ID in Biology Class: Unconstitutional
A Pennsylvania judge has ruled that the teaching of intelligent design in a public school biology class, as an alternative explanation to evolution, is unconstitutional. I don’t claim to know much about this topic, but ID opponent Ed Brayton has been following the case from the very beginning, so you could do worse than to go to his site and start scrolling. He also has an article about the case here.
UPDATE: Here is a link to the opinion.
The judge made the right decision, given the intent of the school board to inject religion (by another name) into a public-school classroom. The judge then went on to address the scientific basis of ID. There, he went too far. Judges simply shouldn’t be in the business of defining science. Imagine the consequences of judge-made science.
Tom Anger (6e4cb8) — 12/20/2005 @ 7:10 pmIt sounds like his basis for ruling it was unconstitutional was that he critiqued the scientific basis of ID in combination with anger at the school board’s motives. I don’t know exactly what the school district’s proposed ID curriculum consisted of. It sounded like just a brief statement that Darwinism was unproven. That was hardly injecting religion into the classroom.
Whatever the motives of the board members were is irrelevant as far as the curriculum itself. I don’t know why that was even an issue. It sounds like his anger at their motive was the foundation for the decision. What if some people support evolution because they are atheists? Is that a valid basis for banning evolution from the class?
According to the story, 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, the judge 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.”, which sounds like a blatant contradiction. I wonder what his motive is?
Gerald A (152bf1) — 12/20/2005 @ 7:51 pmThis is a strange ruling. It seems to say that if you have, or have had, religion in your life you can’t discuss reality in a school.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 12/20/2005 @ 8:39 pmID is not science. There is no way to hook the scientific method into it, for proof or disproof, now or ever. It can only be taken on faith.
One question, though. While the court says that religious indoctrination is illegal, why does it allow, say, Marxist economics, to be taught at state universities? It is only science in the sense that it is provably wrong, but is followed only by people whose faith will not waver. Why are secular faith systems OK?
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 12/20/2005 @ 8:49 pmWell, Kevin, I don’t know if that’s true. Let’s say that, rather than God, the Earth’s entire ecosystem was developed, and continues to be controlled, by alien intelligences.
It would seem that, eventually, we’d be able to figure that out and be like “oh, look at what we have here.”
But on a broader level, ID is idiotic, and its proponents damage the serious efforts to undo the extensive and idiotic state of the law with regards to religion (e.g. the Lemon test).
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/20/2005 @ 8:56 pmID is not science. There is no way to hook the scientific method into it, for proof or disproof, now or ever. It can only be taken on faith.
Strong point, but then I’m not sure that whatever “natural selection” is meets your definition either.
I’m not sure I agree with Clam’s observation either:
But on a broader level, ID is idiotic, and its proponents damage the serious efforts to undo the extensive and idiotic state of the law with regards to religion (e.g. the Lemon test).
I would argue that some living things, or components thereof, are so complex that presuming purely naturalistic causes (natural selection) is really much more of a philosophical, “faith-based” argument than scientific.
I’d really just prefer a bit more humility on the part of scientists and educators as to that about which we are yet unsure.
For example, the following from Air and Space Feb/Mar 2005:
Percent of the universe we can see: 4.
Number of scientists who know what makes up the rest: 0.
“You would think by now scientists would know what the universe is made of,” says Andy Fabian of Britain’s University of Cambridge. “But we don’t.”
“This is the most profound problem in all of science,” says Michael Turner of the National Science Foundation. The most probable solution, he says with a grin, “is almost too bizarre to be true.”
But don’t ask us about how the mechanisms inside the smallest cells, or the eye, or giraffes, or … evolved because we’re absolutely sure mutations acted upon by natural selection were the causes. So, what is natural selection? Is it an intelligence? Well, no, not exactly … A force then? Well, sort of, but not exactly … Just take our word for it. This is, after all, established science which you are not allowed to question since we scientists are “all” in agreement on the subject.
