Posted on 12/23/2005 12:57:35 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
Issuing theological statements isn't normally thought of as the job of a federal judge. Yet, this week when U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III released the first federal ruling on intelligent design, there was at the core of his written decision an unambiguously theological ruling: that evolution as formulated by Charles Darwin presents no conflict with the God of the Bible.
Quite apart from what one thinks of his legal decision, what should we make of his theology?
In brief, Jones ruled that disparaging Darwinian evolutionary theory in biology class violates the separation of church and state. The context is Kitzmiller v. Dover, a case dealing with the question of whether a school district may teach about an alternative theory, intelligent design (ID). The latter finds hallmarks of a designer's work in the evidence of nature.
Wrote Jones, "[M]any 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, [p]laintiffs' scientific experts testified that thetheory of evolution... in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator."
As a matter of fact, Jones is wrong. Darwinism is indeed "antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general." There are three reasons for this, and you don't have to be a theologian to grasp the point.
First, consider the views on religion from leading Darwinists themselves. Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins, the most distinguished of modern Darwin advocates, writes that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate."
In his book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea," Daniel Dennett, of Tufts University, condemns conservative Christians for, among other things, "misinforming [their] children about the natural world" and compares such a religion to a wild animal: "Safety demands that religions be put in cages, too — when absolutely necessary."
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, at the University of Texas, declares, "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that."
At the University of Minnesota, biologist P.Z. Myers, a bulldog for Darwin, writes about how he wishes he could use a time machine to go back and eliminate the biblical patriarch Abraham: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."
And so on. These are just a few examples but the bottom line is evident: Not all Darwinists, including the most famous and admired, share Judge Jones' view that Darwin and God may coexist peacefully.
Second, and more fundamentally, Darwinism and religious faith begin from antithetical metaphysical assumptions. In "The Origin of Species," Darwin's working premise is that God has no role in the unfolding of the history of life. In view of this belief, which he never states or defends but simply assumes, Darwin goes on to detail his theory about natural selection operating on random variation. It is only in the absence of a supreme being working out his will in the evolution of life that we would even undertake Darwin's search in the first place. That was a search for a purely materialistic explanation of how complex organisms arise.
As Darwin himself clarified in his correspondence, "I would give absolutely nothing for the theory of natural selection if it requires miraculous additions at any one stage of descent."
Religion, by contrast, does not assume that material reality is all there is.
This may be why, third and finally, thinkers who have tried to assert the compatibility of God and Darwin invariably end up changing the meaning of one or the other. Those, for example, who say that God may operate through the medium of Darwinian evolution have resorted to a logical fallacy. Again, the whole purpose of Darwin's theory is to discover a model by which life could have evolved without a need for God. Anyone asserting a full-bodied Darwinism has, by definition, rendered God superfluous and irrelevant.
The comforting thought articulated by Judge Jones, that we may have both our God and our Darwin, doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as some of the fiercer Darwinists themselves evidently recognize.
What this says about the public-policy question — What may be taught in schools? — should be clear enough. Whether children are taught materialism (Darwin), or an openness to what transcends nature (intelligent design), they are being taught not merely science but a philosophy about life and existence itself.
The idea that it is constitutional to expose young people to one such worldview, but not lawful to introduce them to another, is not really education. It is indoctrination.
Intelligent Design has fizzled--Part 2
5. ID has no record of carrying out scientific experiments or suggesting experiments or providing descriptive classifications or understandings. The major thesis of ID is, "Gee, it is so complicated, so we can explain this only by saying 'God did it.'." Since this idea can be applied to anything we do not understand, it lacks intellectual rigor. As in the case of Paley's The Blind Watchmaker--from which ID derives--it is fundamentally anti-intellectual and rejects the notion that human intellect can puzzle out the complexities. It is noteworthy that IDists do not attempt to apply their notion to quantum mechanics.
6. As shown in the ID document Wedge, http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html, ID adherents attribute a slew of moral and social evils to the theory of evolution, claiming that it fosters "materialism", "naturalistic explanations", and is anti-theistic. Some even go further to claim that the "naturalism" of evolution is responsible for most of the evils of the world. However, to many conservatives that ID hoped to attract, the idea of materialism is perfectly fine and not inconsistent with their theological views. The idea of an ordered social hierarchy fits with evolution and conservative, libertarian values. ID thus offers nothing attractive to these groups and the idea that a grand "designer" directly intervenes to make some people more successful, as suggested by ID, leaves social conservatives uncomforttable.
