The statement made by the judge makes no sense, and, in fact, shows his bias in turning down ideas that are not presented by "secular" establishments. The funny thing is there are plenty of scientist who believe in God (in the past - Einstein is a good example), but for some reason if you have strong roots in your faith, it some how taints your objectivity these days. However, if you come from a liberal/progressive/green background your political leanings somehow play no part in your research -- yeah, right.

An interesting book, that was recently released, deals with these issues in some depth: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science -- featured on C-Span BookTV.

Wow, Alexander, if you think the 134-page ruling makes no sense, I gotta wonder if you actually read the whole thing. It's quite logical and makes perfect, rational sense.

And it's certainly possible to be a believer in religion and a student of science. It's confusing the two that is the problem. As someone once said, religion is the belief in things without proof (faith), while science is a methodical attempt to find proof. In asking questions that science can answer, one needs no faith. And in asking questions that only faith can answer, science is of little use.

If the Dover school board wants ID taught in its school (apparently the community doesn't), then it should add a philosophy or comparative religion component to the curriculum. The problem is that ID is not science, so teaching it in a science classroom is wrong (and now, apparently illegal).

Re: "Wow, Alexander, if you think the 134-page ruling makes no sense, I gotta wonder if you actually read the whole thing. It's quite logical and makes perfect, rational sense."

I was referring to the quote you provided. No, I didn't read the 134-page PDF. Did you read the book I linked you to? I didn't think so.

-------

If you look up the definition of theory and faith, they both have almost identical meanings.

Theory:
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
6. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Faith:
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

A lot of what people consider to be scientific truths is based on conjecture and assumptions, which later in time is either confirmed as fact, or disproven all together.

Personally, I think the truth lies somewhere in between Darwin's theory of evolution and ID. Notice: both offer theories as to the origins of the human species. To shut down any competing theories to Darwin's theory of evolution is just plain irresponsible for the scientific community to do.

"Did you read the book I linked you to? I didn't think so."

No, but I wasn't complaining about it as you were about the ruling.

As someone who deals in theory every single day - I'm a professional social scientist - I can tell you that there is quite a gap between theory and faith.

Notice that NOWHERE in the definition you provided for "theory" is the word belief. That's because science doesn't deal in beliefs. It is concerned only with TESTABLE theories (which ID is not) and rigorous METHODS for testing proposed hypotheses and theories. Beyond that, the little definition you got off the web isn't even close to embodying what a "theory" is -- it involves much more rigor and strict embodiments of ideas than what can be captured in a two-sentence definition.

Also notice how "belief" is part of both of the definitions for "faith" that you provided. That was precisely my point in my previous comment. Faith is inherently belief-based, whereas science is inherently skepticism-based.

And I really, really hope you go read up some more on these topics, because your claim that ID offers a "theory" just isn't remotely true. ID is not science. Evolutionary theory is science. That is the fact. Evolution may one day be proven false, but so far we haven't any better (more concrete evidence to support) testable explanation. And if you can come up with a way to *test* ID, that will be impressive. Getting God to participate in a controlled lab experiment might just get you a Nobel prize.

Last comment on this topic

Re: "Notice that NOWHERE in the definition you provided for "theory" is the word belief. That's because science doesn't deal in beliefs."

Notice: Theories are based on trying to explain why things are/happen in a rational way. That's why the first definition uses the words "devised to explain." And, I also like how the second definition uses the words "assumptions" and "conjecture," which are both part of what makes up a theory... or else they wouldn't be theories, but scientific fact.

I don't disagree with what you just said.

Theories *do* try to explain observable phenomena using facts and rational thinking. That's not all they do, but they do do that.

And yes, theories involve assumptions. There are few theories that are so globally applicable and widely tested (and not yet disproven) that they can be offered sans assumptions and caveats.

With that said, I don't understand the point you're trying to make. If you're asserting that science involves doubt, whereas faith does not, I'd agree with that.