Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Science! vs Science

Back to Evolution vs. Creationism.

Today a Pennsylvania court decided against Intelligent Design being taught in schools as it was found not to be a science, but a thinly glazed-over version of Creationism, which being religious, should not be taught.

Some quotes: From Christian Science Monitor

    In the end, one of the most prominent intellectual defenders of intelligent design, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, conceded that a definition of "science" that included it might also include astrology.

    Thus in the end Judge Jones ruled on the viability of the assertion itself.

    "In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether [intelligent design] is science. We have concluded it is not," he wrote in his opinion.

Use the link in the title to see other articles from Google News.

Is this an important victory for Evolutionists? The key argument against ID being a science is its lack of falsifiabiltity. Which is a fun word to type and even more fun to try to say. What are scientific alternatives are there to evolution? Is Intelligent Design really Creationism?

As a final note, ID supporters have been banding about the words 'activist judge' again in this context. While I think we can all agree that upholding the current precedent is hardly activism, does the basis of the decision - that ID is not science - go beyond the jurisdiction of the court?