Judge "Jackass" Jones contradicted by Darwinist experts
(The above statement is actually a quotation of creationist Texas state board of education member -- and former chairman -- Don McLeroy)
In his Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion (page 136), Judge "Jackass" Jones said, "ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and therefore religious, antecedents."
Darwinist scholars Ronald Numbers and Francis Collins, who are experts about the relationship between intelligent design and creationism, disagree with Judge Jones' above statement. The Discovery Institute says,
Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design is agnostic regarding the source of design and has no commitment to defending Genesis, the Bible or any other sacred text. Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
There is another big reason why Darwinists conflate ID and creationism: so that they can misuse the establishment clause to attack ID.
And Francis Collins' BioLogos website says,
Contrary to some interpretations, Intelligent Design, or ID, makes no specific theological claims.
ID is based on scientific observations and scientific reasoning whereas creationism is based on religious sources.
Judge "Jackass" Jones strikes out again.
Labels: Judge Jones (new #3)