So we can demonstrate natural selection by a series of experiments? Well, no, not exactly …
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 12/20/2005 @ 9:35 pmAnyone who doesn’t believe that natural selection (a process) can’t account for the complex structures we have in modern biology should spend some time playing with Tierra or other, similar “living” program environments. Some wacky code gets generated by those things.
Angry Clam (a7c6b1) — 12/20/2005 @ 9:40 pmI pulled this from New Scientist to illustrate the the fact that scientists are aware of the possibility that some of their theories are faith based.
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg18825305.800.html
Re: Cosmology and string theory
“If we do not accept the landscape idea are we stuck with intelligent design?
I doubt that physicists will see it that way. If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID.”
There was a world of intellectual endeavor, and technology, and engineering, and logic, and discipline and the need for respect of truth before there was science.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 12/20/2005 @ 9:46 pmAnyone who doesn’t believe that natural selection (a process) can’t account for the complex structures we have in modern biology should spend some time playing with Tierra or other, similar “living” program environments. Some wacky code gets generated by those things.
Clam, I find myself most often in agreement with your observations, however, in this case, aren’t you just suggesting that behind the “wacky code” we find … intelligence? After all, doesn’t an intelligent being create the program that allows the program to “randomly” create organized information?
Further, is “wacky code” really the functional equivalent of the creation of the precisely organized and detailed information found in DNA?
I remember many years ago when scientists claimed to have created the precursors of proteins in the laboratory by creating a precise chemical mixture and passing electical charges through it. Of course one view was that this provided evidence for the veracity of natural selection and evolution. Another view was that intelligence acting upon precisely measured chemicals with precisely planned electrical charges could “create” a precursor to life. Unfortunately, all I heard about in biology class at the time was the first view.
I also heard a lot about natural selection and moths adapting to soot – fake. Then of course there was the argument, with imaginitive pictures, that the human embryo went through the stages of evolution during its development – nonsense. We also learned about all of the vestigial organs, human tails and gill slits – more nonsense. Funny that as medical knowledge increases, the number of so-called vestigial organs seems to decrease proportionally.
Then there is the Anthropic Principle – unscientific?
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 12/20/2005 @ 10:23 pmOn the other hand, and BTW, I emphatically DO NOT support religious indoctrination in science classes, nor of course do I support the opposite. I have no desire to see the Bible taught as a science textbook – it isn’t and doesn’t purport to be.
In the interest of full disclosure I believe the Bible to be “inerrant” in its original texts, but that is a discussion for another time and place that does not lend itself well to sound bite analysis.
My sole concern is that we create a science program for our public schools in which we fully explore the best science has to offer, warts, disagreements and all.
My problem with this discussion is that we use the functional equivalent of an ad hominem argument when discussing ID. This is done by insisting that ID is not “science” as defined by the adherants to the naturalistic viewpoint, attaching the “creationism” label, declaring it a religious dogma, insisting that to even bring up the subject violates the establishment clause, and that’s the end of that – case closed.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 12/20/2005 @ 10:45 pmMy problem with ID is its proponents. My church teaches Genesis — you know, the Bible, Adam and Eve, apple, Abel, Cain, etc. — in its evening, Saturday and Sunday catechism classes. When it adopts ID, then I will accept ID. Otherwise, I will consider it heresy and blasphemy.
nk (54c569) — 12/21/2005 @ 2:28 amPatterico:
I took a more old-fashioned, austere view of science in my post here, where I concur with the judge’s decision (and with Clam, it appears).
Dafydd
Dafydd (558ad8) — 12/21/2005 @ 5:33 amDafydd, I found your linked post informative, well reasoned, intelligent and thoughtful. Though I disagree with at least a few of your assumptions and tests, I will agree that you make a civil and rational case for your point of view.
Good show!
Harry Arthur (40c0a6) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:44 amFor those who aren’t familiar with it, I’m referencing specifically Tierra and its progeny like Avida, although it could apply equally to any natural selection based evolutionary code.
