Creationism is not science. Duh.

[dr_tectonic]

So, many of you have seen this already, but the judge in the Pennsylvania case about "Intelligent Design" (sorry, I can't write it without scare quotes) made his ruling today. Basically, the court concluded that teaching ID in biology class is governmental promotion of religion, and therefore unconstitutional.

At melted_snowball's recommendation, I actually read the entire 139-page opinion -- it's quite approachable -- and man, it is a doozy. You can find the whole thing here:

http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/kitzmiller_342.pdf

I'm searching for a good metaphor here, and I'm having trouble. It's not just a slam-dunk for science, it's like a slam-dunk where the guy starts at the other end, leaps all the way across the whole court, dunks it, shatters the backboard, and then the whole arena collapses.

It's not just "ID is religion, not science", it's like, "ID is not science in every way possible".

The opinion basically says, "ID is creationism is religion. And you can't promote religion in school because it's illegal. DUH! So cut it out, because you're not fooling anyone, especially not me."

Nothing seems to piss off a judge more than acting like you think he's stupid.
Aside: It kind of puts me in mind of Steve Jackson Games vs the Secret Service, where the judge gave the Secret Service agents a public tongue-lashing in court for being idiots -- read the last part of this trial report for some of the good bits.)

Anyway, it put a little bit of a smile on my face, and I just had to share. Yey!

Comments

[psyclonic.livejournal.com]

One thing that'll get lost in this is the particular species (ha ha) of ID & of creationism involved. I agree that not all variations of ID represent repackaged creationism, but a) proponents of those forms of ID bear the burden of publicising their differentiation; b) they are less likely to treat their version as scientific and therefore c) are less likely to make the mistake of pushing it into science classrooms. So, as far as the public arena is concerned, an authentic ID concept that's scientifically compatible is almost irrelevant as an issue, as it is very clearly part of faith.