon Test, and (3) his definition of 'religion.' Without taking up space analyzing the first two, addressing the third negates the relevance of the first two.

In the Lemon v Kurtzman ruling, as in virtually all other Supreme Court cases, religion has not been defined, although in lower court cases, it has in some cases been defined in a narrow or broad sense, according to what the jurist(s) felt was needed to adjudicate a particular case.

One of the main problems then, in applying the Lemon Test, is a proper interpretation of the term 'religion'. Referring to excerpts from the Utah Law Review published by arn.org, this topic is addressed, with citations from relevant court cases.

pg. 47 "Though the courts have generally resisted formulating definitions of
religion, the Ninth Circuit test articulated in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified
School District226 and Alvarado v. City of San Jose227 stands as a clear
exception to that rule." Similar to the Lemon Test, it consists of (3) qualifications for a motive to be religious. I'll list those three, along with my interpretation.

"First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters."

My take: ID seeks empirical and statistical verifications/ falsifications, rather than to attempt to answer 'imponderable matters [questions].

"Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching."

There is no established "belief-system" presented as evidence of design.

"Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs."

Here is the clincher, quoting from pg. 46: "The third part of the test concerns the "'presence of certain formal and external signs.'" The court provided a list of such signs, including liturgy, clergy, and observance of holidays. Obviously, design theory has none of these - no sacred texts; no ordained ministers, priests, or religious teachers; no design theory liturgies; no design theory holidays; and no institutional structures like those of religious groups."

If these prongs properly define 'religion', then Judge Jones erred in his decision. "Implying" a God, does not a religion make. A designer, design team, or designers over vast time would not need to constitute the role of an overseer, or an entity that conforms to prevailing monotheistic religions.

An appellate court ruling can be cited as a basis for later rulings, and in this case, to more accurately define 'religion' as referenced in Lemon v. Kurtzman, but not properly defined in that decision. I eagerly await a subsequent court ruling based in-part on the above, as well as other relevant facts, to put this nonesense to rest. I feel that Tom Jefferson would agree.

http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf

- Lee Bowman September 12, 2008 1:37PM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Interesting questions
  
  Let's just cut to the chase: ID does not perform any empirical and statistical verifications, at best they could perform statistical falsifications of a particular scientific hypothesis but even the simplest hypotheses are not easily captured in statistics and thus ID has found that most examples of supposedly 'designed' systems, cannot really be tested using ID methodology.
  
  So let's be upfront here about what ID really is: It's the argument that when we do not fully understand how something arose, that our default position should be 'designed' not 'we don't know'. Once we agree on this simple fact, we can see if the Judge's ruling had a solid foundation.
  
  First of all, the judge observed that the school board was strongly motivated by religious beliefs and the fact that they believed that ID presented a scientific hypothesis and thus a valid secular purpose, was their downfall when the Judge showed not only how ID is tightly linked to religious motivations (the Wedge) but also that as a science it lacked any content.
  
  It is sufficient to point out that ID, which claims that design is that which remains when we cannot explain something using natural processes of regularity or chance, must be either the empty set or the supernatural. I doubt that many ID proponent would argue for the empty set and thus what logically remains, and what is supported by the evidence, ID's 'designer (wink, wink)' is just an evolved concept, just like 'creationist' became 'cdesign proponentist' to 'design proponent'.
  
  - PvM September 12, 2008 1:50PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Let's also be upfront about who may have erred ...
    
    PvM:
    
    "First of all, the judge observed that the school board was strongly motivated by religious beliefs and the fact that they believed that ID presented a scientific hypothesis and thus a valid secular purpose, was their downfall ... "
    
    Thanks for bringing that up Pv, since I forgot to. There is strong evidence that Buckingham had religious motives, and that he had a memory slip regarding funding for the books, etc. That alone could qualify for an interpretation of 'religious motives', although Lemon Test prong 1, while requiring a "secular purpose", does not summarily rule out tentatively having a religious motive as well. None-the-less, I don't disagree with his ruling regarding the school board.
    
    That said, none of this relates to the ID ruling, since the board members were not ID advocates, except perhaps superficially.
    
