as is indicated by your misunderstanding here that ID is something different than Creationism, they are not.
Thank you for confirming what we already know and have been saying all along: ID is not something different from creationism;
they are the same thing.
And that is exactly what Judge Jones found in
Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al. (emphasis added):
quote:
- For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child. (page 24)
- A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants' protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity. (page 26)
- The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. (page 31)
- The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory. (page 43)
- Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not ‘teaching’ ID but instead is merely ‘making students aware of it.’ In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree. .... an educator reading the disclaimer is engaged in teaching, even if it is colossally bad teaching. .... Defendants’ argument is a red herring because the Establishment Clause forbids not just 'teaching' religion, but any governmental action that endorses or has the primary purpose or effect of advancing religion. (footnote 7 on page 46)
- After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. (page 64)
- [T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case. (pages 86—87)
- ID's backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID. (page 89)
- Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause. (page 132)
Neither ID nor creationism are science and both are religious in nature. Even the
American Academy of Religion* in its April 2010
Guidelines for Teaching About Religion in K-12 Public Schools in the United States (follow that link for the PDF of that document) agrees (page 21, emphasis in the original):
quote:
Can creation science or intelligent design be taught in schools?
Yes, but not in science classes. Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature or social sciences courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others.
{* FOOTNOTE:
The American Academy of Religion is a learned society and professional association of teachers and research scholars, with over 10,000 members who teach in over 1000 colleges, universities, seminaries, and schools in North America and abroad. The Academy is dedicated to furthering knowledge of religion and religious institutions in all their forms and manifestations.}
However, that setting and those participants were not condusive to represent a formal type debate. Lawyers hardly qualify as apologists. the right questions were not asked, probed and sustained, like they would have been by a true apologist,
"a formal type debate"? As in one of your snake-oil travesties? At least the courtroom would not allow the gross dishonesty practiced by creationists and IDists in their "formal debates", thus giving the truth a chance to be heard.
And "apologist"? Apologetics is a religious endeavor, is it not? If ID and creationism are truly science as you claim them to be, why not simply produce the evidence that they are? The body of IDist and creationist research and extensive peer-reviewed literature produced therefrom would immediately demonstrate . . . oh yeah, that's right,
there is none.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
