To the editor:
Judge Jones’ ruling on intelligent design is rife with false assertions and mischaracterizations of the theory of intelligent design. Here are just a few:
It mischaracterizes ID as a supernatural explanation even though it isn't and even though expert scientists testified that this isn’t the case.
It falsely states that a key ID argument, irreducible complexity, has been refuted. It has not. Indeed, in just the past year Cambridge University Press published an entire volume titled “Debating Design” which shows the issue is still very much under discussion.
It asserts the factually false claim that ID proponents haven’t published peer reviewed papers. A number of peer-reviewed papers and books are listed on the Discovery Institute website at www.discovery.org/csc/.
Most incredibly, this lower district court decision describes itself as the final answer for all courts, behaving and talking like it was handed down from the Supreme Court. A judge’s order doesn’t change the fact that there is digital code in DNA, that the laws of physics are finely tuned and that there are miniature machines in cells. Intelligent design research will go on and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.