Is It (ID) Science Yet?

(FYI from NCSE)
 
"IS IT SCIENCE YET?"
 
Matthew J. Brauer, Barbara Forrest, and
Steven G. Gey offer a definitive assessment of the legal issues involved
in
their new law review article "Is it science yet? Intelligent design
creationism and the Constitution," published in Washington University
Law
Quarterly (2005; vol. 83, no. 1). With almost 150 pages of closely
reasoned argument and almost 600 footnotes of meticulous documentation,
"Is
it science yet?" is sure to become the leading treatment of the
constitutionality of teaching "intelligent design" for the foreseeable
future. The abstract of the article reads:
 
On several occasions during the last eighty years, states have attempted
to
either prohibit the teaching of evolution in public school science
classes
or counter the teaching of evolution with mandatory references to the
religious doctrine of creationism. The Supreme Court struck down
examples
of the first two generations of these statutes, holding that they
violated
the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. A third generation of
creationist legislation is now being proposed. Under this new generation
of creationism legislation, science teachers would present so-called
"intelligent design" theory as an alternative to evolution. Intelligent
design theory asserts that a supernatural intelligence intervened in the
natural world to dictate the nature and ordering of all biological
species,
which do not evolve from lower- to higher-order beings. This article
considers whether these intelligent design creationism proposals can
survive constitutional scrutiny. The authors analyze the religious,
philosophical, and scientific details of intelligent design theory, and
assess these details in light of the constitutional doctrine developed
by
the Court in its previous creationism decisions. The Article discusses
several factors that pose problems for intelligent design theory,
including
the absence of objective scientific support for intelligent design,
evidence of strong links between intelligent design and religious
doctrine,
the use of intelligent design to limit the dissemination of scientific
theories that are perceived as contradicting religious teachings, and
the
fact that the irreducible core of intelligent design theory is what the
Court has called the "manifestly religious" concept of a God or Supreme
Being. Based on these details, the authors conclude that intelligent
design theory cannot survive scrutiny under the constitutional framework
used by the Court to invalidate earlier creationism mandates.
 
To read "Is it science yet?" (1M PDF), visit:
http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20p
ages.pdf
 
Anybody take issue with the premise that, ID "asserts that a
supernatural intelligence intervened in the natural world to dictate the
nature and ordering of all biological species, which do not evolve from
lower-(order) to higher-order beings"? I'm not sure these legal guys
(and gal) have been reading our stuff. Is it possible that we know more
about ID than those who have written the "leading treatment of the
constitutionality of teaching 'intelligent design' for the foreseeable
future"?
 
~Dick Fischer~ Genesis Proclaimed Association
Finding Harmony in Bible, Science, and History
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 
Received on Fri Oct 21 15:31:33 2005