7. A major problem with ID is that it accepts supernatural forces and actions as being on the same plane with engineering and real science. Since evolution is based on an interwoven network of concepts from geology, physics, astronomy, paleontology, if ID wins wide acceptance, then all such disciplines are equally discredited. Few conservatives or liberals wish to go there. The problem is the mind-set of ID.
The mindset is superstitious in nature. There are many people who are happy to see science and rationalism debased, because they hold to views about psychic phenomena, UFOs, appearances of the Virgin Mary in weird places, astrology, dowsing, predictions of Nostradamus, hidden codes in the Bible, reincarnation, a heaven/paradise after death, and a hundred other non-rational beliefs. The fundamental issue is a rational, healthy outlook on the world, with joy in its beauties and sadness for what some people sometimes do, vs. a supernatural outlook, in which gods intervene willy-nilly, some people have "hidden psychic powers", and happiness is determined (or pre-determined) by weird forces that do not stand up to rational inquiry.
8. A major weakness of ID is the matter of implementation. It's one thing to have a design, but how does it get turned into a fabrication? Every engineer knows that a first design runs into "but we can't make that". Other design flaws frequently appear until there is sufficient reiteration between makers and designers. This may be the the ID explanation for species extinction!
But, now suppose we have an "intelligent design" for an eye. Where and when does this get implemented? Since the coding starts with the DNA of a single cell, maybe each fertilized egg is made by the god-designer. On the other hand, maybe the divine intervention comes only when cells begin to differentiate. Or maybe when humans evolved 2 million years ago and the design has been on auto-pilot ever since? And was the planet earth itself intelligently designed? These are many questions ID has no answer for.
Teach the alternative to chemical periodicity.
Chemical Periodicity: 112 elements and counting, and they keep rearranging the periodic table! Where will it stop?
Intelligent Chemistry:
4 elements: Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. Hasn't changed in millenia. If it was good enough for the ancient Greeks, it's good enough to be taught in science class.
I've stayed out of all this, but I have an hour to kill, and was curious:
Your assertion seems, on the face of it, self-evidently incorrect.
What am I missing here?
I keep imaging what if some muslim folks got elected to a majority on a school board, and were to mandate the teaching of some Islamic "truths". Aren't I correct in assuming you'd take exactly the same steps?
Your point therefore seems to reveal that you didn't read the article.
You have exactly the right idea.
See http://www.re-discovery.org/ for an amusing description of what you posted.
But "evolution could just be how God did it".
So the article is clearly wrong.
Does that matter to y'all?
I read it and his conclusions are garbage. So my statement stands.
Voting them out is fine. Bringing a lawsuit was not.
As for the school board forcing something on the teachers, normally the purpose of a school board is to represent the town and the parents.
Of course school boards can sometimes behave badly, but so can unionized teachers in the public schools.
Why?
If it were muslims, pushing Jihad or some such into the classrooms, wouldn't you seek immediate redress thru a lawsuit?
Nothing, you're right on the money. All anyone needs to do is bother to read the following excerpt from the judge's decision, from pp. 137-138:
Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.
Judicial activism is when judges make up law that doesn't exist. Judge Jones followed precedent every step of the way in his jurisprudence; in point of fact he had no choice; to do otherwise would have been an act of the very "judicial activism" for which so many of his detractors have such contempt. The only "activists" in this case were the nutballs on the school board who lied and connived to change the science curriculum to suit their personal religious beliefs and preferences, and the dorks in the anti-Evo PR organizations and law firms who egged them on.
But when, as here, we have: (a) a US Supreme Court case that says it's unconstitutional to teach creationism as science; and (b) a shady school board that claims their ID stuff is really really really science -- wink wink -- (so the Sup Ct decision doesn't apply to what they're doing), the judge has no choice but to examine their defense. That's his job.
The school board raised the issue of whether ID is science. The judge didn't go around creating this controversy. He was thrust into it by a zealous school board and their lawyers. You can blame the judge if you like, but he did a great conservative job of applying the law as it existed.
Yes, that's what I thought, too. And I don't understand the arguments of the 'ID' folks on this, so I thought I'd ask.
The 'crevo' threads are usually too hot to get into. I don't want to fight! So I saw this thread as quiet (for the moment), and dared to ask.
They are upset and are lashing out emotionally, latching onto the first idea that pops into their heads to explain this decision. The intellectually easy way out is to scream "activist commie homo-loving judge."
But the reality is if they don't want federal judges messy around in public school curriculam then they ought to mad at the school board members who sought out the activist law firm BEFORE they changed the science class policy (without ever seeking any professional scientific advice), which means they were already lining up legal representation BEFORE a lawsuit was ever filed!
