In the landmark ruling delivered at the Dover Area District School in Pennsylvania, a science is described as a concept that advances scientific knowledge supported by scientific evidence or theory. Contrastingly, intelligent design (ID) defines biological life as a complex happening which requires intelligent sources to design. Judge John Jones dismisses ID as a science because it is generally unaccepted within the science community. Furthermore, it is not peer reviewed (Levin).The Judge is right in is suggesting that ID as unconstitutional because it violates the first constitutional amendments which prevent public servants from using their positions to impose a particular religion on individuals. Additionally, it has not been published or accepted in the scientific circles (Levin).
Judge Jones upholds the ruling that intelligent design (ID) is not a science and its untestable hypothesis should not be advanced on the pretext of the existing gaps in the Darwinian theory of evolution. The evidence lies in the fact that ID has not been published neither accepted generally within the scientific circles. These are significant benchmarks in defining a science. The advancement of the theory violates the first amendments of the constitution which forbids public servants from using their standings to perpetuate particular religious principles. As a science, ID’s aim should be to advance scientific knowledge that is supported by evidence and experimentation and not creationism (Levin).
Moreover, Judge Jones is right in asserting that religious motives could have driven the Board of the School in outlining some of the requirements for their teachers in advancing ID as an alternative to evolution. Similarly, to the proponents of ID, the judge underlines the weak evidence that exits in Darwin’s theory (Levin). However, he suggests that such weaknesses should not inform the decisions to test hypothesis based on religious motivations. This reasoning is evidenced in the Board’s determination to advance and impose particular versions of Christianity. Consequently, the decision is unconstitutional and it violates the Professional teachers’ ethics and code of conduct (Goodstein).
According to Judge Jones, ID does not qualify as a science. His assertions are supported by the fact that the theory has never been published nor generally accepted within the scientific community. As a result, the School’s Board decision to advance ID as an alternative to Darwin’s theory is unconstitutional, and it violates the teachers’ code of professional conduct. Evidence highlights its determination to teach ID in biology classes while integrating it with some religious overtones.
Works Cited
Goodstein, Laurie. “Judge Rejects Teaching Intelligent Design”, New York Times. December 21, 2005.Web. August 11, 2016Levin, David. “Judging Intelligent Design.” Video by Nova. November 1, 2017. Web. August 11, 2016.
