Harrisburg, PA – Building on the mischaracterizations of the first day’s witness, the ACLU continued to put an imposter version of intelligent design on trial in the second day of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial.
“I know what intelligent design is, and it sure isn’t what they’re talking about in Harrisburg,” said Casey Luskin, the program officer for public policy and legal affairs for Discovery Institute. Discovery Institute is the nation’s leading think-tank researching intelligent design.
The second day of the Kitzmiller trial featured testimony from Dr. Kenneth Miller and various parents suing the school board. The questions and answers revealed the complete lack of understanding, and misrepresentation of intelligent design by the ACLU and their witnesses.
The ACLU spun out a fable that intelligent design is creationism repackaged some time in the last 20 years to get around court rulings against creation science. Yet, Intelligent design as a counter-argument to Darwin’s theory dates back to the 1890s at least, and the impetus for the modern theory of intelligent design came from the last several decades of discoveries in physics, biochemistry, genetics, and similar disciplines.
The ACLU use a straw man definition of intelligent design repeatedly saying the theory of intelligent design wasn’t scientific because it supposedly provides no positive evidence for design, but only negative critiques of Darwinism. Design scientists have noted that any time we know the cause behind something full of information, intelligent design played a causal role.
“Intelligent design offers a good deal of positive evidence,” said Luskin. “Design scientists make standard experience-based arguments, appealing to what we know about information rich systems like books and software programs.” Luskin noted that every time we know the cause behind information rich systems, intelligent design played a causal role.
The leading scientists and scholars researching and advancing the theory define intelligent design as: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Intelligent design theory does not claim that science can determine the identity of the intelligent cause.
“All intelligent design can do as a scientific theory is try to identify whether certain features of the natural world are the products of intelligence,” said Luskin. “We’re researching whether things were designed, not who the designer was.”
Discovery Institute Fellows will continue reporting on the trial at www.evolutionnews.org.