Chuck Colson writes on the ruling that came out yesterday that forbade the teaching of ID in the classroom. An excerpt:
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.
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.
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