Well Discovery Magazine is celebrating it's 30th anniversary in it's Oct 2010 edition. In it they are listing some of the biggest blunders of recent years -- including, as I am sure you guessed, Intelligent Design. What they have to say contains one small error (as reported by the NCSE) but the rest is spot on:
"Not satisfied with the biblical God who created the world in six days, creationists developed a "science" that aims to explain the supernatural force behind the whole shebang: intelligent design. Because we cannot reverse-engineer things like the human eye, they say, it follows that all must be designed by a higher being. (The human knee presumably came together during a moment of distraction.) This tactic had some success easing intelligent design/creationism into American public-school science lessons. But in 2005 a jury prohibited its teaching in the schools of Dover, Pennsylvania, delivering a stinging rebuke."The error is tiny. The Dover trial wasn't decided by a jury, but a Judge in a bench trial. We should also never forget that Creation Science also crashed and burned well before 2005. You can take a look at:
- Epperson v. Arkansas - 1968 -a case that invalidated an Arkansas statute that prohibited the teaching of human evolution in the public schools.
- Daniel v. Waters - 1975 - struck down Tennessee's law regarding the teaching of "equal time" of evolution and creationism in public school science classes.
- Hendren v. Campbell - 1977 - ruled that the young-earth creationist textbook Biology: A Search For Order In Complexity, published by the Creation Research Society and promoted through the Institute for Creation Research, could not be used in Indiana public schools.
- McLean v. Arkansas - 1982 - mandated the teaching of "creation science" in Arkansas public schools, was unconstitutional.
- Edwards v. Aguillard - 1987 - ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that creation science be taught in public schools, along with evolution, was unconstitutional because the law was specifically intended to advance a particular religion.
I'm sure someone from the DI will have something to say, after all they attacked a grandmother from making a quilt that called ID a myth, so I expect them to be further up in arms over the Discovery Magazine's article. Shall we start a pool on which shill will voice their unsupported opinion first?
No comments:
Post a Comment