Posted on 12/22/2005 6:38:00 AM PST by truthfinder9
Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.
"We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," wrote 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," according to the group's website. Of course, she's entitled to believe what she likes, but it's worth noting.
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."
In an essay, "Is Science a Religion?", Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he forthrightly states that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." He equates God with an "imaginary friend" and baptism with child abuse. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas, who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must deliver the fatal blow to religious faith: "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition." When Weinberg's idea of science triumphs, then "this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."
There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."
Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from obscurity recently when his startlingly crude anti-Christian writings came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about "mythologies," including intelligent design. Things got interesting when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an e-mail to a list-serve: "The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want [ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"
Mirecki had previously posted a list-serve message responding to somebody's joke about Pope John Paul II being "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." Mirecki wrote back, "I love it! I refer to him as J2P2 (John Paul II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2."
Administration officials at KU confirmed that the e-mails had come from Mirecki, who also wrote: "I had my first Catholic 'holy communion' when I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time, it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was Jesus' skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own puke. That's a big part of the Catholic experience."
Prudently, the university canceled Mirecki's proposed "mythologies" class and ousted him as department chairman.
I've already reported on NRO about the views expressed by Darwinist staff scientists at the Smithsonian Institution. The nation's museum was roiled last year when the editor of a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal published a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. His fellow staffers composed emails venting their fury. One e-mailer, figuring the editor must be an ID advocate and therefore (obviously!) a fundamentalist Christian (he is neither), allowed that, "Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches." Another museum scientist noted how, after "spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt," he knew all about Christians. He reminisced about the "fun we had" when "my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the 'under dog' [meaning 'under God'] part."
many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
Some advocates go further, seeing Darwin as a friend to faith. When I was in New York recently I spent an enjoyable hour at the new Darwin show at the American Museum of Natural History. In the last few yards of exhibit space, before you hit the inevitable gift shop, the museum addresses intelligent design. There's a short film with scientists talking about Darwin and religion, seeking to show that Darwinism actually has religion's best interests in mind. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project and a self-identified Christian, says that ID can "potentially [do] great harm to people's faiths." How so? Says Collins: by "putting God in the gaps" — by discovering God's creative powers at the junctures in life's history that science can't so far explain. When science at last finds mechanistic explanations for every presumed miracle, where will that leave God?
Never mind that his view, in which God can be assumed not to operate in the natural world, makes Collins a funny kind of Christian.
Never mind, also, that he inaccurately characterizes ID. The argument for design, whatever merit it may possess, is based on positive evidence, hallmarks of a designer's work. For example, the sudden infusion of genetic information 530 million years, when most of today's animal body plans appeared in the earth's ancient seas.
It should be clear by now that Darwinism makes an unlikely defender of religion's best interests. On the contrary, the ranks of the Darwinistas are replete with opponents of religion.
Does this delegitimize Darwinism as science? Obviously not — no more than ID is delegitimized by the fact that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are attracted to its interpretation of nature's evidence. Of course, some avowed agnostics also doubt Darwin (e.g. evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Michael Denton, and mathematician David Berlinski who says his only religious principle is "to have a good time all the time"). But there is irony in the way the media generally follow Barbara Forrest's line in portraying ID as a "Trojan Horse" for theism. It would be equally accurate to call Darwin a trojan horse for atheism.
In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are expressions of a certain kind of faith. ID theorists are not willing to submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality. Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can never be a supernatural reality.
In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of "laws impressed on matter by the Creator." However readers immediately saw the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no need for "laws impressed on matter" by a Creator.
In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.
And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.
— David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a columnist for the Jewish Forward. His most recent book is Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History. His website is www.davidklinghoffer.com.
God and Darwin are not necessarily in conflict. And if you'd like to be bored out of your Gourd, I'd be quite willing to explain how this can be...
Which accounts for a significant amount of the zealotry on the part of evangelical athiesm.
I know people try to reconcile the two, but the point of the article is that many Darwinists are trying to use evolution to stamp out God altogether.
Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion.
Don't allow Atheism to become the state religion (and it is a faith, it asserts that there absolutely is no god).
I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. There are those who say that my beliefs condemn me to eternal damnation.
I don't think so.
> Darwinists are trying to use evolution to stamp out God altogether.
Darwinists are a tiresome bunch and their strident dogma will ultimately be their doom. Which is why God invented the Darwin Awards. This -- all of this -- did not happen by chance. Life on Earth is not and never was a crap-shoot.
