Judge Rules Against Religion in School

The closely-watched trial in Dover, Pennsylvania, is finally over -- and hopefully the precedent will carry over to similar trials in Kansas and Georgia. Calling the case an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources," U.S. District Judge John Jones delivered a 139-page opinion that leaves little room for doubt:

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute reacted with this quote: "The judge thinks intelligent design is a supernatural explanation, but it clearly is not. So the entire decision is predicated on a false perception of intelligent design."

American Heritage Dictionary (2000) defines supernatural as:

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

A force that cannot be explained by natural laws would be supernatural. A force that "guides" life without using laws of science would be supernatural. An omnipotent being would be a deity, and thus supernatural. Any being with infinite intelligence would wield divine power and be supernatural. And a being, unobservable by any scientific means, that can make things happen in violation of the laws of science, would be miraculous, and -- you guessed it -- supernatural.

Science class is supposed to teach natural science. That's what it's for. Honestly, I don't object to the teaching of religious concepts in a religious elective in public school. Nor would I object to comparative religion being a mandatory class. I only object to the idea that we should accept religion as being "science," when in fact it doesn't follow any established guidelines for science.

And for those who think that the judicial branch is ignoring the will of the people, recall that all but one of the board members who voted to require the teaching of intelligent design were ousted in the subsequent election. The new board has no plans to appeal or attempt to re-implement the policy.

William Buckingham, who introduced the policy before being voted out of office, said "I'm still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there's a separation of church and state."

He's right. The Constitution does not require a separation between Church and State. It does, however, prohibit the government from establishing an official religion. Not an official sect, but an official religion. Monotheism, which Intelligent Design clearly qualifies as, is a religion. I sure hope Bill Buck is reading this.

Labels: church, intelligent design

Permalink