    PvM:
    
    " ... when the Judge showed not only how ID is tightly linked to religious motivations (the Wedge) but also that as a science it lacked any content."
    
    The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
    
    More on the ACLU's rubber stamped ruling, by a practicing attorney:
    
    http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-we-should-not-try-to-fathom-the-hearts-of-policy-makers /
    lacked any content."
    
    - Lee Bowman September 12, 2008 2:22PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - There we go again
      
      --Bowman
      More on the ACLU's rubber stamped ruling, by a practicing attorney
      --
      
      Nothing wrong with quoting from a well argued submission by the ACLU
      
      --Bowman
      
      That said, none of this relates to the ID ruling, since the board members were not ID advocates, except perhaps superficially.
      --
      
      On the contrary, and the DI realized this when arguing in their Amicus Curiae brief that ID does have 'valid secular purposes'. Since if ID did indeed have a valid secular purpose, as the board indeed believed (it was after all claimed to be 'scientific' by ID proponents) then the ruling would have had to take into consideration the valid secular purpose aspect. Peter Irons explains it quite well in his paper.
      
      - PvM September 12, 2008 2:43PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Yea, but 91% of the ruling?
        
        "Nothing wrong with quoting from a well argued submission by the ACLU."
        
        OK, referring to it is of course permissable, but come on, copying 91% of it. How do we know the Judge really thought much about the issue himself? We don't with that kind of antic. This seems like a misuse of the privilege to refer to a brief to me. If the Judge had done the same thing, copied 91% of a well written brief submitted by an ID group, and ruled for the other side, what do you think you would have complained about? It goes both ways my friend. The only reason you don't think this is a problem is because he supports your view, isn't that right?....
        
        - tj10 September 12, 2008 8:56PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Wedge is relevant
      
      --Bowman argues
      The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
      --
      
      It was relevant to the history of Intelligent Design, especially when the ID 'hypothesis' was found to be lacking scientific content.
      
      Not surprisingly, the Judge disagreed with Bowman's position that the Wedge was not relevant
      
      --Judge Jones
      
      Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.
      ---
      
      Hope this helps
      
      - PvM September 12, 2008 2:45PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Wedge is relevant
      
      --Bowman argues
      The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
      --
      
      It was relevant to the history of Intelligent Design, especially when the ID 'hypothesis' was found to be lacking scientific content.
      
      Not surprisingly, the Judge disagreed with Bowman's position that the Wedge was not relevant
      
      --Judge Jones
      
      Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.
      ---
      
      Hope this helps
      
      - PvM September 12, 2008 2:45PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - It's been a while...
    
    "ID's 'designer (wink, wink)' is just an evolved concept, just like 'creationist' became 'cdesign proponentist' to 'design proponent'."
    
    ...have you found the paragraphs to support your premise here yet? Anything that showed god specifically was implicated by use of the word creator?
    
    - F2XL January 29, 2009 8:41PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- The court was of course not unaware of Lemon
  
  --Judge Jones--
  Although we have found that Defendants' conduct conveys a strong message of endorsement of the Board members' par ticular religious view, pursuant to the endorsement test, the better practice in this Circuit is for this Court to also evaluate the challenged conduct separately under the Lemon test.18 See Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 530-35; Modrovich, 385 F.3d at 406; Freethought, 334 F.3d at 261.
  
  As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13. As the Lemon test is disjunctive, either an improper purpose or an improper effect renders the ID Policy invalid under the Establishment Clause.19
  
  We will therefore consider whether (1) Defendants' primary purpose was to advance religion or (2) the ID Policy has the primary effect of promoting religion.
  --
  
  Timothy Sandefur discusses the response by Discovery Institute Fellows, pointing us to an essay by Peter Irons
  
  http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/montana-law-rev.html
  
  http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons %20Response.pdf
  
  - PvM September 12, 2008 1:59PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Irons
    
    From the above linked paper by Peter Irons, I quote the following
    
    --Peter Irons
    
    In an undoubtedly unintentional slip, which they may well regret, the DI authors have effectively given away the store with their concession that under the Lemon test, “all that was necessary [for Judge Jones] to determine that an Establishment Clause violation had occurred was to find that the Dover school board members had predominantly religious motivations for enacting their ID policy.” To repeat, those religious motivations would have been irrelevant if ID was in fact a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Thus, in my view, Judge Jones was required to raise and answer this question, based on the voluminous record before him, which his opinion lays out in some five thousand words.
    ---
    
    In other words, in accepting the Lemon clause, the DI basically accepted that ID serves no valid secular purpose.
    
