Posted on 12/20/2005 7:54:38 AM PST by snarks_when_bored
Fox News alert a few minutes ago says the Dover School Board lost their bid to have Intelligent Design introduced into high school biology classes. The federal judge ruled that their case was based on the premise that Darwin's Theory of Evolution was incompatible with religion, and that this premise is false.
The ACLU represented the parents (plaintiffs) free of charge. And I agree, the judge overstepped his bounds in the ruling. The case should have never gone to a federal court. It was local and should not have gone past the state level.
Uh huh. Excessive condescending use of "lad" "sport" and "son" must be what makes a heavyweight. I'll keep that in mind Chief.
I just finished reading the decision.
The judge was absolutely correct in kicking this ID clap-trap out of the schools. Read it for yourself.
Here's the short version:
Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District:
Page 24-26:
We initially note that John Haught, a theologian who testified as an expert witness for Plaintiffs and who has written extensively on the subject of evolution and religion, succinctly explained to the Court that the argument for ID is not a new scientific argument, but is rather an old religious argument for the existence of God. He traced this argument back to at least Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century, who framed the argument as a syllogism: Wherever complex design exists, there must have been a designer; nature is complex; therefore nature must have had an intelligent designer. (Trial Tr. vol. 9, Haught Test., 7-8, Sept. 30, 2005).
Dr. Haught testified that Aquinas was explicit that this intelligent designer “everyone understands to be God.” Id. The syllogism described by Dr. Haught is essentially the same argument for ID as presented by defense expert witnesses Professors Behe and Minnich who employ the phrase “purposeful arrangement of parts.” Dr. Haught testified that this argument for the existence of God was advanced early in the 19th century by Reverend Paley and defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich admitted that their argument for ID based on the “purposeful arrangement of parts” is the same one that Paley made for design. (9:7-8 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 23, Behe Test., 55-57, Oct. 19, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 38, Minnich Test., 44, Nov. 4, 2005). The only apparent difference between the argument made by Paley and the argument for ID, as expressed by defense expert witnesses Behe and Minnich, is that ID’s “official position” does not acknowledge that the designer is God. However, as Dr. Haught testified, anyone familiar with Western religious thought would immediately make the association that the tactically unnamed designer is God, as the description of the designer in Of Pandas and People (hereinafter “Pandas”) is a “master intellect,” strongly suggesting a supernatural deity as opposed to any intelligent actor known to exist in the natural world. (P-11 at 85). Moreover, it is notable that both Professors Behe and Minnich admitted their personal view is that the designer is God and Professor Minnich testified that he understands many leading advocates of ID to believe the designer to be God. (21:90 (Behe); 38:36-38 (Minnich)).
Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendants’ expert witnesses. (20:102-03 (Behe)). In fact, an explicit concession that the intelligent designer works outside the laws of nature and science and a direct reference to religion is Pandas’ rhetorical statement, “what kind of intelligent agent was it [the designer]” and answer: “On its own science cannot answer this question. It must leave it to religion and philosophy.” (P-11 at 7; 9:13-14 (Haught)).
Page 30-33:
Further support for the proposition that ID requires supernatural creation is found in the book Pandas, to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are directed. Pandas indicates that there are two kinds of causes, natural and intelligent, which demonstrate that intelligent causes are beyond nature. (P-11 at 6). Professor Haught, who as noted was the only theologian to testify in this case, explained that in Western intellectual tradition, non-natural causes occupy a space reserved for ultimate religious explanations. (9:13-14 (Haught)). Robert Pennock, Plaintiffs’ expert in the philosophy of science, concurred with Professor Haught and concluded that because its basic proposition is that the features of the natural world are produced by a transcendent, immaterial, non-natural being, ID is a religious proposition regardless of whether that religious proposition is given a recognized religious label. (5:55-56 (Pennock)). It is notable that not one defense expert was able to explain how the supernatural action suggested by ID could be anything other than an inherently religious proposition. Accordingly, we find that ID’s religious nature would be further evident to our objective observer because it directly involves a supernatural designer.
A “hypothetical reasonable observer,” adult or child, who is “aware of the history and context of the community and forum” is also presumed to know that ID is a form of creationism. Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 531 (citations omitted); Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 624-25. The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism. What is likely the strongest evidence supporting the finding of ID’s creationist nature is the history and historical pedigree of the book to which students in Dover’s ninth grade biology class are referred, Pandas. Pandas is published by an organization called FTE, as noted, whose articles of incorporation and filings with the Internal Revenue Service describe it as a religious, Christian organization. (P-461; P-28; P-566; P-633; Buell Dep. 1:13, July 8, 2005). Pandas was written by Dean Kenyon and Percival Davis, both acknowledged creationists, and Nancy Pearcey, a Young Earth Creationist, contributed to the work. (10:102-08 (Forrest)).
