Presented without comment:
At issue in the Dover lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in Federal District Court, is whether intelligent design is really religion dressed up as science, and whether teaching it in a public school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.
The More center’s lawyers put scientists on the witness stand who argued that intelligent design – the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them – is a credible scientific theory and not religion because it never identifies God as the designer.
The chairman, Bowie Kuhn, the former baseball commissioner, said the board agreed that the center should take on an intelligent design case because while it is not necessarily based on religion “it is being opposed because people think it is religious.” And that was enough for a group whose mission, as explained on its Web site, is “to protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square.”
“America’s culture has been influenced by Christianity from the very beginning,” Mr. Thompson said, “but there is an attempt to slowly remove every symbol of Christianity and religious faith in our country. This is a very dangerous movement because what will ultimately happen is, out of sight, out of mind.”
See the Panda’s Thumb for much, much more.
*** Update ***
A quick note- John Derbyshire addressed an aspect of the intelligent design debate that I had not really thought about before:
Ayala’s remarks illustrate an aspect of the I.D. business not much commented on: it is an entirely American phenomenon — really, an outgrowth of American folk religiosity. You can find a scattered few I.D. followers in other countries, but I.D. is not a public or pedagogic issue anywhere but in the U.S.A. People in other countries are just baffled by it; scientists in other countries just shake their heads sadly. This is not the case with any scientific theory that I am aware of. Real science is international. The presence of a strongly national coloring is, in fact, a pretty good marker of pseudoscience. Compare, for example, the “Soviet science” (Lysenkoism, Marrism, etc.) of Stalin.
There is nothing wrong with folk religiosity, of course. I personally regard it as a strengthening and cohesive force in the national life, and in the conservative movement. I am happy about American folk religiosity, and regard it with cheerful approval. But– It. Is. Not. Science.
A good point- John