    - PvM September 12, 2008 2:27PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Read the rest of the Montana Law Review
      
      Peter Irons' article is only one part of the Montana Law Reviews take on this. The other side was submitted by David DeWolf, Casey Luskin and John West and can be read here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2125 .
      
      If you want a thorough analysis of the Dover v. Kitzmiller ruling you should read "Traipsing Into Evolution" -- www.traipsingintoevolution.
      
      Like modern evolutionary theory there is more than just one side to the debate.
      
      - Robert Crowther September 12, 2008 2:52PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - More than one side to the debate?
        
        --Robert Crowther
        Like modern evolutionary theory there is more than just one side to the debate.
        --
        
        Any suggestions to what debates you may be referring?
        
        As to DeWolf et al, where they not the ones who also wrote a publication that argued that it was constitutional to teach ID? One of the main causes of the Dover disaster in my opinion?
        
        After all if ID has a valid secular purpose, then no matter what the motivations of the board may have been, such a purpose would have overruled any concerns.
        
        Ah, yes the by now infamous
        
        http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
        
        --
        Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy about the issue.160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.
        --
        
        Ironic isn't it "Of Pandas and People", of all books. Was that not the book which was at the center of stage in Dover?
        
        - PvM September 12, 2008 2:59PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        The response to Iron's Montana Law Review PT 1
        
        Here is the response to Irons, which was also published in the Montana Law Review.
        
        REBUTTAL TO IRONS (footnotes left off)
        By David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin
        We wrote a serious critique of the Kitzmiller ruling. Rather than deal with the substance of our arguments, Peter Irons responds primarily with red herrings, personal attacks, and erroneous statements. With merely 1,000 words to rebut, we highlight merely some of the problems.
        
        1. Irons tries to refute intelligent design (ID) by smear and innuendo rather than substantive argument. Pro ID scholars have published more than a decade of scholarship in reputable academic books and journals about the empirical evidence supporting design. Instead of engaging this scholarship, Irons wildly misrepresents a few blog posts and an old fundraising proposal, and uses guilt-by-association to insinuate (falsely) that Discovery Institute (DI) is run by “biblical creationist[s]” and supports “Biblical Reconstructionis[m]” and theocracy. Irons devotes pages to caricaturing the backgrounds, beliefs, and political affiliations of ID proponents, rather obviously trying to present ID as part of a nefarious conspiracy of the “Religious Right.” This is an example of what historian Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”7 Irons tries to avoid debating the real issues by poisoning the well.
        
        2. Irons misrepresents our critique of Judge Jones. Given his article, it is surprising that Irons accuses us of making ad hominem attacks against Judge Jones.8 Ad hominem arguments attack a person rather than that person’s position.9 Our article assesses Judge Jones’s analysis in light of his judicial responsibilities, but Irons’s rebuttal starts with the alleged motives and personal failings of the authors. Irons’s claim that we resort to ad hominem attacks is the height of irony.
        
        3. Irons misapplies the Lemon test. In a rare attempt to rebut our legal arguments, Irons claims Judge Jones properly determined whether ID is science because otherwise the Dover school board’s “religious motivations would have been irrelevant.” This is wrong: the Supreme Court requires the proffered secular purpose “be sincere and not a sham” and “[i]f the law was enacted for the purpose of endorsing religion, no consideration of [Lemon’s] second or third criteria is necessary.” Had Judge Jones found that ID is science, Dover’s policy would still be unconstitutional if adopted for predominately religious reasons. But Judge Jones found Dover’s proffered secular purpose was a sham, negating any need to address whether ID is science. As we noted, even anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler agrees Judge Jones was mistaken to rule on ID’s scientific status.
        
