Changes

Some scientists who reviewed Behe's book felt that the structures he defined could evolve through the mechanisms of naturalist evolution and that the evidence provided was not convincing. <ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/nature.shtml</ref>

Some scientists who reviewed Behe's book felt that the structures he defined could evolve through the mechanisms of naturalist evolution and that the evidence provided was not convincing. <ref>http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/nature.shtml</ref>

In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge [[John E. Jones III]] ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".  However, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." <ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330</ref> This information was originally published in a press release from the [[Discovery Institute]]. Critics contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. <ref>http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html</ref>

In a recent trial in Dover, Pennsylvania Judge [[John E. Jones III]] ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".  Legal scholars Jay D. Wexler and Arnold H. Loewy questioned Judge Jones's ruling. <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/kitzmiller_attorney_uses_harsh.html</ref> Also, the WorldNetDaily stated: "A historic judicial ruling against intelligent design theory hailed as a "broad, stinging rebuke" and a "masterpiece of wit, scholarship and clear thinking" actually had material in its "finding of facts" that was "cut and pasted" from a brief by [[ACLU]] lawyers and includes many of their provable errors, contends the Seattle-based Discovery Institute." <ref>http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330</ref><ref>http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3829</ref><ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/01/a_response_to_darwinist_defend.html</ref>  The Discovery Institute states that Judge Jones followed the ACLU and ignored contrary facts. <ref>http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/judge_jones_follows_aclu_ignor.html</ref>  Critics of Discovery Institute contend that it is a misrepresentation of legal precedent and that the ruling followed standard procedure. <ref>http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/casey_luskinnot.html</ref>

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."<ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones said that "had I decided the Dover matter in a different way, I would have then engaged in just the kind of judicial activism which critics decry," stating that he was bound by "over a half century of strong legal precedents."<ref>http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp</ref>