Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

Judge Rules Against 'Intelligent Design'

The problem with people who become renowned in their area of specialty is that they begin to believe they are experts in everything else. Most times that is not the case. For example, being a judge may make someone believe they are an expert on the law because they have been given power to interpret and apply the law. But it does not necessarily make them an expert in other things, such as science.

There has been a recent decision by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III in Pennsylvania that mentioning "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolutionary theory is trying to inject religion into science classes. He therefore barred a Pennsylvania school district from mentioning "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolutionary theory. The Washington Post reported the judge’s ruling containing a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members … for their "breathtaking inanity" in trying to inject religion into science classes.

All of a sudden, this expert on the law has become an expert on science.

First of all, we have to ask, “What is religion?” According to Dictionary.com, religion is defined as follows:

• Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
• A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship
• The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
• A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
• A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

While Intelligent Design presents the existence of a supernatural creative force as the explanation for order in the universe, I wouldn’t quite call it a “religion” (at least by the definition above). “Intelligent Design” does not promote rules of behavior normally associated with recognized religion; it does not even acknowledge a specific god; it doesn’t even call this creative force God. It does not display reverence for a supernatural power any more than the Darwinists “worship” evolution as the only correct answer.

While science is based on things observable, if something is not observable, does that mean it doesn’t exist? Science has proven not. Magnetism, gravity, and nuclear forces are not observable in themselves, but their effects are. Therefore, these forces are determined to exist.

What of scientific theories that conflict with other scientific principles or observations? Entropy, a scientific principle, is defined as: a measure of the disorder or randomness in a closed system; the tendency for all matter and energy in the universe to evolve toward a state of inert uniformity; inevitable and steady deterioration of a system. Evolution proposes just the opposite. Evolution proposes random chance has caused order to occur that creates diverse life forms. Entropy and evolution don’t quite agree. Entropy says things should become disordered and evolution says they should become ordered.

When the universe exploded into existence, the most probable thing to happen would have been for the universe to continue to become random and dispersed, not ordered to such complexity as to cause life. Evolution is illogical.

I think if Judge Jones was being truly honest, he would just say he prefers his religion over that of the Intelligent Design group. You see, atheism is a religious position as vehemently fought for and defended as any religion that acknowledges God or gods. Ruling that you can present one set of beliefs (atheism) and forbid another (theism) by calling it “religion” is the epitome of hypocrisy. If the Intelligent Designer of the universe did happen to present himself, herself, itself visibly to the world, wouldn’t Judge Jones feel really stupid?

(Note: My reference to evolution is to macro-evolution or trans-species evolution, not adaptive evolution within species.)