Short summary: there’s a bit of self-copying software (the “organism”) in an enivironment with limited space and limited “food” (processor cycles). Additionally, there’s “cosmic radiation” (random variables) that randomly flips the “genetic code” (Tierra uses 0 and 1).
Running this sucker, where the only force acting on the little self executing programs is continued existence or death, with some changes along the way, gives all sorts of interesting results. On the Tierra homepage, for example, “parasites” developed that were able to hijack the reproduction of neighboring programs to replicate themselves, and nearly driving the “hosts” to extinction, until a “host” variation evolved an immunity. These immune entities eventually replaced nearly all the non-immune ones.
Likewise, in Avida, one run of the program resulted in programs that invented an equals operator. (here’s a PDF of the article in Nature) This is significant because the equals operator was irreducibly complex; that is, it had no useful function until it emerged fully useful. Irreducible complexity is the wanna-be challenge to evolution of “oh yeah? How did X (usually wings or something, although the smarter ones choose a flagellum) evolve when there’s no reason to favor its useless precursors?” This, along with a number of other complex mathematical functions, all evolved from code that could do no more than replicate itself.
So yes, on a simple level, the “wacky code” is, in fact, directly analogous to DNA and RNA.
As to your greater point, I don’t think that follows. The Tierra and Avida programs were created to simulate and reflect natural processes. In other words, they had a specific design purpose- to provide an environment for self-replicating code undergoing natural selection. I don’t think that it follows that existence itself must, therefore, be designed to provide an environment for life.
Simply because a complex chemical process (which is, after all, what life is) has managed to show up in one tiny corner of an extraordinarily vast and 15-20 billion year old universe doesn’t mean that it must have been ordered into motion to provide for that life.
Nor does the anthropic principle (mentioned earlier) help you here. It doesn’t state that “the universe is the way it is so that life might appear” like you argue with Tierra and Avida. Rather, it is “the universe is ordered in a way that seems particularly apt for life because our life has appeared and functions under those rules.” In other words, if things were different, we’d be different.
My understanding of that experiment, though, was that it was based upon our current “best guess” as to what the composition of organic matter on the early Earth was, not that it was, shall we say, playing with loaded dice. I could be wrong though; I never read the actual write-up of the experiment.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 6:54 amThis topic is more complex than simple declarations regarding what is or isn’t science. For some ecellent discussions/information, see Joe Carter’s posts at http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com. In the context of this case, the discussions of the naturalistic assumptions/world view that underlie Darwinism seem most relevant.
eddie haskell (effa4a) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:11 amOnce we get past the obvious constitutional problem of establishment clause jurisprudence — that the establishment clause of the First Amendment plainly applies only to Congress, and not to the States (just what about “Congress shall make no law” is unclear?)– by surrendering to unelected, virtually unaccountable federal judges the power to re-write the constitution as they would prefer it be written, we can conclude that the ID ruling is correct.
But let’s make sure that we also prohibit the teaching of evolution if it is presented as an alternative to a belief in divine creation or as an explanation of the origin of life, or as support for the notion that God does not exist (that’s not in the theory, but we shouldn’t discount the likelihood that some teachers will present it that way).
Atheism is a religion just as surely as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. are religions — atheism is founded on an irrational belief that the complexity of the universe is the product of random occurrences, without any divine intervention, despite the implausibility of purely random occurrences producing systems that are both complex and functional (the use of molecular precursors by processes that occur in organisms is an example — maybe there’s a biologist here that can explain why this could be considered support for ID, or at least, a likely flaw in the notion that functional complexity is produced by random events). Like belief in God, atheism cannot be proven or disproven, and any purportedly scientific conclusion one may make regarding the existence of God is not scientific at all, but merely a statement of one’s faith regarding the question.
That being said, the judge was right — the School Board’s policy was essentially a requirement that creationism be taught. This case is being described as likely to have a great deal of influence — hopefully that’s wrong, and it will be limited to its own facts: prohibiting a policy that requires evolution theory to be misrepresented and what amounts to creationism taught as an implicitly better alternative.
