Intelligent Design s/b taught in science class

...only after the scientific precepts of evolution are given equal time in every church in the country

of schools, period.

OK, allow intelligent design to be taught in schools. But it should be taught in a RELIGION class, which should be an ELECTIVE, not a required course. It still should not be taught as science no matter what.

the best put down of creationist/ID bullshit i've seen...

rather large graphic follows (sry can't figure out the damn html for these boards)

thanks, TBM

forcing people to teach science in science classes!

It is utterly devastating for the ID movement.

At one point, the opinion states that a plaintiff witness "bluntly and effectively" argued that the Dover disclaimer makes students "stupid."

I couldn't imagine a more damaging decision for the Intelligent Design fanatics. At some point, I have to wonder whether they regret calling Steve Fuller, who is actually a credible philospher of science whom I respect. Fuller is not an Intelligent Design promoter. Rather, he is interested in the ways science polices its own boundaries, which - unlike Intelligent Design - is an interesting intellectual question, and has been taken up extensively by many of the leading philosophers of scientific practice (Canguilhem, Kuhn, Stengers, etc.). His testimony was apparently elicited to show that science is itself one worldview among others, with specific shifts and histories and specific methods for exclusion. This does not, however, invalidate science so much as "denaturalize" it. The opinion consistently cites Fuller ("the defenses own witness") to highlight the religious character of ID - for good reason: Fuller has no real dog in that hunt and would presumably have no problem assenting to the religious character of ID! Seems like a silly way for the defense to demonstrate its point, and it backfired bigtime, as far as I can tell.