As Plaintiffs meticulously and effectively presented to the Court, Pandas went through many drafts, several of which were completed prior to and some after the Supreme Court’s decision in Edwards, which held that the Constitution forbids teaching creationism as science.
By comparing the pre and post Edwards drafts of Pandas, three astonishing points emerge:
(1) the definition for creation science in early drafts is identical to the definition of ID
(2) cognates of the word creation (creationism and creationist), which appeared approximately 150 times were deliberately and systematically replaced with the phrase ID; and
(3) the changes occurred shortly after the Supreme Court held that creation science is religious and cannot be taught in public school science classes in Edwards.
This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content, which directly refutes FTE’s argument that by merely disregarding the words “creation” and “creationism,” FTE expressly rejected creationism in Pandas. In early pre- Edwards drafts of Pandas, the term “creation” was defined as “various forms of life that began abruptly through an intelligent agency with their distinctive features intact – fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc,” the very same way in which ID is defined in the subsequent published versions. (P- 560 at 210; P-1 at 2-13; P-562 at 2-14, P-652 at 2-15; P-6 at 99-100; P-11 at 99- 100; P-856.2.). This definition was described by many witnesses for both parties, notably including defense experts Minnich and Fuller, as “special creation” of kinds of animals, an inherently religious and creationist concept. (28:85-86 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 34, May 26, 2005; Trial Tr. vol. 1, Miller Test., 141-42, Sept. 26, 2005; 9:10 (Haught); Trial Tr. vol. 33, Bonsell Test., 54-56, Oct. 31, 2005). Professor Behe’s assertion that this passage was merely a description of appearances in the fossil record is illogical and defies the weight of the evidence that the passage is a conclusion about how life began based upon an interpretation of the fossil record, which is reinforced by the content of drafts of Pandas.
The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision. This compelling evidence strongly supports Plaintiffs’ assertion that ID is creationism re-labeled. Importantly, the objective observer, whether adult or child, would conclude from the fact that Pandas posits a master intellect that the intelligent designer is God.
Yes, and I'm glad you've pointed this out. I was very skeptical of this judge when the case started. I feared that he was a political hack, in way over his head, who would do whatever he felt was the politically correct thing.
I was flat-out wrong. I've read most of the opinion. It's a splendid piece of work. He even covered himself on the Lemon issue, by reaching his conclusion not only via that route, but by another. In a footnote he called it a "belt and suspenders" move. He understood everything!
Other cases will, in due course, change our perspective on the establishment clause. But this one is a classic, and it will be in the text books and in the law schools. It will be the model by which the next incarnation of creationism is dealt with.
Judge John E. Jones III -- I know you're lurking -- you done good! God bless you.
Ahh, I understand now. I apologize, as I was dead tired last night when I posted.
I must admit, the "time-traveling cell biologist" is one I'd not heard before.
That's an interesting comment, considering that the only person on FR I've ever seen defend slavery as an institution was a Creationist arguing from a Biblical perspective.
As far as I recall, the issue is whether biological entities, and other organized matter, could also be the product of intelligent design. The existence of design based on human efforts is hardly "irrelevant," as you say. It shows that design has a basis in reality, which is far more than I can say for an airborne pasta critter. The issue of a deity is not necessarily antecendent to the matter of intelligent design, although it happens to fit comfortably with a number of religious views.
Darwin says, "though I thank you for the honor," when under his breath he was probably muttering, "lest I be shot." At any rate, these words indicate Darwin wanted to distance himself from the author. But why would Marx want to dedicate a book, or volume, to Darwin? I happen to think Darwin did not really write what was on his mind, but measured his words so as to avoid a confrontation. Shall we put him on a stand and make him take an oath?
The same "proofs" that are being offered to support evolution, only different.
What this decision brings to light is that the notion of intelligent design and the notion that God is responsible for it is not only reasonable, but has basis in reality i the same reality science is enjoined to explore. The more science looks at the details of matter, the more evident it becomes that intelligent design is involved. Because this reality is in accord with the teaching that God exists, it is discordant with those who espouse wholly atheistic science, a definition and practice of science that is deficient at best, malicious at worst.
So, yes. This case shows that the mere notion of intelligent design irks evolutionists enough to cause them to make a federal case of it. Ultimately it is a case that will be lost, not only because it is not in accord with the fundamental reality that matter is organized and behaves according to predictable laws, but also because the constitution does not espouse or guarantee separation of church and state.