        4. Rewriting the history of DI’s involvement with Dover. DI opposed Dover’s policy at every stage of the process, and Irons’s contrary suggestions are false. The DI’s position in Dover was consistent with its publicly stated science education policy, and with its recommendations in Ohio in 2002 and 2004, and in Wisconsin in 2004, where DI also opposed mandates of ID. Irons’s only source for rewriting history is a statement of a Dover board member whom Judge Jones said “testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath” and is therefore “not credible.”
        
        - Robert Crowther September 12, 2008 3:34PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Response to Irons' Montana Law Review piece PT 2
        
        PT. 2
        
        5. Irons defends Judge Jones’s double standard on motives. According to Irons, Judge Jones rightly scrutinized the religious beliefs of ID theorists while ignoring those of Darwinists, asserting that atheism naturally “follow[s]” from evolution, whereas religion motivates ID. This is empirically false,22 and stands the First Amendment on its head: can Irons seriously claim that the First Amendment requires discriminatory treatment toward scientists because of their religious beliefs? By arguing that Richard Dawkins’s atheism “followed” from evolution, Irons concedes that metaphysical implications of a scientific theory cannot render it unscientific.
        
        6. Irons repeatedly misrepresents and misstates facts. Irons’s factual errors are too numerous to catalog, but we highlight some of the most egregious: Irons incorrectly conflates ID proponents with “biblical creationists.” He wrongly implies that ID must reject common ancestry. He accuses Michael Behe of failing to repair a purported “defect” in irreducible complexity, without revealing that Behe has responded to this objection. He claims the John Templeton Foundation (JTF) asked ID proponents for research proposals which “never came in,” but JTF’s vice president denies that such a request was ever made, calling the episode a “media narrative manufacture.” Irons alleges we “hijacked” Stephen Jay Gould, but Gould plainly agreed with Niles Eldridge that “the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.” Irons insinuates that “not one” of DI’s fellows in the Center for Science and Culture has expertise in paleontology, ignoring the various ID proponents who have studied (or published) in mainstream paleontology circles, including on hominid evolution. He claims “no ‘intelligent’ force can be observed or measured by any scientific process,” yet we explained that scientists study intelligence by observing humans and seek to detect intelligent action in SETI (“search for extraterrestrial intelligence”) programs. Irons uses poor sources for many of his claims, which may be why he is so inaccurate.
        
        Irons repeatedly falsely insinuates that we misrepresent quotations through omissions, but he misrepresents through creative quoting himself. For example, Irons claims William Dembski takes the position that “I am a Christian, therefore I reject evolution,” but ignores Dembski’s actual position: “Intelligent design . . . has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles.” It is Irons who has attempted to “swift-boat” the character of ID proponents through selective citations.
        
        Rather than refuting our substantive arguments, Irons attempts to divert attention away from the Kitzmiller ruling and its weaknesses. We trust that fair-minded readers will see through such tactics. If this is the best defenders of Kitzmiller can muster, the shelf-life of the ruling may be short indeed.
        
        - Robert Crowther September 12, 2008 3:35PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        what's wrong with jsut posting a link
        
        Instead this appears to be an abuse of copyright without an argument on Crowther's part.
        
        Too bad.
        
        --
        This is wrong: the Supreme Court requires the proffered secular purpose “be sincere and not a sham” and “[i]f the law was enacted for the purpose of endorsing religion, no consideration of [Lemon’s] second or third criteria is necessary.
        --
        
        Showing a valid secular purpose would have invalidated the 'endorsing religion' part. Why else would the DI argue so strongly that ID has valid secular purpose?
        
        Otherwise, given the religious motivations of ID, ID would never stand a chance in court.
        
        - PvM September 12, 2008 4:02PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        First prong of the Lemon test
        
        --
        The U.S. Supreme Court held a Kentucky law requiring posting a copy of the Ten
        Commandments on the walls of public classrooms a violation of the Establishment
        Clause, because it allegedly included a sham secular purpose in violation of the first
        prong of the Lemon test.--
        
        Seems that the sham secular purpose determination was in fact relevant after all.
        
        --Lemon v Kurtzman--
        
        The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
        
        1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
        2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
        3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
        --
        Now I understand the article bombing on Crowther's part.
        
