Truth in evolution vs. Intelligent Design.

The January 23 issue ran an article by Mr. John Eidsmoe entitled "An 'Intelligently Designed' Ruling?" This article addressed the judicial decision by Federal District Court Judge John E. Jones III against the Dover Area School District's adoption of the Intelligent Design Policy. Though I just recently read this article, I want to express not only my agreement with Mr. Eidsmoe, but also my opinion about his discussion of "science."

I agree completely with almost every point that Mr. Eidsmoe asserts in his article. Intelligent Design (ID) has just as much scientific proof, much more in fact, than evolutionism. And Darwinism indeed has just as many religious implications as ID. While I do not agree with evolutionistic views, I think that ID needs to be taught along with evolution in public schools. Judge Jones was incorrect in his thoughts on this matter.

However, I would also like to address Mr. Eidsmoe's comments on Judge Jones' use of the term "science." He says, "One underlying error of the Dover decision is its mis-definition of science." While this may be true fundamentally, I think it is important to recognize that often people generally believe science to be something it is not. What people often fail to see is that science strictly is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." This definitely includes Intelligent Design. Unfortunately, many people today operate under an incorrect definition of science, one that excludes anything at all that may point to God. While I definitely do not disagree with Mr. Eidsmoe, I think he should have briefly addressed this fault of society.

I would like to thank you for publishing this excellent article. I am pleased to see logical and intelligent articles being printed in periodicals such as yours.

EMILY A. RUFF

Niceville, Florida