Judge Jones’ Gift

12:12 am EST December 21st, 2005 | Uncategorized | 1 Comment

I may be overstating it, but I think it’s just wonderful that a Republican judge, appointed by George W. Bush, is the judge who has written this amazing defense of science in the Dover “intelligent design” case.

Jones gives a clear definition of science, and recounts how this vaunted mode of inquiry has evolved over the centuries. He describes how scientists go about the task of supporting or challenging ideas about the world of the senses — all that can be observed and measured. And he reaches the unwavering conclusion that intelligent design is a religious idea, not a scientific one.

This is one area where the standard conservative technique of saying there are “two sides” just doesn’t stand up. Intelligent design is just not science, of any sort.

I also think it marks an interesting line in our nation’s collective thought process. As much as people may worship and believe in their church, they understand that there’s also a world of science – and that while one may be a belief system and at the end of the day be true (even I believe a form of this), there are clear reasons for why you can’t let the sort of “balance” that defines Fox News (for instance) be involved in the world of science.

I would go to the point of saying that for most of the religious right, if they went into the doctor for heart surgery, and the doctor said he was going to let “intelligent design” guide his scalpel — they’d ask for a real doctor.

>> Check out the wingnutty response from the Discovery Institute “think tank” to the Dover decision. They call Judge Jones a “darwinist”… like that’s a bad thing?
>> Reality based commentary at Evolutionblog, eSkeptic and The Panda’s Thumb

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

One Response to “Judge Jones’ Gift”

  1. lexalexander says:
    December 23, 2005 at 11:12 am

    At bottom, this is a problem caused by people who don’t understand, or refuse to recognize, the difference between knowledge (objective fact) and belief. In most cases, there’s nothing wrong with using religious belief as the functional equivalent of fact; a lot of good in our history has come from people who have done so. But allowing beliefs which cannot be proven or disproven to supersede objective, verifiable fact, particularly in the public-policy arena, is a recipe for disaster.