Intelligent Design is NOT science

One or two years ago I was following with great interest a story about some parents who brought a case against a school district in Dover, PA, opposing the school board mandated teaching of Intelligent Design in science class. The judge ultimately ruled against the school-board:

"A six-week trial over the issue yielded "overwhelming evidence" establishing that intelligent design "is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory," said [U.S. District Judge John E.] Jones, a Republican and a churchgoer appointed to the federal bench three years ago.... In his ruling, Jones said that while intelligent design, or ID, arguments "may be true, a proposition on which the court takes no position, ID is not science." Among other things, he said intelligent design "violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation"; it relies on "flawed and illogical" arguments; and its attacks on evolution "have been refuted by the scientific community."" --CBS News

Why am I mentioning this now? I recently read a blog (Daily Kos) commentating on a recent debate between Republican presidential candidates. Apparently, three of the ten candidates indicated they do not "believe" in evolution: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas; Mike Huckabee, former governor of Arkansas; and Representative Tom Tancredo of Colorado. Ugh.

While I think 30% is an embarrassingly high percentage, apparently that's still better than the American public, where according to a CBS poll 51% believe God created humans in our present form.

Personally, I'm a little appalled at such a large number of people rejecting evolution; I'm also dismayed, discouraged, and fearful--fearful because I'm worried this statistic may reflect the influence religion has on politics and the governance of a country, whether you love'm or hate'm, whose actions have such a huge impact internationally, and a country in which I live.