http://www.aclu.org/evolution/profiles.html

Please note that each one says what I said in my article last week: ID is NOT science. The definitions of scientific study are twisted by ID proponents, and it is fundamentally irresponsible to introduce untested and untestable beliefs into a classroom supposedly dedicated to experiment and logical conclusion.

ID Proponent: “Here is a complex life form. Too complex to be explained away by natural selection because, as we all know, speciation has never been demonstrably proven in a laboratory. I therefore surmise that there must have been a guiding hand in the origin of life and the discreet speciation of said life.”

Biologists rely on empirical data to draw a logical conclusion, ID supporters draw on data to put forth specious conclusions with no actual value. We don’t know enough about the species currently existing on our planet (in fact we have not discovered them all) in order to make baseless conclusions on a ‘higher intelligence.’

Not only that, but an evolutionary biologist puts forth a beginning to life that fits within the framework of known scientific principles, including organic chemistry, physics, and cosmology. Intelligent Design supporters indicate a higher power must be responsible, but do not put forth the next logical step. Who created the creator? Who is the creator? For what purpose, then, did this so-called creator create a particular species?

Irresponsible argument is not science.

Since your original claim that you “would like to take a moment … to examine a couple of points that … the ACLU [has] apparently overlooked” is, by your own admission, utter speculation, what’s the point of your post again? Even if they considered your argument, it wouldn’t advance their case one iota. And if the school board involved considered your “argument”, which seems to boil down to the fact that ID proponents don’t do any experiments, they seem to have been unconvinced. For better or for worse, I can’t say.

To play Devil’s Advocate for a second, what’s the difference between an Evolutionary Biologist and a ID supporter, exactly? I don’t see many of the former performing any experiments, and the latter base their arguments upon exactly the same evidence as the former.

You claim that “Newton’s theories, for example, on the motion of the planets has in fact been proven to be incorrect”. This is simply not true. Newton’s Laws of Motion are perfectly correct; they simply turned out, at very high velocities or over very small scales, to be approximations of a more complex equation. This does not change the fact that, over the domain where they apply, the equations yield the correct results. In that respect, they are “100% certain”.

If “Greater minds … in the scientific community have already said as much”, then feel free to cite a source that supports your claim, if you can.

And my point was that your statement, “I am unaware of any absolute certainties in science”, is correct, but only because of the limits of your awareness.

Theories are subject to revision. Hence, they are not certain. A great deal of things, as you say, are ‘known’ to be correct. However, these things are never 100% certain. Greater minds than ours in the scientific community have already said as much.

However, I am at a loss as to what your point even was, as my entire post was merely written to illustrate that ID is not science. Which leads me to your second comment.

I completely and utterly dismiss the assertion that Intelligent Design is ‘bad science’. It IS NOT SCIENCE AT ALL. Period. Science is observation, calculation, and conclusion which may be subject to revision. Intelligent Design isn’t even science on the level of the ancient alchemists, who at least attempted genuine experimentation.

Intelligent Design is the worst kind of laziness. It is akin to walking into a locked room and finding a corpse, and concluding without any experimentation or forensic examination that a ghost must have done it.

Whether the ACLU considered this valid, cogent, concrete argument is irrelevant, as it is not the argument they made before the court. You might have a point in that this was the only argument they could have made, as Colin points out it wouldn’t be the first time a schoolboard changed curriculum to include poorly vetted subject matter. Maybe they thought, as Colin suggests, that shining the spotlight on the religious aspect of this supposed ‘theory’ was the only way to keep it out of the classroom. I don’t know, although it makes sense. However, Intelligent Design is in no way, shape, or form, ANY kind of science, good or bad.

Do you simply think that they’ve overlooked the fact that Intelligent Design is bad science? Because I very much doubt that they have; I’m sure that the plaintiffs, at least, believe that to be true. But last time I checked, it was a school board that decided the curricula for its students, not the local district court. If you don’t like the decisions made by the school board, well, elect a new school board. The fact that ID is bad science doesn’t make it illegal to include it on a syllabus.

So the “tired argument … subject to the whim of culture and politics” is very much the only argument that the plaintiffs can make, in court, AFAICT.

I do have one nit to pick, however. You wrote:

In fact, I am unaware of any absolute certainties in science.

How about, F = ma (more generally known as Newton’s Second Law)? Or any of Newton’s Laws of Motion? Or Maxwell’s equations, which I can’t render here because of the limitations of HTML? How about conservation of mass and energy?

I’m not sure what you meant when you wrote “absolute certainties”, but science is full of things that are known to be true. That’s the whole point of science: to arrive at the objective truth, regardless of the subjective viewpoints of the observers involved.

I am all for new things and cool explosions in science class. But even then, it is all based on well-founded fact. Easily observed, clearly explainable.

Now, I do have an issue with the wrapping of religion in a pseudoscientific package and trying to sell it to children. But, again, I have no problem with science that hasn’t been granted the status of “theory” being taught in the schools. It just needs to have an empirical foundation (imo).