ID is not science. But it is philosophy, and there shouldn’t be any prohibition against the teaching of ID in a philosophy class. Let’s see what happens if a school board makes a philosophy class that includes ID part of a required cirriculum. Would that be constitutionally permissible, or have we banished from our public schools pretty much all of the Western philosophers, including a couple of Thomases – Aquinas (on whose writings ID is based) and Jefferson (is teaching “Creator endowed” unconstitutional?), leaving only the atheists, such as Marx?
TNugent (6128b4) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:31 amThe school board has, from my understanding, put ID in an elective sociology class.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:35 amPart of the problem with ID, from a scientific perspective, is that it really doesn’t explain anything except to say that an invisible hand is at work. (And that reminds me of the quote about atheists being people with no invisible means of support.)
Also, ID has some splainin’ to do. Why do birds have better lungs than we do? Why are there odd creatures that breathe air and yet live in the water? Why are there flightless birds like penguins? There are many more examples of unintelligent design. Weird world we live in.
Interesting discussion of Tierra Clam; I’ll have to look into that.
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:42 amYou’ll like the newest Tierra experiments. They’ve networked up a bunch of them, and there’s a distinct process needed for an organism to jump between the different computers.
Think about the possibility for the study evolutionary islands like the Galapagos.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 7:46 amTillman, don’t you think efficient lungs would help a bird make do with a smaller body relative to wing size? And what about whales is “unintelligent” design? A creature that lives in the water but breathes air ought to breath through an hole on the top of its head, don’t you think? Perhaps being warm-blooded (and the advantages that provides) may have something to do with why such a creature breathes air rather than water — I would expect that more energy would be required to maintain body temperature (and especially brain temperature) if cold water were constantly flowing through gills in addition to surrounding the creature’s body. And feathers for a penguin are insulation for warmth, not a wing covering for aerodynamics. The explanations are there — they’re all of the features that allow the survival of those odd species you refer to. Perhaps one might ask why human beings are relatively, slow, defenseless creatures that walk on two legs. Well, it has worked for us, just as swimming has worked for penguins, and breathing air has worked for whales.
None of the explanations suggest that evolution theory is wrong. What’s wrong is the presentation of evolution and the suggestion of divine design as incompatible alternatives. ID/Creationism proponents are as guilty of that as the neo-Darwinists.
TNugent (6128b4) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:09 am(Uh, oh, I done got TNugent all riled up again.)
The point about bird’s lungs is, we could benefit from a better lung design too. Of course it is good that birds have a good lung design. But we were last in line for lungs or something? What’s up with that?
If you want to argue that it is intelligent that creatures do odd things (catfish walking on land and breathing air), then I would argue that ID sure has a big sense of humor!
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:17 amI did a little dance of victory when I read the ruling. While I can understand a small amount of twitchiness about a judge ruling weather or not something is science, I think that the validity of ID within the realm of science was at the very heart of the case. Since, after all, why would you try to teach something that isn’t science in a science class? Oh, that’s right, there’s a religious agenda to it. Well, now that we’ve got that cleared up…
Science should be taught in a way that presents the valid disagreements. ID is not, however, a valid disagreement, because it does not follow the scientific process. At its very base, by hinging upon the existence of an invisible creator, a thing that is not testable or falsifiable, it has removed itself from science. Intelligent Design is a “theory” only under the definition of “hey, I have this idea,” and not the scientific one – because it hasn’t faced the tests and peer review required in science for something to go from hypothesis to theory. Which is an argument of semantics, but a very, very important one. When in the realm of science, calling Intelligent Design a ‘theory’ gives it weight it most assuredly does not deserve.
They definitely should be able to teach it in philosophy or sociology to their heart’s content. That’s where it belongs. And I really don’t see it as being as much of an issue there, as so much of those sorts of classes tend to be comparative of religious beliefs. You kind of have to bring various religions into it at that point.