Good point. Darwin's theory is actually a hypothesis. It has never been proven, therefore the "Theory" classification is intellectually dishonest.
-----
Please, please, please stop with this tired, incorrect line of argument. Darwin had a theory. Specifically he had a theory to explain the diversity of life that we see around us. It is a theory because it makes predictions, is testable and is falsifiable. It is not "proven" because nothing in science EVER gets proven. ALL of science is tentative. Once you claim that something is "proven" then you are no longer doing science.
However, while ID claims to be a theory, it is not. It is not a theory because it makes no testable, falsifiable predictions.
I suspect the misclassification was adopted by Atheists
--
Not everyone who realises that ID is not a scientific thoery is an atheist. Many many of them are Christian. Why lie about them?
who are afraid of Christians and the message they bring, much as how "pro abortion" became "pro choice".
--
There is no correlation between opinions on abortion and opinion on pseudo-science
--
Lacking a relationship with Jesus, Atheists are desperate for substance in their lives, and will attempt to create an alternative to Christ - did you know that some alcoholics, trying to get clean actually worship door knobs rather than accept Jesus in their lives?
--
Name ONE alcoholic who worships a doorknob? And again, not everyone who realises that ID is not science is an atheist.
--
I know this is a very bad time of the year for Atheists, and this thread is bringing out the confusion, hate, fear, and lack of tolerance that rules their life.
--
Confusion? You are the one who confuses science with atheism.
--
Why else would they feel they must keep school children from hearing the word of God? What are you so afraid of?
--
But, I thought that Intelligent Design was meant to be science. Now it is the Word of God. It seems you ARE confused.
--
If your side were so sure God did not exist, that creationism, intelligent design, whatever, had no benefit or merit, you wouldn't bother with it any more than if your kid had to take Chinese or underwater basket weaving or high speed BB stacking.
--
Wrong again. If my kids were being taught ANY lies in school, I would be annoyed. Teaching them that ID is science is a lie.
--
No, the reason you are so desperate to keep even the slightest reference to God away from our children is because you are desperately afraid they will find a relationship with Our Lord, and you will be alone.
---
Nope. I dont care if kids are taught about gods of any sort. However, they should not be taught that nonscience is science. I happen to be very much in favour of kids learning about as many of the religions of the planet as possible. But not as science.
--
Have a Merry Christmas (you'll find it easier if you repent 1st)
--
Have a happy Christmas yourself. But I dont think I have anything on my conscience that I need to repent of at the moment.
OK. It's both inaccurate and completely disingenuous.
"Darwin had a theory. Specifically he had a theory to explain the diversity of life that we see around us. It is a theory because it makes predictions, is testable and is falsifiable... However, while ID claims to be a theory, it is not. It is not a theory because it makes no testable, falsifiable predictions."
While there are conflicting views within the ID camp, I have made an ID centric hypothesis which is testable and falsifiable. I do not describe ID as a theory because, in addition to your criteria, we also need some level of verification. This could take the form of test results or a statistical model. Neither of these have been accomplished.
My testable, falsifiable ID statement is:
"Due to information complexity and interdependence, no living organism can ever spontaneously arise from lifeless matter which exists in a naturally occurring state, but life can be created."
For more elaboration and defense of this claim please see an earlier post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1543993/posts?page=1488#1488
I don't have to defend your strawdog. I only have to demonstrate that what I asserted is true. It's a language thing. You all trusted in the trial judge in Cobb County and you all are about to be severely disappointed when my assertion is backed by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Furthermore, activism is like sex, you can only lose your virginity once. This fellow has crossed that Rubicon. Such is life is the world of unfettered statism and robes.
This should be interesting. A "conservative" making the case for government schools. Paying for all education regardless of need.
First, your "masses upon masses" of people who are in government schools are mostly people who could afford to educate their own children under a different plan. Particularly if they weren't forced to pay for other people's educations and all other manner of government scams.
But basically you are saying that the one and only way to provide education to the truly needy is the current system. The notion is preposterous to anyone who thinks about it. (other than liberals who have other reasons to support such a system)
Put on your thinking cap and think of possible alternate methods of provision. I bet you can think of some if you try.
Are we to return to the middle ages where we have a vast pool of completely uneducated people who are incapable of bettering themselves due to lack of opportunities?
Right out of the liberal Democratic handbook. C'mon, you can't tell me after a little thinking outside the "accepted dogma" that you really believe that stuff, can you?
I'm glad you caught the condescension, it was certainly purposeful.
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.