Arthur Silber vs. The Thomas Moore Law Centre

This was freaking EXCELLENT

Money quote:

From the TMLC -

At issue in the Dover lawsuit, brought by 11 parents in Federal District Court, is whether intelligent design is really religion dressed up as science, and whether teaching it in a public school violates the constitutional separation of church and state.The More center's lawyers put scientists on the witness stand who argued that intelligent design - the idea that living organisms are so complex that the best explanation is that a higher intelligence designed them - is a credible scientific theory and not religion because it never identifies God as the designer. Still religion is at the heart of the case's appeal for the center, say its lawyers and the chairman of its board. The chairman, Bowie Kuhn, the former baseball commissioner, said the board agreed that the center should take on an intelligent design case because while it is not necessarily based on religion "it is being opposed because people think it is religious." And that was enough for a group whose mission, as explained on its Web site, is "to protect Christians and their religious beliefs in the public square."

Arthur Silber replies with phasers set to KILL:

Let me see if I have this straight. ID is not religious in nature as long as God is never identified as the designer -- even though God (or an equivalent supernatural being or force of some kind) necessarily is. And even though ID is not religion masquerading as science -- even though it is -- religion is still "at the heart of the case's appeal for the center." Not because ID actually is based on religion, but because "it is being opposed because people think it is religious." Even though it isn't. So the center isn't pursuing the case in the name of religion, but it is. Not because it actually is about religion, but because other people think it's about religion. But it isn't.

Thankfully, before our minds completely melt trying to untangle this, we are left with the simplest basis of all on which to reject ID in its entirety, along with its advocates. That basis also possesses the invaluable virtue of being indisputably true: it's utterly unintelligible gibberish.

AR: Exactly.

No comments: