This ruling is some fascinating reading. If you’ve read all the news reports, go read the actual ruling. The basic point at issue here is whether the Dover school board can require that a disclaimer be read to students when teaching evolution. The disclaimer was:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.

Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.

Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.

With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.

The court found that basically singling out evolution as the one thing to disclaimer was effectively indicating that the students had to learn it for the state tests, but that the school board thought it was pretty much a bogus theory. The ruling essentially says that “Intelligent is not science, it is relgious creationism couched in scientific terms.”

An excerpt that summarizes the judge’s opinion:

Moreover, the objective student is presumed to know that encouraging the teaching of evolution as a theory rather than as a fact is one of the latest strategies to dilute evolution instruction employed by anti-evolutionists with religious motivations. Selman, 390 F. Supp. 2d at 1308. In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource, and instructs students to forego scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere. Furthermore, as Drs. Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom as it sets up what will be perceived by students as a “God-friendly” science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the “other science,” evolution, takes no position on religion. (14:144-45 (Alters)). Dr. Miller testified that a false duality is produced: It “tells students . . . quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science.” (2:54-55 (Miller)). Introducing such a religious conflict into the classroom is “very dangerous” because it forces students to “choose between God and science,” not a choice that schools should be forcing on them. Id.

Starting at around p. 72, the judge takes to task the idea of irreducible complexity as a defense of ID, and excoriates the Pandas textbook for omitting the idea of exaptation, which some proponents of ID hold does not exist at all (thus, the omission is intentional and expected).

One question I have is whether or not the people defending ID in the Dover case really held a representative view of Intelligent Design. My understanding is that it is a theory that essentially holds that organisms are too complex to have a significant liklihood of having been able to occur by random chance in the amount of time since the Big Bang, and therefore it is at least plausible to consider the idea that there may be a force or designer with intelligence that is working outside of, in fact directing, the laws of the natural world that science can observe.

Even proponents of evolution and the Big Bang (whether IDers or not, because it is certain that the Big Bang is not a theory exclusively claimed by evolutionists, but also by many IDers) must admit that matter had to come from non-matter, unless one is a proponent of the indefensible oscillating universe theory. (Indefensible, in short, because the infinite cycles of oscillation would have raised the ratio of photons to nuclear particles to infinity, which is clearly not the case as the number of photons is finite and therefore an infinite ratio would require no particles). So evolutionary theorists require something at “the beginning” that acted beyond the realm of scientific observation or anything explainable by our current understanding of the laws of physics. The theories of the early universe that describe a condition where all matter is pressed into a space of zero size and infinite density require the introduction of “imaginary time” or a gravitational singularity, which would “fail to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations.”

Given the argument of Judge Jones below (from p. 71-72), it seems that teaching of the Big Bang itself, whether as a component of ID or a component of evolutionary theory, ought to be banned.

It is therefore readily apparent to the Court that ID fails to meet the essential ground rules that limit science to testable, natural explanations. (3:101-03 (Miller); 14:62 (Alters)). Science cannot be defined differently for Dover students than it is defined in the scientific community as an affirmative action program, as advocated by Professor Fuller, for a view that has been unable to gain a foothold within the scientific establishment. Although ID’s failure to meet the ground rules of science is sufficient for the Court to conclude that it is not science, out of an abundance of caution and in the exercise of completeness, we will analyze additional arguments advanced regarding the concepts of ID and science. [Emphasis mine]

Right?

UPDATE: Joining OTB Jam.

Jonathan Wells, blogger, biologist, and author of Icons of Evolution, is beginning a series of posts responding to critics of his work.

When my book Icons of Evolution was published in 2000, critics greeted it with rave reviews. I have been truly amazed at the outpouring of warmth from some of my fellow scientists, who have been trying to outdo each other in the superlatives they bestow on my work.

