It will pop up somewhere else, I am sure. For such a meritless argument, the ID'ers really don't want to let this one go. But it couldn't be more plain - it just does not have any business being taught as science. Period.

Lots of people must be interested in reading the full opinion, because it took a while to access it, but I found these excerpts interesting:

"The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a “contrived dualism” that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that “one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution,” and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. Id. at 1266.

The court concluded that creation science “is simply not science” because it depends upon “supernatural intervention,” which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable. Id. at 1267. Accordingly, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas deemed creation science as merely biblical creationism in a new guise and held that Arkansas’ balanced-treatment statute could have no valid secular purpose or effect, served only to advance religion, and violated the First Amendment. Id. at 1264, 1272-74." (Case 4:04-cv-02688-JEJ Document 342 Filed 12/20/2005 Page 22 of 139)

The problem with the Court’s analysis here and in the precedents cited is that if you substitute evolutionism for ID and creation science, you have the government’s endorsement of one system of belief over another without changing any of the underlying facts. The effect of this decision is government-endorsed atheism or agnosticism, which is every bit as much a religion as Christianity.

Look what happens:

"[Evolution] 'is simply not science' because it depends upon '[random chance],' which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable."

Minimal substitution, same result.

We'll see what happens next.

"[Evolution] 'is simply not science' because it depends upon '[random chance],' which cannot be explained by natural causes, or be proven through empirical investigation, and is therefore neither testable nor falsifiable."

The only problem with your argument, lc, is that the above sentence is obviously false. Random processes are found all over the place in nature, and testing for the randomness of a set of data is at the very heart of modern scientific methodology. Indeed, modern physics seems to posit a certain amount of irreducible randomness in such processes as particle decay. Far from falling outside the realm of natural & empirically discoverable, randomness is at the center of both.

This could SO readily deteriorate into another marathon comment session! ;) I feel like part of the couple who fought so often over the same issues that they resorted to shorthand: "Number 27!" "Oh yeah? Well, number 14!"

Anyway, we'll see what happens next.

Yet another conservative shovels some B.S. Is atheism as absolutist a belief system as any religion? Yes. Is agnosticism? No. To claim otherwise is to either be lying or incredibly ignorant. Given that lawyerchik1 demonstrates over and over again complete ignorance when it comes to science I suppose I'll give her the benefit of the doubt on this one as well.

I'm not sure I agree with the claim that atheism (all forms of it, anyhow) constitute absolute belief systems, but ... what on earth does any of that have to do with anything that has appeared thus far on this thread?

Jim is probably one of those agnostics who has to get a word in edge wise when the name of agnosticism is sullied.

philosopher and Daniel,

Did either of you read lc's post? I quote:
"The effect of this decision is government-endorsed atheism or agnosticism, which is every bit as much a religion as Christianity.

I'm just trying to give the benefit of the doubt as far as atheism is concerned. And LC does prove over and over again that she understands nothing about science whenever she posts on the ID issue.

As much as I think that lc is more or less completely devoid of clue, surely she is right that the government may endorse agnosticism neither more nor less than it can endorse any other religious position. That's why the issue of the particulars of the atheism/agnosticism distinction, though interesting in their own right, are entirely beside the point here.

"...surely she is right that the government may endorse agnosticism neither more nor less than it can endorse any other religious position."

I agree phil, but lc says more than that; specifically she implies that this decision is endorsing atheism or agnosticism, and further that those are 'just as much a religion as Christianity', which is very debatable. It is most likely besides the point as you said though.

I do disagree that agnosticism is just as much a religion as Christianity, except when using a very vague and all-encompassing definition for religion. I might be able to agree that having no philosophy is a philosophy in itself, but I don't think that statement is true if the word 'religion' is substituted; most religions to me seem to focus on the supernatural, or at least involve worship or devotion, all of which agnosticism does not. Word substitution, as phil already pointed out above to lc's evolution/randomness quote, isn't always a valid argument. For example, is having no 'plan-to-get-in-shape-after-the-holidays' a 'plan-to-get-in-shape-after-the-holidays'?