In short, the law form was itching for a Federal case on ID, and the Dover SChool Board was loaded with exactly the sort of dupes they wanted to gen up a case for them.
The judge was right when he said the students and taxpayers of Dover were ill-served by this litigation, and the people to blame for it are the idiots on the Dover school board (who repeatedly lied under oath) and the law firm that conned them into this ill-advised adventure.
You wrote: "Quite apart from what one thinks of his legal decision, what should we make of his theology?"
Reply:
I think your question is extremely revealing. If we have a Republic of laws and judicial processes, then why is his 'theology' relevant? If we enjoy the benefits of advances in knowlege in science and engineering, then why is an individual's personal 'theology' relevant?
We all know that a person's personal theology is not a good measure of their qualities as a citizen. We all know that personal faith and public displays of piety are often not the same.
Your question seems to show that your concern is about theolgy and not about science or public policy. It is significant that the Founding Fathers wrote into our Constitution, "there shall be no religious test for...". Attacking Judge Jones for his 'theology' is not only cheap, but a discredit your position. And discredits you as a Freep poster.
I'm a software architect, I deal with the analysis of complex systems on a daily basis.
And many, many people just don't understand the workings of complex systems. Systems like a 'survival of the fittest' feedback loop.
I don't consider them stupid or anything. But I do enjoy trying to find out what their questions are, and they seeing if I can possibly explain anything.
And I rarely find it useful to be insulting to them. :-)
That's the kind of thing that keeps me from getting into most of the 'crevo' threads. Both sides seem unable to resist tossing personal slights around.
Have a merry Christmas. I'm headed out.
"This article is full of crap. ID is not science."
I won't respond in kind to your vitriol. Also, I won't argue that ID is "science" under the current paradigm of thinking. However, I will point out, that although totally matarialistic evolutionary theory may be indeed "science", it has adherents (quite a few - maybe even a majority) that it goes beyond being just "science" to being a worldview and philosophy. As such, it really has become more or less a "religion" to them. Those are statements that can be verified by the writings of these "scientists."
Everyone has some form of an "agenda" that is guided by their worldview. The truly honest will admit it. Hey, I'm biased and don't pretend to be otherwise.
Are you suggesting that a runaway liberal Supreme Court is the best judge of this, and we should just shut up?
You wrote: "Judges are not in business either to decide what is good and bad science or to decide what is good and bad theology."
Reply:
Your phrase "in the business of" is a cute way of disparaging what judges pledge to do--apply the laws. If you don't like the decision, you charge "activism". This is argument by labelism.
You forget--conveniently--that the First Amendment says there shall be "no establishment of religion."
We often hear the issue stated as 'separation of church and state'. However, this phrase is not in the Constitution; rather, the word in the First Amendment is "religion". It is 'religion' which is prohibited from being established by laws (not a church or churches).
This was not an oversight; the authors were thoughtful men, and they did not chose 'religion' over 'church' or 'philosophy' without careful thought to the meaning. Madison noted that throughout history "superstition, bigotry, and persecution" have accompanied the union of religion and government. He also noted that Christianity did not need the support of government to flourish.
The meaning of "no establishment of religion" at the time the Constitution was written is well known, and has frequently been discussed on other threads. It means there shall be no established, official, state church at the federal level. Nothing like the Church of England in the UK or the Catholic Church in 17th century France.
Establishment of religion was, however, permitted at the state level, and several states such as Massachusetts had established churches. If you didn't like it you could go to Connecticut or Rhode Island, as many did.
Religion was always permitted in the schools, and an important part of education was to teach children traditional ideas about moral behavior.
Activist judges put an end to that under the rubric of "separation of Church and State," which in fact is not in the constitution.
Note, too, that the Constitution guarantees "freedom of religion," a right that activist judges have severely encroached upon. Communities have not been free to celebrate Christmas in public spaces, have their children sing Christmas carols in school, or pray in assemblies. No one should be forced to pray, but neither should they be prevented from praying under threat of law.
Hopefully, some of these bad decisions can be reversed.
"Are you suggesting that a runaway liberal Supreme Court is the best judge of this, and we should just shut up?"
Reply:
Argument by labelism "runaway liberal".
Argument lost by having obviously wrong statements: The Dover case was decided in Federal District Court. Not by the Supreme Court, not even by the Appeals Court for the 3rd District.
Argument lost by hyper-excitement: "we should just shut up"
Nobody is making you stop talking. If you think your argument is futile--because it doesn't make sense to people you address it to--then rethinking might be in order.
There are numerous occasions when keeping silent is the best option.
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.