In my case, however, “rave review” doesn’t mean extravagant praise, but wild and furious denunciation; the outpouring of warmth has been a firestorm of vilification; and if the superlatives become any more spiteful I may have to enter the witness protection program.

It seems that I am guilty of the one unforgivable sin in modern biology: I am openly critical of Darwinian evolution. In Icons I pointed out that the best-known “evidences” for Darwin’s theory have been exaggerated, distorted or even faked. I argued that a theory that systematically distorts the evidence is not good empirical science–perhaps not even science at all. In fact, Darwinism has all the trappings of a secular religion. Its priests forgive a multitude of sins in their postulants–manipulating data, overstating results, presenting assumptions as though they were conclusions–but never the sin of disbelief.

And on a somewhat related front, we missed this article at NRO from a few days ago by Tom Bethell, responding to George Will. His summary:

George Will has made one accurate criticism of the idea he so dislikes: “The problem with intelligent design is not that it is false but that it is not falsifiable. Not being susceptible to contradicting evidence, it is not a testable hypothesis.” This is true; but he should have added that Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is not falsifiable either. Darwin’s claim to fame was his discovery of a mechanism of evolution; he accepted “survival of the fittest” as a good summary of his natural-selection theory. But which ones are the fittest? The ones that survive. There is no criterion of fitness that is independent of survival. Whatever happens, it is the “fittest” that survive — by definition. This, just like intelligent design, is not a testable hypothesis. As the eminent philosopher of science Karl Popper said, after discussing this problem that natural selection cannot escape: “There is hardly any possibility of testing a theory as feeble as this.” Popper was the first to propose falsification as the line of demarcation between theories that are scientific and those that are not; both intelligent design and natural selection fall by this standard.

The underlying problem, rarely discussed, is that the conclusions of evolutionism are based not on science, but on a philosophy: the philosophy of materialism, or naturalism. Living creatures, including human beings, are here on Earth, and we got here somehow. If atoms and molecules in motion are all that exist, then their random interactions must account for everything that exists, including us. That is the true underpinning of Darwinism. What needs to be examined in detail is not so much the religion behind intelligent design as the philosophy behind evolution.

Richard John Neuhaus adds:

I would only add that the philosophical dogmatists of neo-Darwinism are an aberration, although a very vocal aberration. The crucial distinction between science and philosophy is very helpfully examined by Christoph Cardinal Schönborn in “The Designs of Science” in the January issue of FIRST THINGS, which subscribers should be receiving in the next two weeks.

Jason, over at the Evolution Blog, takes Bethell to task for this article. So does Chris Mooney. And Pennington. A commenters over at the Theology Website thinks the article does a disservice to itself.

Scott Adams, over at Dilbert.blog, poses an interesting question.

Imagine that lightning suddenly carves into the side of the Washington Monument the words “I am God. I created you. Darwin was a nut.” And let’s say there are hundreds of witnesses who all have video cameras and capture it from multiple angles.

Now imagine that the same phenomenon repeats every day for a month, each time on a different monument. Scientists study the phenomena and conclude that humans probably didn’t cause it, but beyond that, there are no further scientific clues about how lighting could seem so directed.

If I crafted my thought experiment right, no one would have any idea how to devise a test that would confirm or exclude the possibility that God really did it. Hypothetically, being omnipotent and all, he would be capable of leaving no clues, other than signing his name. Therefore, any speculation as to the cause is not science.

Here’s the question: Should teachers be allowed to tell science students about the lightning messages?

The last part of 2005 has been one of intense controversy about what should be taught—and not taught—in public school science classrooms, particularly regarding evolution. From my experience as a public school science teacher on the secondary and elementary levels, as a trainer of science teachers in college courses, and as a science textbook writer (Science: Understanding Your Environment [Silver Burdett, late 70’s and early 80’s]), I have been saddened by what seems to be an almost total lack of understanding about the conceptual framework of Intelligent Design. I sense a “lack of doing homework” about the real issues by many “authorities” who are speaking out. For example, does the Darwinian paradigm, set forth nearly 100 years ago, in an age nearly ignorant of cellular behavior, support all we now know about molecular biology? ID says No.

