Changes

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones replied 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."[http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp]

In a speech to the Anti-Defamation League, Jones replied 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."[http://www.adl.org/Civil_Rights/speech_judge_jones.asp]

The ruling was made because science is dependent upon observable, empirical, measurable evidence. If a supreme being was responsible for the creation of life, this can not be scientifically proven. Thus, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. If a supreme being was not responsible, Intelligent Design is a logical paradox - if intelligence is too complex a quality to have occurred by chance, what created the creating intelligence?

Itis claimed that the ruling was made because science is dependent upon observable, empirical, measurable evidence. If a supreme being was responsible for the creation of life, this can not be scientifically proven. Thus, it has been claimed, Intelligent Design cannot be a scientific theory. However, as noted above, Intelligent Design as a scinetific theory does not identify the source of the intelligence responsible for life forms.  If a supreme being was not responsible, it is claimed, Intelligent Design is a logical paradox: If intelligence is too complex a quality to have occurred by chance, what created the creating intelligence? However, this may be countered by the argument that the creating intelligence has always existed, and did not have a creator.

===Defining intelligent design as science===

===Defining intelligent design as science===