5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 7:
Line 7: − + + +
Significant bias is evident in this article. Alternative viewpoint and clarification has been introduced.
In a recent trial in Dover, PA Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
In a recent trial in Dover, PA Judge John E. Jones III ruled that Intelligent Design was not valid science and "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents".
The ruling has been described by some as "biased and religiously bigoted." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/01/02/false_judge_makes_mockery_of_case_for_intelligent_design] In addition, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "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]]." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]
The ruling has been described by some as "biased and religiously bigoted." [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PhyllisSchlafly/2006/01/02/false_judge_makes_mockery_of_case_for_intelligent_design] In addition, the conservative publication WorldNetDaily wrote, "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]]." [http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53330]
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]
However, this 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?