So much about it is the perception of the thing. Because for the most part, if you put something under the heading of science, the vast majority of people will give it a good deal more weight than if you call it philosophy. Everyone hears from an early age that science is “fact,” so if they teach it in science, it must have some basis in fact, right? (A huge oversimplification, but young kids especially deal with the world in absolutes.)
Katsu (ac4529) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:18 amAh science. We all love science because it strives forward in pursuit of the truth ™.
Whatever. I’d remark this at Dafydd’s place the problem with science currently is not so much the last 3 requirements for legitimizing science. Instead, it is the first.
The first “requirement” for science as you described it, is that it solely depends on natural processes. This is not science, this is instead a philosophy of materialism, that all there is is what we can see. Now, that may be true, but there is not proof of it, there is no way to falsify that, there is nothing that suggests that first requirement ought to exist.
Back to what I’d comment here,
I’m no fan of intelligent design. Personally, I’m more likely to fall along the lines of a Young-Earth Creationist than anything else. That being said, Intelligent Design YEC and naturalistic explanations for origins of life, and indeed (perhaps more relevant) are not falsifiable.
Science is exceedingly good at rationalizing away and discouraging discussion that threatens major tenets held by existing science.
One of the most interesting things to me is, to us, it appears as if we are near the center of the universe. (not the same as center of the galaxy). Now, this is strongly disliked in science. This tends to violate the “copernican principle” the, “we are not special” principle as it were. Of course this makes sense because the odds that intelligent life would exist near a “special” place in the universe are vanishingly small. So we assume it cannot be the case. Instead we assume, that the universe is homogenous and isotropic, everyone appears to be at the center of the universe. This is somewhat acceptable (the balloon theory we’ll call it). However, come to later find out that at certain distances from us (Redshift values, which under Hubble’s law = distance) there are clusters of “activity” stars, galaxies, etc. Then, there is a void, until you reach the next significant redshift value. This is exceedingly disturbing information has almost been silenced. Because either it suggests, a. we truly are near the center of the universe (because other wise there should not be so neat a distribution). Or b. something not yet easily determinable is occuring, the quantization of time or some such.
That’s not to say this disproves or proves anything, but science is wedded to certain principles as much as some Christians are wedded to Genesis. Interestingly science readily accepts the exceedingly low probabilities of the arrival of intelligent life (let alone life) as proof of the nature of origins. However data that continues to point to our earth being near the center of the universe is continually rationalized away, after all the balloon theory itself requires a 4-dimensional space (none of which being time so some 4th unknown dimension which uh, how do you falsify that I mean maybe the IDer lives there) that everything exists on the surface of the balloon and that an inperceivable void of hyperspace fills the balloon, yeah that’s falsifiable. But because the likelihood of intelligent life arising on its own is vanishingly small as is the probability that we are actually near the center of the universe we assume the scary data away.
It is then argued that ID or YEC is not falsifiable. They are, after all assumed by so many to have already been falsified by the current data set, but this is from an incomplete perception of data.
Carl Sagan suggested in setting up SETI that we should find the existing of other extraterrestial life, if we do, Genesis (assuming they do not have a similar Genesis account) or ID or all those sort of things will probably pass away. However, as long as it continues to appear that we are alone, near the center of the universe and whatever, “science” will have a very hard time proving or disproving the origins of life, let alone matter.
Kind of long, kind of rambling, I apologize. I now await your tearing apart of what I’ve said.
Joel B. (31d860) — 12/21/2005 @ 8:42 amI have one question about the judge’s ruling: how many judges were there? I had this impression that there was only one, yet he says “we” this and “our” that in his opinion. Is this the royal we? Because judges aren’t (supposed to be) kings.
At least, that’s our view.
Patterico (7ba70f) — 12/21/2005 @ 10:54 amFor the district court, I’m a fan of “this court” rather than “we.”
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 12/21/2005 @ 11:40 amI just looked at Dafydd’s ref. in #12 above. He defines ID right out of existence. Do we have to raise a new group of people trained for science, but kept out of the religion loop to get any ID?
