Is ID Science?

Incredibly the U.S. District court in the Dover case addressed the question as to whether ID is science. I’m more than a little surprised by this as I was certain that the court would not address this question.

It states that it does so because:

“…after a six week trial that spanned twenty-one days and included countless hours of detailed expert witness presentations, the Court is confident that no other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area.”

And because:

“…in the hope that it may prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a subsequent trial involving the precise question which is before us.”

While I have to agree that the court is in an excellent position to make the determination, I’m certain, unfortunately, that this isn’t going to prevent the future waste of resources.

The court found that on the question as to whether or not ID is science, ID fails on three separate levels “any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science.”

1. ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.
2. The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism (to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed) that doomed creation science in the 1980's.
3. ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

I agree with the judge's conclusions in #1 and #2 but I'm not so sure about #3. It could just be really, really BAD science and still have all of its attacks upon evolution refuted.

“Accepting for the sake of argument its proponents’, as well as Defendants’ argument that to introduce ID to students will encourage critical thinking, it still has utterly no place in a science curriculum.”

Touche! It just ain’t science and doesn’t belong in a science classroom!

“Moreover, ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard.”

In other words, at best only misleading, and at worse a fabricated lie. Canard is a polite word for bullshit. I’ll have to remember that one.

This decision is an absolute unmitigated disaster for the ID movement and I’m certain that we will be hearing howls of indignation and complaints of persecution and censorship but it just ain’t so.

ID is total nonsense and anyone with better than a 9th grade education and an IQ above 90 should be able to recognize it as total nonsense. Judge John E. Jones has had the courage to call a spade a spade. I’m impressed as well as surprised. I can’t wait to hear the reaction from the Christian Right. They'll probably call for Jones' impeachment.