An "intelligently designed" ruling?(THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE)

In a 139-page opinion that reads more like an ACLU brief than a carefully analyzed judicial decision, Federal District Court Judge John E. Jones III has ruled (incorrectly) that the Intelligent Design policy adopted by the Dover Area School District of Pennsylvania is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment Establishment Clause.

In one respect Judge Jones is correct: it is difficult to separate Intelligent Design (ID) from its religious implications. If we open our minds to the possibility that an intelligent designer exists, then all sorts of possibilities present themselves: that this intelligent designer knows us and cares about us; that this intelligent designer has a plan or purpose for us; that this intelligent designer has intervened into the cosmos on our behalf; that this intelligent designer has revealed more about himself, his plan, and his will through special revelation such as the Bible. But ID only opens our minds to these possibilities. At that point ID teaching stops, and the student is free to explore further as he or she sees fit. ID suggests that the evidence points to an intelligent designer. ID does not speculate about who or what that intelligent designer may be.

Judge Jones utterly misses the fact that Darwinian evolution also has religious implications. Acceptance of Darwinism profoundly affects one's view of such religious questions as the existence and nature of God, the truth or falsity of Scripture and the interpretation thereof, the origin of man, the nature of man, the existence of the human soul or spirit, the existence and nature of natural law, and many others.

Some religions, including but not limited to conservative Christianity, Orthodox Judaism, and most forms of Islam, are consistent with ID and inconsistent with Darwinism. Other religions, including but not limited to liberal Christianity, Reformed Judaism, most forms of Buddhism, Secular Humanism, Unitarianism, atheism, and agnosticism, are consistent with Darwinism and inconsistent with ID.

Judge Jones claimed outrage over a brief statement from the school board advising the students that evolution is only a theory and inviting them to explore alternatives, saying it has the effect of advancing religion (never mind which religion). But he is oblivious to the fact that an entire science curriculum that uncritically accepts Darwinism and excludes even the mention of alternatives has the effect of advancing those religions that are consistent with Darwinism and inhibiting those that are not.

One underlying error of the Dover decision is its mis-definition of science. Incredibly, Judge Jones says that "while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science" (p. 64), ...