When I was learning science I was taught to ask questions—without fear. When I taught science, we continually asked hard ones: “What are the data? What do they say—and not say? Or, what may we infer from them? What is still open to question, to think about, and what needs more work?” Religion was not an issue. Certainly not the issue, or one for a science classroom.

To help others understand what may seem a radically different paradigm, or, as some say, a more honest way to think, here is a brief list of books written by solid, qualified people who have embraced what they call Intelligent Design. I’ll include a few comments.

This list, of course, is incomplete, and I can make mistakes. Any reactions, additions, suggestions about ideas are welcome. The usual “snickercrit” (attacking the messenger and ignoring the message) adds nothing to our understanding.

May I emphasize (for those new to ID concepts) that creators of the Intelligent Design paradigm are NOT “young earth” creationists. They have no problem with the Big Bang and “millions and billions” of years as suggested by current research. The issue is Darwinism.

1. Doubts About Darwin (Baker [ISBN 0-8010-6443-0], 2003) by Thomas Woodward. Based upon Woodward’s Ph.D. dissertation at U. of South Florida. Traces—in perhaps more detail than you want—the history of the Intelligent Design movement. An interesting aside here on “ethos, pathos, and logos” and on “narrative and anti- narrative” on how to discuss and argue either“evolution” and Intelligent Design as well as other issues. You may, or may not, want to start here.

2. Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler [ISBN 0-917561-05-8], 1986) by Michael Denton. A British-educated biochemist and medical doctor from Australia. The person who awakened UCLA law professor Philip Johnson to the issue. Outlines basic flaws in Darwinian theory. A key foundational book.

3. Darwin on Trial (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993) by Phillip Johnson, UCLA professor of law. “Popularly” written (as was, incidentally, much of Darwin’s The Origin of Species). Johnson has written several other books, booklets, and papers but this one is key.

4. Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge (NY: Free Press, 1996) by Michael J. Behe. A molecular biologist at Lehigh University who introduces the notion of “irreducible complexity.” The notion of Intelligent Design introduced and developed. While popularly written, there are “boxed-in” technical discussions for researchers.

5. Intelligent Design (Downer’s Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1999) by William Dembski. With a Ph.D. in mathematics from Univ. of Chicago and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Univ. of Illinois in Chicago, Dembski describes and advocates ID, as well as showing how it is a bridge between science and theology. Dembski has written several other titles, but this one is foundational.

6. Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing [ISBN 0-89526-276-2], 2000)by Jonathan Wells. A biochemist with Ph.D.’s from both Berkeley and Yale, Wells declares, and illustrates how ten examples of “classic” observations from “scientific research” that support Darwinism are dishonest and fraudulent.

7. The Mystery of Life’s Origin: Reassessing Current Theories (NY: Philosophical Library [ISBN 0-9642104-0-1], 1984) by Charles Thaxton (Ph.D. chemistry, Iowa State, post-doc at Harvard), Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen. A powerful critique of Darwinism, published at about the same time as Denton’s book (see #2 above), but didn’t get as much exposure (according to Woodward—see #1, above) or have as much impact.

8. Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? (Richardson, TX: Foundation for Thought and Ethics [ISBN 0-9642104-0-1], 1994) Proceedings of a symposium held at Southern Methodist Univ. Mar. 26-26, 1992 edited by Jon Buell and Virginia Hearn. An important debate where noted evolutionists and advocates of Intelligent Design presented papers and responded to the papers of opponents. Main issue addressed: Is evolution science or philosophy? A fascinating discussion with minimal ad hominem confrontation.

There are, of course, many other titles on ID written for various markets, including those with mainly religious interests. But the books cited here, I feel, are solid sources for those who care about and know something about science. And they are concerned about the claims many in science are making today.