If we had never had a Bible or Koran, or such, we would still wonder if we were created; and as we got better informed, through science, we would begin to assemble concepts into ID. Intelligence would come to a stage where it began to postulate ID without being driven by formal, religious, creation stories.
I don’t believe in someone else’s Bible, I believe in my own. My own Bible says old earth created as a system for life’s development, and then development leading to intelligence, and then intelligence. Intermittently, along this line of development, advancements are added to DNA as required by the designer’s purpose.
Tierra and Avida are jake with me. They produce in computers what nature produces on earth. They require a God to provide the computers and the code and the design stratagems, and we do too.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 12/21/2005 @ 12:07 pmTillman, of course ID (God?) has a sense of humor. How else would you explain the elephant’s appearance?
TNugent (6128b4) — 12/21/2005 @ 12:14 pmYes Ted, the odd part about it though, the Bible doesn’t have much of a sense of humor. One exception may be the talking jack-ass story. That’s funny, although I don’t believe it was intened to be.
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/21/2005 @ 12:24 pmTwo questions, and two cents:
Is ID really nothing more than the old watchmaker argument dressed up in new clothes?
And, what’s so wrong about telling biology students that some people don’t think the theory of evolution provides an adequate explanation of the natural world?
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/21/2005 @ 12:27 pmExcuse my bad spelling Patterico! (Should be “intended.”)
Tillman (1cf529) — 12/21/2005 @ 12:27 pmI don’t mean to single anyone out on this mistake (since nearly everyone in the media seems to be making it as well), but this case did not involve the actual teaching of intelligent design. Read the first 2 pages of the court’s ruling. The only issue was if reading the following statement in a public school violates the Establishment Clause:
Now if textualism influences how you approach Constitutional interpretation, do you really think that merely reading the above statement somehow conflicts with the passage in the Constitution which reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”?
Seems like a stretch to me – but then almost all of the O’Connor influenced Establishment Clause jurisprudence has been a stretch from the very beginning.
If anyone wants to debate evolution vs. intelligent design, be my guest. But please don’t use that underlying debate to cloud the issue regarding the Constitutional debate (as the judge seems to have unfortunately done in this case).
Justin Levine (f341b1) — 12/21/2005 @ 12:27 pmWell, Tillman, maybe you’re right about the Old Testament being humorless (unless you think the Israelites wandering around for 40 years before asking for directions is funny), but Jesus probably got plenty of laughs with his stand-up act.
TNugent (6128b4) — 12/21/2005 @ 12:39 pmBlack Jack – because the consensus of the scientific community is that evolution provides the best explanation that we have at this time. Of course, that could change tomorrow, with new evidence. The Theory of Evolution has evolved (ha ha) a great deal since Darwin wrote about Natural Selection.
The people that don’t believe it? Very few are scientists, and those that are have pretty much lost their credibility.
By that thinking, in geography, we ought to read a statement saying that the world being round is only a theory that’s in dispute. Because hey, there are still people that think the earth is flat. Or in history, when we’re talking about prehistory, a statement should be read that it’s just a theory and there are people that believe the world is only what, four thousand years old?
I’ve heard a lot of arguments about ‘teaching the controversy’ in science classes. The problem with that is that in the scientific community, there *is* no real controversy. There are a few people that cling to ID and have pretty much destroyed their credibility by doing so, by showing an inability to follow the principles of scientific process. The only place the controversy exists is among the population at large, most of whom are so pathetically under-educated in the sciences that it’s not even funny.
Just because there’s a difference in opinion doesn’t mean it’s a credible one that deserves time in schools. Everyone has a right to their opinion, and to say that opinion. But that doesn’t give them the right to mandate the teaching of that opinion in school.
Katsu (ac4529) — 12/22/2005 @ 7:08 amKatsu,
Thanks for responding to one of my questions. I do understand the points you make, they were ubiquitous in high school and college. However, let me say that “consensus” isn’t confirmation, nor is it determinative. As you are likely fully aware, the Scientific Method relies on independent verification, and Evolution remains a theory because it hasn’t been verified.
