Subject: Support for the Dover plaintifs

From: David Harris <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:39:46 +0000

[After a general message of support to the plaintiffs in the Dover 
evolution trial.]

My father was a Lutheran minister who grew up in the Pennsylvania Dutch 
community in the Lykens Valley, about 60 miles from Dover, and I learned 
to pay attention to religious matters from my upbringing.  I studied 
molecular biology in college and graduate school, so I know about the 
methods and observable facts of science.

As you can imagine, I have thought hard about the role of evolution in 
science and religion.  I am impressed by the argument of the philosopher 
of science Karl Popper, who said that the method of science requires 
theories to make falsifiable predictions that can be tested by anyone 
with sufficient scientific skill.  As I see it, the idea of Intelligent 
Design does not make any predictions, and so it is not science.  ID does 
point out that evolutionary theory has areas that haven't been figured 
out yet, but that is common to scientific theories.

So in my view you are correct.  ID is a pseudo-scientific practice of 
criticizing real science.  ID seems at heart to be a religious idea that 
does not belong in science classes.