My personal hero today is Judge John Jules, who said:
We find that the secular purposes claimed by the board amount to a pretext for the board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom
in a 139 page document ruling that intelligent design cannot be taught in US schools in Dover, Pennsylvania.
I’m only just back home and am haven’t had a chance to read up on it yet, but it made the front page of BBC News. Although I don’t like to see intelligent design getting exposure, I think that ignoring the issue hasn’t been very successful in preventing its spread.
The BBC does commit the classic media mistake of bending over backwards for impartiality by including a comment from a reader saying ‘both sides of the debate should be taught.’ Would such a quote be placed alongside an article about the flat-earth society? Of course not. The whole point of the article is that the notion has been judged to be religion in disguise – including such a quote is missing the point entirely, and gives credibility where none is due. It’s science, not politics, and public opinion has no bearing on scientific findings. I suppose it’s the classic question: is the point of journalism to present the arguments, or to expose the truth?
Damn, I always digress when talking about ID. Must get a grip on that.