But What Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster Say?

Not-so-intelligent design, it turns out:

A federal judge ruled today that a Pennsylvania school board's policy of teaching intelligent design in high school biology class is unconstitutional because intelligent design is clearly a religious idea that advances "a particular version of Christianity."

In the nation's first case to test the legal merits of intelligent design, Judge John E. Jones III dealt a stinging rebuke to advocates of teaching intelligent design as a scientific alternative to evolution in public schools.

The judge found that intelligent design is not science, and that the only way its proponents can claim it is, is by changing the very definition of science to include supernatural explanations.

That's from the New York Times article. I like the one in Le Monde even better, if only for describing intelligent design as "neocreationist":

Plus d'une vingtaine d'Etats attendaient la décision du tribunal fédéral de Harrisburg (Pennsylvanie) sur une théorie néocréationniste, pour la mettre au programme de leurs écoles. Mais mardi 20 décembre, le juge John Jones a jugé qu'enseigner le "dessein intelligent" ( Intelligent Design) en classe de sciences d'une école américaine violait la Constitution. Un verdict qui apparaît comme un revers pour les conservateurs américains, adeptes de cette thèse concurrente de la théorie de l'évolution de Darwin.

Of greater concern is what's at the bottom of each article. The French article says:

Le "dessein intelligent" a reçu des renforts de poids – George Bush a pris la parole cet été pour déclarer que les deux "écoles de pensée" devaient être expliquées aux enfants – et séduit nombre d'Américains : selon un sondage effectué par l'institut de recherche Pew en juillet, 64 % sont favorables à l'enseignement du créationnisme ou du "dessein intelligent", en plus de la théorie de l'évolution. Et pas moins de 38 % des sondés souhaitent que Charles Darwin soit tout simplement éliminé de l'école, pour mettre l'accent sur le rôle de Dieu.

Roughly translated (by me):

Intelligent design has received some heavyweight support--George Bush spoke this summer declaring that the two "schools of thought" ought to be explained to children--and persuaded a number of Americans: according to a Pew Institute survey in July, 64% support teaching creationism or intelligent design in addition to the theory of evolution. And no less than 38% of those surveyed wished that Charles Darwin was simply eliminated from the schools, in order to place the accent on the role of God.

Yeesh. I'd like to know who these people were that they surveyed, and where they were. And what level of education they had, on average, achieved. Because I suspect that would correlate: the well-educated can spot faux science, because they understand the concept of real science. Moreover, they understand that studying and understanding processes is distinct from one's religious beliefs, and the two need not be mutually exclusive. Aristotle had no problem with this, as he worked back to the First Cause, that which set all the latter causes in motion. How many centuries of so-called progress have we made, that a non-negligible percentage of people are being outthought by someone who couldn't conceive of the technology we take for granted? A further reminder that neither technology nor information equals knowledge.

Or intelligence, which the ID proponents in Dover were clearly lacking in their strategic planning. But, as the Times article goes on to point out, they will learn from their mistakes:

Eugenie Scott, executive director, National Center for Science Education, an advocacy group in Oakland, Calif., that promotes teaching evolution, said, "I predict that another school board down the line will try to bring intelligent design into the curriculum than the Dover group did, and they'll be a lot smarter about concealing their religious intent."

That is to suggest that this mutation of creationism having failed, another version will turn up that's better adapted to surviving the judicial process and Constitutional challenge--one might say that their strategies will evolve. Oh, but wait, that can't happen, because it's not true. Guess the hand of God will reach down and tap one of them on the shoulder and reveal a new method of sneaking religion into the science classroom.

I don't know, but it seems to me that a God that is powerful enough to create the universe and everything in it ought to be able to do better than that, wouldn't you think?