ID: Which Side Are the True Believers On Anyway?

Oh, golly, did John E. Jones III, who handed down a "withering" ruling against the teaching of Intelligent Design, ever have his jollies. There are some personal slings and arrows for the defendants and some harrumphing about the hizzoner himself:

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court."

Well, your honor, don't get tangled in your robes patting yourself on your back.

This is not to say that I believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science classes. It should not. Evolution, until and unless there is further notice, is the leading scientific theory on how we got here.

Evolution should be taught in science class. Of course. While ID should not be taught, is there anything wrong with discussing it? Why not encourage students to ask questions: Is the theory of evolution correct? Must evolution be random? I can imagine some lively arguments, and arguing in a lifely manner is the essence of getting an education.

The judge wrote:

In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents....

To be sure, Darwin's theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific propositions.

No, ID is not science. But why must ID "uncouple itself" from its religious origins to be worthy of discussion in schools? I'm talking about it--you probably talk about it. Why not youngsters in school? Of course, it can't be taught--but I think we’re getting to the point that it can’t be talked about in class. It strikes me that the adversaries of ID are more fanatical than its adherents.

They may also be just as faith-based. For example, the judge opines that Darwinian evolution hasn't "yet" answered all the questions. Maybe it will answer all these questions; maybe it won't. I have no faith in this matter one way or the other.

Almost as pompous as Judge Jones on the subject is Margaret Talbot of the New Yorker, whose coverage reportedly played a role in the judge's decision. Editor & Publisher has this on Talbot:

"Asked in a Q&A at the New Yorker's Web site about what factors contributed to the case, Talbot replied: 'One consistent division I noticed, and that I wrote about, was between people who read and trusted the very good local newspapers [nearby York has two, which is pretty unusual for a small American city these days] and those who just didn't trust them. The plaintiffs were the newspaper readers; the pro-intelligent-design school-board people were the newspaper rejecters.'"

In other words, the plaintiffs have faith in the New York Times and other organs blessed by Ms. Talbot and Co. Being a newspaper rejecter is the ultimate sin in that set. Did not somebody wise once say, Don't believe everything you read?

P.S. The Ten Commandments had a better day than ID.