Youngstown letter to the editor
Youngstown letter to the editorThe (Youngstown) Vindicator, Dec. 20, 2006Political proponents of "intelligent design," from local school board members in Dover, Pa., to U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., have been trying for years to say that intelligent design is a scientific theory, not religious doctrine. But a conservative U.S. district judge in central Pennsylvania issued a 139-page ruling that clearly exposes ID as warmed-over creationism.
Not that there is anything wrong with creationism - in its proper place, which is any church, seminary or private school that ascribes to it. But as Judge John E. Jones III made clear over and over again in a well-reasoned opinion - whether it is called intelligent design, scientific creationism, old-fashioned creationism or Thomist philosophy, it does not belong in a public school science curriculum.
Judge Jones' opinion is so well written, the evolution of creationism to intelligent design so nicely laid out and the subterfuge employed by some school board members in the Dover Area School District to give ID equal weight with scientific evolutionary theory so well documented, that others who have gone down the design trail should beware. Among those is the Ohio State Board of Education, which last March approved by a 13-5 vote what it called a "Critical Analysis of Evolution" plan. Some of the fingerprints on the Ohio plan belong to the same people who helped intelligent design advocates on the Dover school board. ... Darwinian evolution isn't "just a theory." It is a scientific theory that, while imperfect or incomplete, can be subjected to scientific analysis. It is an appropriate subject for a high school biology class. Intelligent design would be appropriate down the hall, in a comparative religion class. It would be even more appropriate presented from a pulpit to willing listeners.