All in favor say “Aye”.
Now that we decide science by popular decree the point is rather moot in the Dover, Penn. case, but there is something wrong with a monolithic majority-rules form of “scientific method”. And even those who oppose “Intelligent Design” on academic premises ought to recognize that.
UK academic gives evidence in intelligent design case ~Sam Jones,The Guardian
A British academic told a US federal court yesterday that the theory of intelligent design is a scientific rather than a religious concept that should be taught to children in American schools.
Steve Fuller, a professor of sociology at the University of Warwick, said that the theory – which maintains that life on Earth was designed by an unidentified intelligent force – is a valid scientific one because it has been used to describe biological phenomena.
…Prof Fuller, the author of An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Intelligent Design Theory, was called by lawyers for the school board. He said the scientific community was slow to accept minority views, but argued that introducing intelligent design might inspire students to help develop the theory. “It seems to me in many respects the cards are stacked against radical, innovative views getting a fair hearing in science these days,” he said.
Citing the work of Michael Behe, a leading advocate of intelligent design and a previous witness at the trial, Prof Fuller said scientists have observed biological systems and inferred that a “designer” must exist.
And more of “May the Best Man Win” strongarm tactics in education:
EducationGuardian.co.uk | Schools special reports | Intelligent design opponents invoke US constitution
Intelligent design opponents invoke US constitution
~Donald MacLeod
The University of California at Berkeley is being sued for running a website for school teachers called Understanding Evolution.
Anti-evolutionists claim that the site breaches the American constitution on the separation of church and state because it links to religious organisations which believe faith can be reconciled with Darwin’s theory of evolution, reported the website Inside Higher Ed today.
The University of California is already under legal attack for its refusal to certify high school courses on creationism and “intelligent design” as meeting its entry requirements for admission.
Meanwhile, supporters of evolution are using the same first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” to combat the spread of creationism and intelligent design in schools.
“because it links”….and that is one huge sin. To link to information other than the party line. Why not just request that it give additional links to the desired sites…. but no. Have to shut the whole thing down. People might think. Exposure to different ideas.
Can’t have that.