        - PvM September 12, 2008 4:05PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Since Crowther likes balance
        
        Here is Irons' response to the so called 'rebuttal'
        
        --
        Reply to Rebuttal
        By Peter Irons
        
        The pages of a respected law review are rarely filled with such pejorative terms as "smear and innuendo," "poisoning the well," and "personal attacks." These are charges the DI authors have leveled at me in their Rebuttal to my article, in which I documented their ad hominem attacks on Judge Jones for his allegedly "sloppy" and "biased" Kitzmiller opinion. Although this reply to the Rebuttal is not part of the exchange in the Montana Law Review, it seems fair that readers of those articles might benefit from a brief rejoinder to the Rebuttal, which I will not burden with footnotes. I have numbered the points below simply for convenience.
        
        1. The DI authors fault me for not "engaging th[e] scholarship" they cite as providing "empirical evidence supporting [intelligent] design." My article was not directed at a detailed critique of this alleged scholarship, which lies outside both my fields of expertise and those of the DI authors. I did, however, note in my article the concession of Michael Behe at the Kitzmiller trial that he could not cite any "pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." I thus had no ID scholarship to engage.
        ===
        
        It only gets better
        http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/irons_responds_to_west_luskin.php
        
        The most relevant to this discussion is
        
        --Peter Irons--
        7. Moving to the legal issues in the Kitzmiller opinion, which the DI authors accuse me of slighting in my article, let me comment on their claim that both Judge Jones and I have "misapplie[d] the Lemon test." First, they concede that the "proffered secular purpose" of the Dover school board's ID policy was a "sham" and that Judge Jones properly held it unconstitutional as an endorsement of religion. Second, they argue that this finding "negat[ed] any need to address whether ID is science." On this point, the DI authors note that "even anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler [a professor at Boston University Law School] agrees Judge Jones was mistaken to rule on ID's scientific status," citing Wexler's recent article in the First Amendment Law Review (Vol. 5, 2006). Without rehashing the discussion of this issue in my article, let me simply note that Professor Wexler and I disagree. Readers of this exchange are encouraged to consult the lengthy, and--in my view--persuasive reply to Wexler by Richard Katskee in that same issue of the First Amendment Law Review.
        --
        
        Richard Katskee, "Why It Mattered to Dover that Intelligent Design Isn't Science" First Amendment Law Review, Vol. 5, Winter 2006
        
        - PvM September 12, 2008 4:16PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
Objections to AUSCS's argument

"You lost the case -- get over it."

- So does this mean gay rights groups should just accept Proposition 8?

"So who is this "Designer"? (Don't say space aliens or time travelers -- you only make yourself look foolish with such claims.)"

- I think anti-IDists have done themselves a disservice by stating that God is a better explanation for design than aliens or time travelers. If ID is ever adopted by the majority of scientists, history will make anti-IDists eat their own feet. Further, Richard Dawkins stated that it is more probable that aliens created life on Earth than God. I guess the AUSCS thinks Dawkins is a fool.

- ufcarazy January 25, 2009 11:21AM

Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- You and I think alike
  
  The AUSC's claim that court cases settle all debates reminds me of how futile Roe v. Wade was in settling the abortion debate.
  
  And yes, it's funny how Dawkin's has no problem with ID at all AS LONG AS the designer isn't god.
  
  - F2XL January 29, 2009 8:43PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Related Debates

Experts on "Yes" Side

Discovery Institute
A Positive Vision of the Future See arguments
Michael Behe
Author/Professor See arguments
Jay W Richards PhD
The Acton Institute See arguments

Experts on "No" Side

Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights
Advancing Objectivism See arguments
National Center for Science Education
Defending the Teaching of Evolution See arguments
AUSCS
See arguments

Most Objections

Intelligent Design?

Spotlight

Dr. Michael Behe

Michael J. Behe is Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University and the author of two books exploring the intelligent design of life: Darwin's Black Box... More

Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms

Email a Friend

Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: Will Americans United Retract Their Demonstrably False Claims?

Will Americans United Retract Their Demonstrably False Claims?

- From Discovery Institute

By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

You Lost the Case -- Get Over It

- From AUSCS

By Americans United

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Thank You for your Comment

Intelligent Design?

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

Subscribe to Opposing News

Email a Friend

Intelligent Design?