Intelligent Design
A federal judge in Pennsylvania has ruled that a local school district cannot assert that Darwinism is theory only with gaps unsupported by evidence. Further, the District cannot state that there is scientific evidence that there is an intelligent design to the Universe. The judge’s reasoning is essentially that because there can be no scientific verification for the existence of God, the existence of God is not a matter of science, but religion. The judge found that the School Board members lied when stating that they had no religious purpose in including Intelligent Design (I.D.) in their biology texts. The purpose, according to the judge, was patently religious. Therefore, he ruled, the practice violated the constitutional mandate separating state and religion. The L.A. Times coverage (12-21-2005) of the decision is found at L.A. Times Coverage.
This decision is wrongly decided on the law because the judge failed to grasp the actual nature of science as it is practiced and taught. Theoretical science routinely constructs theories having little or no actual evidentiary support. The theory is the starting point for testing the predictive value of the theory as it is applied to the observed universe. Much of cutting edge science does not have the benefit of observable or quantifiable data, but rather relies on what “may be occurring” beyond observation to understand “what is occurring” within observation. For example, Einstein’s theory of relativity was well ahead of any observations because the means of observation were not then in place. As observations became available, they were explained by the theory (for example, the time/space/gravity/speed/energy relationships in showing the relativity of the time-space field). Thus, the theory had explanatory power, and acquired greater credibility. Yet this “time/space/energy” field is not seen or measurable. Only its effects are known. So it is with God. Yet, this federal judge presumed to place God outside the scope of scientific inquiry because he saw “God” as a religious pursuit exclusively. He was, in a word, a person captured by his categories.
This decision, while hailed by Darwinists (for their own metaphysical purposes), will ultimately be discredited as deeper thinking advances the cause of Truth.
