Casey Luskin, "ACLU Intelligent Design FAQ: An Analysis and Response" (2005)
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1280 - Jest to odpowiedź na dostępny na naszej stronie tekst "Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Board FAQ – Intelligent Design and Evolution" (2004)
ACLU Intelligent Design FAQ: An Analysis and Response
by Casey Luskin
First Posted 2.11.05
First Posted 2.11.05
This musing is merely a commentary on the "
ACLU's 'Intelligent Design' FAQ" as
found on the ACLU website. While the
ACLU ID FAQ mentions the current
case over teaching intelligent design theory in Dover, Pennsylvania, I am
not a lawyer and this commentary is not intended to be legal advice for
anyone. This is simply my thoughts about the claims made by the ACLU in its
ID FAQ on their website. Some of their claims, and thus some of my
commentary relates to case law, but much of this discussion is also
completely unrelated to legal issues. A full legal discussion about whether
or not it is constitutional to teach intelligent design would go into much
more depth than the commentary made here. This is not intended to fully or
adequately discuss the general question of whether or not it is
constitutional to teach intelligent design theory. My purpose here is
simply to respond to the various sorts of claims made by the ACLU in its ID
FAQ. If readers have further questions about the author's opinion, they are
invited to contact the author at [email protected].
Introduction:
In mid-December, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted an " 'Intelligent Design' FAQ" (herein "ACLU ID FAQ") on their website. Unfortunately the ACLU, our self-described "nation's guardian of liberty" (I always thought it was the Constitution, but the apparently ACLU says it is themselves) has made a number of factual errors in its ID FAQ. A good portion of the ACLU ID FAQ revolves around commentary about the supplemental textbook Of Pandas and People (herein "Pandas"; all quotes are from the 2nd edition, 1993). Many of the claims in the ACLU's ID FAQ are simply wrong. The ACLU ID FAQ is not an accurate source for information about intelligent design theory. I would like to make comments in response to the ACLU's ID FAQ.
Introduction:
In mid-December, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) posted an " 'Intelligent Design' FAQ" (herein "ACLU ID FAQ") on their website. Unfortunately the ACLU, our self-described "nation's guardian of liberty" (I always thought it was the Constitution, but the apparently ACLU says it is themselves) has made a number of factual errors in its ID FAQ. A good portion of the ACLU ID FAQ revolves around commentary about the supplemental textbook Of Pandas and People (herein "Pandas"; all quotes are from the 2nd edition, 1993). Many of the claims in the ACLU's ID FAQ are simply wrong. The ACLU ID FAQ is not an accurate source for information about intelligent design theory. I would like to make comments in response to the ACLU's ID FAQ.
Main Navigation Menu
Quotes from the ACLU ID FAQ will appear in gray boxes, with commentary on the quoted segment following. To help with navigation, the ACLU ID FAQ is reproduced immediately below. Click on any segment of the ACLU ID FAQ below to view commentary and response regarding that FAQ.
- FAQ 1: " What is the concept of 'intelligent design'?"
- FAQ 2: " How is intelligent design like and unlike traditional creationism?"
- FAQ 3: " Where did intelligent design come from?"
- FAQ 4: " Is intelligent design a credible scientific theory?"
- FAQ 5: " Is evolution anti-religious?"
- FAQ 6: " Is evolution 'just' a theory?"
- FAQ 7: "Is evolution education important?"