A federal judge appointed by George W. Bush has ruled that intelligent design can not be taught as science. The school board of Dover, Pennsylvania had tried to require science teachers to deliver a disclaimer about alleged gaps in the theory of evolution, and claimed that they were just putting forth another scientific theory rather than trying to cram religion into a science curriculum. Those claims were pretty fairly debunked at trial, to the point that the judge called the board’s decision “breathtaking inanity.” Various bloggers have already started dissecting the ruling; I like georgia10’s post over at Daily Kos.
One thing I find interesting about this whole debate is that in my Philosophy East & West classes, we’ve discussed the notion of intelligent design as a potential proof of the existence of God, right up there with the first-cause and ontological arguments. The particular essay we discuss in the class goes to great pains to suggest that if intelligent design is a valid argument, it is perfectly compatible with scientific theories regarding evolution, because evolution may itself be the mechanism by which God created human beings. (Granted, this requires a non-literal reading of the Bible or whatever scripture you prefer.) And the conversation fits perfectly inside a philosophy class. But I would never think that I’m qualified to go guest-lecture a biology class because I understand the teleological argument.
Of course, it should come as little surprise that Lore Sjoberg has his own theory to throw into the mix.