Intelligent design not so Intelligent!

Tuesday’s ruling in the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was a blow to the proponents

of the Intelligent design.

The ruling was orchestrated by a conservative Judge appointed by President Bush.

"We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an

objective observer, adult or child," wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v.

Dover, which rules that disparaging Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional.


Before Micheal Behe became famous I picked up his book Darwins Black Box,

I must say I was impressed, by his arguments.

I prefer Richard Dawkins "The Selfish Gene", he is a better writer.

However I must say it is possible that ID proponents may come out sronger.

At least now they know the arguments that will be used agains them.

And to many they are apersecuted group of scholars.

For those who do not know what ID is here is a simple explantion.

The media give sit own spin.

I think the problem with this case was that zealous religious groups tried to

push this through, with no idea what they were doing.


Thinking they were on some kinda crusade against godlessness, they were

willing to hurt the emerging ID movement, many who are not Christian


The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection.

ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion.

In a broader sense, Intelligent Design is simply the science of design detection -- how to recognize patterns arranged by an intelligent cause for a purpose. Design detection is used in a number of scientific fields, including anthropology, forensic sciences that seek to explain the cause of events such as a death or fire, cryptanalysis and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI).

An inference that certain biological information may be the product of an intelligent cause can be tested or evaluated in the same manner as scientists daily test for design in other sciences.

ID is controversial because of the implications of its evidence, rather than the significant weight of its evidence.


ID proponents believe science should be conducted objectively, without regard to the implications of its findings. This is particularly necessary in origins science because of its historical (and thus very subjective) nature, and because it is a science that unavoidably impacts religion.