Chuck Colson writes on the ruling that came out yesterday that forbade the teaching of ID in the classroom. An excerpt:
In his 139-page opinion, Judge John E. Jones concluded that “it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom.” In reaching this decision, he found that intelligent design is not “science” because its ideas can’t be either verified or falsified through normal scientific methods.
This paragraph is of supreme interest to me. Quick, can anyone tell me if origin of life by darwinian models can be verified or falsified through normal scientific methods?
The answer is, no. Normal scientific models means that the data leading to the conclusion can be 1) observed, and 2) repeated. Thus Kepler’s laws of planetary motion fit the criteria: they can be verified or falsified through normal scientific methods. One person, standing at a certain longitude and latitude, can record the movement of planets at night, which fulfills the observation requirement, and any number of persons, standing at that same longitude and latitude on that same night, can also observe the same data, which fulfills the repetition requirement.
Tell me, where has life’s origin been observed? Where has it been repeated? If ID does not fit the criteria, based on the judge’s logic, then neither does darwinism.
Statements or teaching about the origin of life fall outside of the pervue and authority of science, and has absolutely no business in the science classroom. A singular historical event taking place in unknown physical conditions can be judged by the laws of historical verification or philosophy, but absolutely not by science. Hopefully someday, a judge will recognize that fact.