(no subject)
Paraphrasing the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District:
Its a minor victory, and will be appealed, but the crux of the argument against ID is significant: The "Wedge Strategy" drafted by the Discovery Institute has essentially failed in its primary goal of establishing ID as a legitimate scientific debate. ID and creationism have now become synonymous in the popular mind (rightly so!) and any jurisdiction's endorsement constitutes an endorsement of religion.
Which it is. The thing that creationist supporters seemed to neglect in this argument is that it was never a question of truth or falsehood of a theory, but whether the state has a right to implicitly endorse religious ideas.
- ID is overtly religious in both intent and implication.
- A 9th grader in the Dover Area School District can be reasonably expected to understand the social and cultural context of what ID stands for, and can be reasonably expected to interpret its endorsement by the Dover School Board as endorsement of religion.
- An adult citizen of Central Pennsylvania can be reasonably expected to understand the social and cultural context of what ID stands for, and can be reasonably expected to interpret its endorsement by the Dover School Board as endorsement of religion.
- As per the Lemon test, if all reasonable observers can be reasonably expected to interpret endorsement of ID as endorsement of religion, then it is unconstitutional for the State of Pennsylvania to endorse it.
Its a minor victory, and will be appealed, but the crux of the argument against ID is significant: The "Wedge Strategy" drafted by the Discovery Institute has essentially failed in its primary goal of establishing ID as a legitimate scientific debate. ID and creationism have now become synonymous in the popular mind (rightly so!) and any jurisdiction's endorsement constitutes an endorsement of religion.
Which it is. The thing that creationist supporters seemed to neglect in this argument is that it was never a question of truth or falsehood of a theory, but whether the state has a right to implicitly endorse religious ideas.