Gimme that old time religion...

Sigh. Well, that Intelligent Design trial in Pennsylvania is now under way.

Arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory, not science, Rothschild said he would show that the language in the school district’s own policy made clear its religious intent.

Dover is believed to be the first school system in the nation to require students be exposed to the intelligent-design concept, under a policy adopted by a 6-3 vote in October 2004.

It requires teachers to read a statement that says intelligent design differs from Darwin’s view and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, “Of Pandas and People,” for more information.

And:

Critics say intelligent design is merely creationism — a literal reading of the Bible’s story of creation — camouflaged in scientific language, and it does not belong in a science curriculum.

Brown University professor Kenneth Miller, the first witness called by the plaintiffs, said pieces of the theory of evolution are subject to debate, such as where gender comes from, but told the court: “There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory.”

On the other hand, he said, “Intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community.”

Intelligent Design, of course, is nothing more than Creationism dressed up with weasle words and intentional ambiguity in a transparent effort to inject religion into science classrooms across the country (remember when they called it "Scientific Creationism"?). Even the ID textbook of choice, Of Pandas and People, is a flailing Biblical screed with no scientific validity. It exists solely to champion Creationism, search-and-replace function notwithstanding:

Q And then if you could turn back to page 22, you explain that “Creation is the theory that various forms of life began abruptly, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers and wings, mammals with fur and mammary glands.” That’s how you defined creation, correct?

A Yes.

Q All right. And I would like to take — you to take a look at an excerpt from Pandas and People. Turn to page 99 in the excerpt I gave you.

A All right.

Q Says, “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact: Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks and wings, et cetera.”

I sincerely hope these ID Bible-thumpers get thrown out on their ears. There is absolutely no valid scientific evidence for ID or Creationism, although they they present opinion and conjecture as such. They're very, very good at equivocation. By the same token, they relentlessly attack evolution by using conflicting definitions, cite false "deficiencies" and in general deny that the (scientific) theory of evolution has any valid scientific evidence backing it up. In short, they try to hold evolution to a standard they never subject ID to. The sad thing is, that pretty much every arguement they make is false. Evolution is supported by evidence and experiment--incredibly, phenominally and undeniably supported by it. Take, for example, this chimpanzee DNA research article from The Washington Post (linked via Pharyngula):

Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could -- through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection -- give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth.

Evolution's repeated power to predict the unexpected goes a long way toward explaining why so many scientists and others are practically apoplectic over the recent decision by a Pennsylvania school board to treat evolution as an unproven hypothesis, on par with "alternative" explanations such as Intelligent Design (ID), the proposition that life as we know it could not have arisen without the helping hand of some mysterious intelligent force.

It makes me sad that the ID/Creationist folks' faith is so fragile and weak that merely observing and acknowledging the miraculous intricacy of this ongoing work of Creation is enough to deny the reality of God for them. At this point, I'd normally toss in some snide and cynical observations, but geeze, the very concept of these people undermining education in this country is making me seriously depressed.

Now Playing: Sting Nothing Like the Sun