Creationism redux

In today's Arizona Republic, Robert Robb makes the claim that Intelligent Design (ID) really IS science and is not the same as creationism. He criticizes Federal District Court judge John E. Jones III (a GWB appointee, by the way) for tossing out the Dover School Board policy of teaching ID after painstakingly dissecting their arguments. He belittles the judge for becoming an authority on ID "based upon the extensive expertise he professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial."

So let me get this straight, the Dover School Board brought in the best people in the ID movement to testify on their behalf and for their position before this Bush-appointed judge and even though the judge heard their testimony, Robert Robb thinks the judge still got it wrong. Robb thinks there is so much more evidence that he personally knows that was somehow missed by the Dover School Board and their experts that should have been presented before the court that if the judge had been doing his job would clearly have discovered and ruled in favor of ID. He argues that even "some" scientists can't get the start of life quite right.

Since Mr. Robb can't seem to buy a clue, I'll give him a couple.

1. The title of Darwin's book is "The Origin of Species" --NOT-- "The Origin of The Species." Big difference.

2. Evolution explains how life adapts to changes in environments. If someone would actually read Darwin, it concerns itself more with species and how they got to where they are today, not so much how it began.

3. Darwinism's "explanation" of the birth of all life is NOT included in "The Origin of Species." It is an additional theory developed by other scientists using Darwin's theory and going backwards. To criticize Darwin's theory for being wrong on the creation of life is to clearly not know Darwin's theory.

4. The father of the ID movement, Phillip E. Johnson wrote "All I want them to do is to be candid about the disconfirming evidence and admit, if it is the case, that they are hanging on to Darwinism only because they prefer a shaky theory to having no theory at all." Shouldn't the same statement apply to "creationists?" Shouldn't the same statement apply to ID folks?

If Mr. Robb would read the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board decision, he'll see the judge based his decision on the testimony before him. That Robb and others still think there's other evidence that could have turned the decision, shame on the ID folks for lying to the court, exaggerating points, and bringing a conservative judge to rule against ID. Maybe, just maybe the judge made the correct ruling.

The bottom line to all of this is that no matter what, no one will ever know the answer. If faith is what drives you, then faith will drive your thinking, much like if you want proof, science will drive your thinking. At the end of the day, we will all be dead before we learn the answer. At that point, it's too late to phone home.