Home » Intelligent Design » Did Judge Jones actually open the door to teaching ID in public schools?

Did Judge Jones actually open the door to teaching ID in public schools?

Lauren Sandler in her book Righteous (p. 204-205) offered the following:

intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones’s decision opens new legal support to teach thier views in philosophy and religion classes. “We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed….” Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intellignt design movement…

no intelligent design group worth its salt supports Dover’s attention-geting bid for influence in the science classroom. Even the most brazen creationists groups, like Answers in Genesis–the name says it all–don’t approve of requiring teachers to deride evolution or direct students to Pandas [Of Pandas and People by Kenyon and Davis], since that’s just courting a lawsuit, and likely an unwinnable one….
Most [id-friendly] groups agree that the best way to convert a generation to the concept of intelligent design is to use stealth

Dang it, Sandler blew my covert plan of getting ID taught in philosophy and religion classes. See my covert discussion and correspondence with Eugenie Scott (which was publicly realesed with her blessing): My correspondence with Eugenie Scott.

45 of the 50 state constitutions in addition to the Declaration of Indpendence assert the existence of a Creator which has endowed us with inalienable rights. We can teach in public schools a survey of what the idea of Creator means. We can compare the concept of Creator in the minds of the constitutional authors with present day notions of the Creator and whether there is evidence (self-evident evidence) to support these constitutional views.

We can then compare the claims of the Darwinistic community against constitutional principles and matters of fact. After all Jones said in his landmark opinion: “ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed….” Way to go, Mr. “cut-and-paste” Jones!

See: Self Evident Truths

PS
“Lauren Sandler obliterates the naive and complacent hope that keeps most secularists … sleeping peacefully at night”

–Sam Harris

Let me say for a change, I hope Sandler and Harris are right this time and that Jones ruling was a stealth victory for the ID movement.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 Responses to Did Judge Jones actually open the door to teaching ID in public schools?

  1. That’s a good point. And it doesn’t matter how the kids hear it, as long as they hear it. They should be taught about ID, and about the philosophy of science in general, and why biology classes have to limit themselves to a atheistic materialism.

  2. Thank you mike1962 for you comments. People may be alarmed that I want ID taught in philosophy or religion classes. Stephen Meyer echoes my views about framing of the issue:

    Perhaps, however, one just really does not want to call intelligent design a scientific theory. Perhaps one prefers the designation “quasi-scientific historical speculation with strong metaphysical overtones.” Fine. Call it what you will, provided the same appellation is applied to other forms of inquiry that have the same methodological and logical character and limitations. In particular, make sure both design and descent are called “quasi-scientific historical speculation with strong metaphysical overtones.”

    This may seem all very pointless, but that in a way is just the point. As Laudan has argued, the question whether a theory is scientific is really a red herring. What we want to know is not whether a theory is scientific but whether a theory is true or false, well confirmed or not, worthy of our belief or not.

  3. Then theory of evolution should be taught only in philosophy classrooms, not in the science classrooms. Under the topic “origin of life”, both ID and ET would make absolute sense. “Natural selection” is problematic just like “irreducible complexity”. Both can be discussed, accepted or refuted. And this is what expected from philosophical studies.

  4. flewex, as an empiricist, I think you are quite quite right.

  5. I’ve long been a strong supporter of an introduction to philosophy and logic in high schools. ID would make a fine topic of study in such a class. In fact, I would frown upon such a class which excluded its mention.

Leave a Reply