A Victory Has Been Won For Science In Dover, PA.

The assaults are relentless, against the rule of law, against the intellectual principles of science, and against even the foundations of reason from evidence itself. I don't have to tell you who the shock troops are. You already know. They have come to considerable political power in recent years and there is an ever present possibility that they will eventually destroy the rule of law, the principles of science, and the foundations of reason from evidence. They will make things in these matters according to their will and their fancy whatever the cost to us all.

But the rule of law yet stands, it has just been used to re-affirm the intellectual principles of science, and it is a tour-de-force of reasoning from evidence. It is the decision in the federal court case of TAMMY KITZMILLER, et al. v. DOVER AREA SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al. asking the Federal courts to prevent the Dover district from teaching the Theory of Intelligent Design as scientific biology.

The decision was granted in favor of the plaintiff by Federal District Court Judge John E. Jones III. Here is a condensed version of how this decision treats the main intellectual issue of whether Inteligent Design is actually a form of science:

John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer.

Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.”

Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design.

The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God. Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God.

A significant aspect of the IDM is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity.

Phillip Johnson, considered to be the father of the IDM, and author of the 1991 book entitled Darwin on Trial, has written that “theistic realism” or “mere creation” are defining concepts of the IDM. This means “that God is objectively real as Creator and recorded in the biological evidence . . .” [other evidence follows, but it is tedious to include it here--ed.]

Moreover, in turning to Defendants’ lead expert, Professor Behe, his testimony at trial indicated that ID is only a scientific, as opposed to a religious, project for him; however, considerable evidence was introduced to refute this claim. Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.

As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition’s validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe’s assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.

Go read the whole thing. I have clipped away the legal reasoning from case law which is, in many ways, more elegant than even this summary of the main intellectual issue.

Law, reason, and science still stand. Let's hope they continue to do so for the duration. They are the only real barriers to the barbarism of officially established mass psychosis.