Equally, those who believe in six literal days of creation should give pause to reflect. Travel DownUnder: I can show you things that will cause you to believe that this earth is a very ancient place, and that life on this planet evolved over a long period of time, many millions of years ago. But I believe it evolved in accordance with a Divine Purpose.
We have living dinosaurs here, such as the Tuatara: looks like a lizard, but it ain't! It's provably something much more ancient, with three eyes, not two! Flightless birds, like the Kiwi. Pre-historic bugs, like the Weta.
There is No Way in Texas that all these things happened only six thousand years ago. These things EVOLVED. And they took their sweet time in doing so.
(I am a devout -- but deeply flawed -- Christian, unashamedly so.)
Exactly.
Exactly.
> I believe in God. I also believe in evolution. There are those who say that my beliefs condemn me to eternal damnation.
> I don't think so.
You have succinctly summarized my personal Statement of Faith. Thanks!
And that is the wrongness of it...What Darwin and the othes who preceded him and followed him describe is a process...deciding the process is something to make declarations of faith on is stepping beyond science into the philosophical/religious field.
I don't see where it is the responsibility of evolutionists to appease religion by 'proving' compatibility on anything other than an individual level for their own personal beliefs.
Whether you or anyone else feels the two are compatible or not doesn't affect the evidence evolution is based upon. It merely affects how each person chooses to treat that evidence.
I once heard an idiot (now that I think of it, more than once, and one of the idiots got a Doctorate!) suggest that Einstein's Theory of Relativity disproved the notion of ethical absolutes!
I do wonder how important it is that the average high school graduate believe or disbelieve Darwinism. I would like to think that it would be not only safe but good to lay out (necessarily in broad strokes) the evidence and arguments and difficulties with two or three notions of evolution. I think it more important that high school graduates have a clue about what the scientific process is than that they believe the current conclusions of that process.
I'd like to suggest the proposition that "Random" is sometimes a scientific term and sometimes a philosophical or theological term. Except in limited circumstances, the term "improvement" is scarcely scientific.
"But that would be putting the clock back," gasped the Governor. "Have you no idea of progress, of development?"
"I have seen them both in an egg," said Caspian. "We call it Going bad in Narnia. ..."
This is a lie. Lying about what someone has said is a sign of dishonesty and is a sure sign that you have a losing argument.
The judge's opinion doesn't say that disparaging Darwin's theory is unconstitutional. It says that teaching religion in science class is unconstitutional. If you can come up with a scientific theory (i.e., an idea that is in conformance with all known observations and from which testable hypotheses can be developed) that opposes evolutionary theory, then this ruling doesn't affect it at all and you could teach it in Science class. But if you try to advance an allegation as science that is in fact philosophical in nature, with no scientific underpinning, then that's not legal.
I realize that calling someone a liar is a serious charge. Show me where the judge said in his opinion that presenting an alternative scientific theory to evolutionary theory was illegal. What he said was that teaching of one particular set of allegations (Intelligent Design) as science when they were not science was illegal, but he made no blanket statement such as you have made. If you disagree, quote from his decision to support your claim.
And if you'd like to be bored out of your Gourd Gould
There. Fixed it ;-)
bttt
The scriptures are God's word. Do not let the world and it's man made conceptions of any particular age lead you to see the scriptures through a grid.
Let God be God and every man a liar.
Today it's evolution, tomorrow something else, The Scriptures never change.
Besides evolution is a miserable excuse for science. You and all here can do better.
> Disagree. The scriptures are unabashedly opposed to anything but a 6 day creation.
I understand your point but respectfully differ. The Scriptures allow for a six-epoch Creation (ie not literal days, but figurative stretches of time).
Mate, I have agonized over the Genesis record for years now, trying to reconcile what I believe to be true to what the evidence before my own eyes suggests. The missing element in the Genesis record is time -- lots of it. Lots and lots of it.
There is No Way in Texas that New Zealand is only six thousand years old. No Way.
For example, drive from Auckland to Rotorua. Just before you get there, you will go thru an other-worldly place. A place of violent volcanic activity. Columns of basalt poke out of the ground heavenward: these are volcanic plugs. The rest of the volcano has eroded away over a timreframe of many thousands, probably millions of years: you can see their remains. You can count the sedimentary lines, over millions of years, many, many thousands of volcanic eruptions.
These could not have happened overnight, or even over the period of recorded History. It's just impossible.
It is then that it hits, right between the eyes and undeniably (or at least it did for me): this earth is an ancient place, much older than six thousand literal years.
I know I'll be unlikely to change your viewpoint, and I certainly do not wish to upset your Faith. I'm merely explaining the world as I see it...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.