RAW DOGMA                                                                       written by Nkrumah Steward

Federal Judge Will Decide Once and For All if Intelligent Design Is Science

A federal judge in Pennsylvania is about to hear “the most important legal situation of creation and evolution in the last 18 years,” according Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Basically the federal courts will decide once and for all if Intelligent Design is a science or not.
The Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania began requiring its ninth grade biology teachers to mention Intelligent Design as an alternative to the Darwin Theory of Evolution.
The official language is that they want to make “students aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's Theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, Intelligent Design.”
Well that’s nice, but I noticed, and so have others that they didn’t say that students needed to be aware of the gaps/problems with Intelligent Design.
Curious isn’t it?
What is good for one apparently isn’t good for the other.
See if we have the teacher talking about the holes and gaps in Intelligent Design we run the risk of making it look silly which would defeat the purpose wouldn’t it.
We are trying to dress this pig up in lipstick and a wig and see if we can get someone to fall in love and marry it.
Aren’t we shooting ourselves in the foot if we actually have the teacher point out that Intelligent Design isn’t even a science? How about that it isn’t falsifiable or capable of being tested?
Well the children might ask, “Well why do my mother and father believe so strongly in something that can’t be falsifiable?” And if they do, what are we allowed to tell them?
Your parents are idiots? They set their bar really low when it comes to things that they believe? That they aren’t critical thinkers and that you’d probably be surprised that there are a lot of things that they believe to be true on the strength they someone told them it was.
None of those are good answers.
Well the School Board in the Dover Area School District in Pennsylvania thinks it is important that they "inform students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution, including the fact that there are alternative scientific theories."
But its not so important to inform those same students of the scientific controversy surrounding the theory that an all powerful otherworldly entity designed the universe.
Michael Behe of Lehigh University and Scott Minnich of Iowa State are noted as scientist that support intelligent design theory by the school board.
I have always found this to be funny.
On one hand the creationists scoff at science as these blind atheists that are hell bent on turning society away from God and pushing a liberal agenda down everyone’s throats, but they so proudly hoist scientists on their shoulders if they support what they believe.
So in other words, they have no use for scientist, unless of course scientist tell them what they want to hear, which is the story of their lives.
But Michael Behe, isn’t exactly what you would call a creationist. He also said this about intelligent design, he said that intelligent design theory is only a negative, it offers absolutely no explanation to how it works, other than “God created it”.
He’s absolutely right. Intelligent Design proponents won't say how Intelligent Design works because they can’t.
They won't say how it can be tested, because it can’t be tested. All they want to do is tell you that Darwinism has its problems and offer you Intelligent Design as the alternative without inviting you to look critically at it, hoping you will accept it as the correct answer based on the strength of the problems with Darwinism.
When the heat started to come down on the Dover School Board over this half assed attempt to make creationism secularly credible, they started insisting that they never ordered anyone to teach Intelligent Design only to mention it as an alternative.
William Saletan, who wrote about the subject on MSNBC got it right when he wrote, “Of course they didn’t tell anyone to teach it. There’s nothing to teach.”
Source: ‘Intelligent design’ faces first big court test, MSNBC, September 23, 2005  Grow Some Testables, The Slate, September, 29, 2005
same difference

The Myth of Creation vs. The Theory of Evolution
What bothers me is their insistence that the world shows overwhelming evidence that it had a grand designer.

Ohio OK's Creationism in Science Class
Shouldn't they be teaching "intelligent design" theory in history instead? Wouldn't it fit better right along with the section "when we used to think the world was flat", and "when we used to think the sun revolved around the earth"?