Now, these days one calls Evolution into question at some peril. As you say, “The people that don’t believe it? Very few are scientists, and those that are have pretty much lost their credibility.”
Katsu, that isn’t science, it’s the thought police at work. The message is clear, decline to pay homage to the current orthodoxy and be cast out to wander in the desert among the makers of minimum wages. Such are the methods involved in imposing and maintaining belief systems.
Also, your examples fail to make your point. There’s conclusive evidence, free from the need for consensus, for a round earth, just as there is persuasive evidence in the archeological record for placing the earth’s age beyond Bible lore. What’s lacking is conclusive evidence for Darwin’s theory. The imperious efforts of the hallelujah chorus notwithstanding.
But, you’re certainly correct that any attempt to spotlight the shortcomings of Evolution will quickly result in the sort of “recognition” wise men avoid. But, isn’t that really the essence of science, testing the theory instead of dismissing anyone brave enough to question consensus?
That’s the problem as I see it. Way too many true believers in Evolution, and not enough freedom of thought to permit an open scientific examination of the evidence. Evolution may eventually prove itself, but to do that it must be able to withstand open scrutiny. And, that won’t happen so long as the high priests of “consensus” thwart inquiry, and exile any who won’t shut up and bow to their presumed authority.
You correctly say the controversy exists almost exclusively among the population at large, but fail to note that’s only because the academy uniformly excludes anyone who fails to swear allegiance to Darwin’s speculations. And, it’s time will tell who’s “pathetically under-educated” here, and who’s been worshiping at the alter of a false god.
Again, you correctly point out that simply having an opinion doesn’t mean the opinion is credible, however, since it’s the proponents of Mr Darwin’s opinions who insist on exclusive presentation in our science classrooms, it is they who are divergent from the principles of scientific inquiry, and it is the credibility of their opinions which suffer.
If you couldn’t tell from my first question, I’m no more enamored by what I know of ID than I am willing to swallow Darwinism whole. And, I don’t accept the false notion that it’s a question of one or the other. If ID is the old watchmaker argument: “find a watch and assume a watchmaker,” or push the concept to “find a universe and assume a maker.” I’m not going for it.
Contrary to your statement, the issue here wasn’t an attempt to “mandate the teaching” of ID in school. It involved a simple reading of a brief text to the affect that some people were of the opinion that Darwinism was an unproved theory. As stated in the first paragraph in #2 above, “That was hardly injecting religion into the classroom.”
Now, I have a few more questions. Why must Darwinism be immune from scientific inquiry and perverted into a religious movement? Why must nonbelievers be subject to the Inquisition? Why is it Taboo to speak of such matters in school?
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/26/2005 @ 12:40 pmThis article gives eye-opening evidence that a cult of Darwin is alive and well on campus.
It’s God or Darwin:
By: David Klinghoffer
National Review Online
December 21, 2005
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3111&program=CSC%20-%20Views%20and%20News
…” Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules that disparaging Darwin’s theory in biology class is unconstitutional. Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?
Judge Jones was especially impressed by the testimony of philosophy professor Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, author of Creationism’s Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is “an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International,” ……………
Religion and Smallpox
Other leading Darwinian advocates not only reject religion but profess disgust for it and frankly admit a wish to see it suppressed. Lately I’ve been collecting published thoughts on religion from pro-Darwin partisans. Professional scholars, they have remarkable things to say especially about Christianity. Let these disinterested seekers of the truth speak for themselves.
My favorite is Tufts University’s Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It’s because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate “the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world.” In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! “Safety demands that religion be put in cages,” explains Dennett, “when absolutely necessary….The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for.”
RJN (c3a4a3) — 12/26/2005 @ 3:11 pmBlack Jack. Right on! I only wish I could have put it so succinctly myself.
This whole issue is about who has the microphone. The Darwinists do not plan to give it up for even the slightest deviation from the current “scientific” orthodoxy.
