The New York Times reports today about an upcoming court case in Pennsylvania.
â€œAdvocates on both sides of the issue have lined up behind the case, often calling it Scopes II, in reference to the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial that was the last century’s great face-off over evolution.
â€œOn the evolutionists’ side is a legal team put together by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State. These groups want to put intelligent design itself on trial and discredit it so thoroughly that no other school board would dare authorize teaching it.
â€œWitold J. Walczak, legal director of the A.C.L.U. of Pennsylvania, said the plaintiffs would call six experts in history, theology, philosophy of science and science to show that no matter the perspective, â€˜intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanations, is not testableâ€™â€ (source).
The report also says that Michael Behe will be the star witness for the defense.
I say, let the debate begin in earnest. I think the evolutionists are going to be surprised at the sophistication of the opposing argumentsâ€”arguments that they were hoping they and the public could ignore.
â€œA Web of Faith, Law and Science in Evolution Suit,â€ by Laurie Goodstein, New York Times, September 26, 2005
Yes, let the debate begin.
What is so ironic is that a purely naturalistic view of origins is no more “testable” than “creation.” They’ll burn the barn down before giving ground, though. Too much at stake: a radical social agenda, maintaining no moral constraints on sexuality, keeping the right to mainline their naturalistic doctrine/religion to young minds through public education. Stuff like that.