Now, I have a few more questions. Why must Darwinism be immune from scientific inquiry and perverted into a religious movement? Why must nonbelievers be subject to the Inquisition? Why is it Taboo to speak of such matters in school?
Exactly.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 12/26/2005 @ 3:38 pmI think much of this is about atheism, and secular humanism, asserting what they think of as their manifest destiny: A God free campus, followed by a God free public square.
RJN (c3a4a3) — 12/26/2005 @ 7:02 pmAtheism must drive deism from the public square if collectivism is to fill the resulting void. The left correctly recognizes that the deistic heresy, in which Creator endowed free will is a precondition of the social contract, is an existential threat to its collectivist ideal.
TNugent (6128b4) — 12/27/2005 @ 10:21 amFor those having a problem with the existence of “evolution”, take a look at your children. How did that happen?
On the other hand, raising evolution to the status of a god is not the answer those who believe in evolution should be seeking. For example, evolution does not explain itself, and the theory of evolution includes the other side of the coin: that we don’t really know what’s going on in an ultimate sense.
So I have no problem with teaching or presenting ID in a science class. It at least raises the question of the existence of Ultimates and whether we should take any claim as one – including scientific theories.
Moreover in my view, we can see intelligent design as existent without any designer. Because we are the ones who determine what intelligence is to begin with. Similarly, I think it must be admitted that whoever believes in God does so on some basis or other – and hopefully not simply because some other person has told him/her to. It’s really an individual responsibility and freedom to do. So again, I see no problem with presenting ID in a science class, even if someone wants to conclude that “God did it.”
Along these lines, as a non-Supernaturalist I personally find it very significant that the Universe has created an entity which wants to understand the Universe. I take this as fact, though I don’t think I’ll ever be able to explain it.
I also strongly agree that the war on Christianity is a bigoted war and one which attempts to control thoughts. Therefore I’m siding with the Christians on this one, and also because the Christians at least back the WOT. The Christians I read and listen to are much more rational than their political opponents.
Joe Peden (ffccb8) — 12/27/2005 @ 11:48 amJoe,
Even the Roman Catholic Church is ok with evolution theory. For most Christians, it’s not either evolution or ID, it’s both. Evolution theory does not attempt to explain the origins of life, much less the origins of the universe, at least until evolution gets the atheistic spin the left puts on it, which transforms evolution from a scientific theory to an irrational belief having even less scientific foundation than ID. Proponents of ID base their hypothesis (which for many is also a belief) on observations of systems and structures from which “design” is a logical inference. Those who suggest that the process of evolution — that is the combination of natural selection and mutations (including random mutations) of an organism’s genetic code — explain the origin of life . . . . well, the problem with that selection is self-evident: acceptance of evolution theory as an explanation of the origin of life requires a belief in the possibility of spontaneous generation.
The ID “controversy” is insignificant as a discussion of our origins. Its only significance is that it’s part of a debate over whether our society should retain as its foundations the moral principles of the Anglo-American Englightenment (see the Declaration of Independence), which rely heavily on the idea of Creator endowed human dignity, or replace those principles with the atheistic, amoral utilitarianism favored by the modern left. Of course, the lefties won’t acknowledge advocating the elimination of society’s moral standards, and many of them probably don’t even realize that they’ve already done so for themselves (maybe we can coin a new verb for 2006 — “to Munich,” with inspirational credit to Steven Spielberg), but amorality is the inevitable consequence of replacing a society’s external moral standard with one acknowledged to be wholly within the range of human manipulation.
TNugent (6128b4) — 12/27/2005 @ 2:14 pmJoe said, “…I personally find it very significant that the Universe has created an entity which wants to understand the Universe. I take this as fact, though I don’t think I’ll ever be able to explain it.”
If memory serves, and forgive me if I push the point, it was Huxley who considered that man was nature made aware of itself. A necessary step in an ongoing developmental process which brought self-awareness to an unconscious process. Thus, Man is nature made consciously aware of itself.
The formulation may do little to advance the debate, but it is cute.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 12/28/2005 @ 7:16 am