Judging Darwin and God (e-mail title: Education or Indoctrination?)

Seattle Times ^ | 12/23/'05 | David Klinghoffer

[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.

[xzins]

I have gone through it, and my statement stands.

It is a ridiculous assertion that evolution poses no contradiction to anyone's Christian faith....it is as this article says nothing more than the judge's personal theology. (Fine - judges now get to impose their theology.)

The statement that ID grew out of fundamentalism is simply not historical, so it is again this judge's personal opinion based on some misunderstanding of fundamentalism, ID, or both.

That ID is a form of creationism requires theologizing on the judge's part. It's the only way to get from A to B.

[Elsie]

 

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.

 

---

HMmmm...    Let me help!

---

 

 

Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says.  If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and then of the New Testament writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:

 

Romans 5:12-21
 12.  Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
 13.  for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
 14.  Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
 15.  But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
 16.  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
 17.  For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
 18.  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
 19.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
 20.  The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
 21.  so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

 

 

 

If there were  no one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.

 

If Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.

 

If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.

 

 

Are we to believe that the one man is symbolic?  Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?

 

 

The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.

 

 

 

 

1 Timothy 2:13

  For Adam was formed first, then Eve.   Was Paul WRONG about this???

 

 

 

[Elsie]

What part of MAJORITY is offensive to you?

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".

[Elsie]

And discredits you as a Freep poster.

Ouch!

Now more than HALF of us folks will have to find another pasttime!

;^)

[Elsie]

(who are not contributors in the economic sense)

Just WHO is using 'labels' now??

---

Just what does it take, to be a - 'contributor in the economic sense'?

[Elsie]

In Virginia, until recently, the school boards were appointed by the county Boards of Supervisors.

Who were voted in.

[kindred]

[This article is full of crap. ID is not science.]

Evolution is not science either. It is but a theory that some part of science supports and most science stands against; such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and transmutation of species. Those who support evolution try to make adaption of species into mutation of species and therefore give rise to other different species. Not so. They are only sub species of the same species, much as you breed two different dogs to make another sub species. That is not evolution by any means.
The science of Creationism is so well grounded that the atheist liberals and conservatives refuse to even consider it and use the tactics of the liberal left neo nazi pols; attack and destroy politically that which you can not logically or scientifically defeat. That conservatives who pride themselves on their ability to think and discern follow the same principles of left wing fascism is despicable.

[P-Marlowe]

Thank you for posting this article. You know, I read the decision of the Judge and kind of glossed over the statement that he made that Darwinism "in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator". I knew there was something insidious about that statement and then it hit me when this article came out. He had no business making such a decision. It is not his job to determine whether or not Darwinianism is antethetical to God. To make that decision is to make a religious statement and specifically to judge that those religious people who believe that God and Darwin do not mix are in error in their religious beliefs.

Whenever a poster states that Darwinism is a religion they get pummeled with insults, but it is clear that the Jugdes decision to favor Dawinism over Fundamentalism and to disparge the religious views of fundamentalists and then to claim that their religious position is without merit comes hundreds of miles closer to an establishment of Religion -- in this case the cult of Dawinianism -- than a simple statement in a science class that ID may present an alternative viewpoint to the conclusions of that cult.

The author here has captured the essence of what was wrong with both the trial and the decision. The judge's religious view is that God and Darwin are compatible. That is not a scientific conclusion, but a religious belief. He has now made his religious belief the law of the land. He has done exactly what he falsely accused the Dover School Board of doing.

[Coyoteman]

Evolution is not science either. It is but a theory that some part of science supports and most science stands against; such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and transmutation of species. Those who support evolution try to make adaption of species into mutation of species and therefore give rise to other different species. Not so. They are only sub species of the same species, much as you breed two different dogs to make another sub species. That is not evolution by any means.

The science of Creationism is so well grounded that the atheist liberals and conservatives refuse to even consider it and use the tactics of the liberal left neo nazi pols; attack and destroy politically that which you can not logically or scientifically defeat. That conservatives who pride themselves on their ability to think and discern follow the same principles of left wing fascism is despicable.

You are wrong in so many places, all I can say in response is check out PatrickHenry's List-O-Links. (Just your 2nd law of thermodynamics comment is enough to make you a laughingstock to anyone who knows anything about science.)

Nothing I could say would probably change your mind about anything, so enjoy looking at some hard data.

[To PH: This post is a bit long but some sentences might qualify for the "Your Brain on Creationism" series.]

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[RadioAstronomer]

Thank you. :-)

[P-Marlowe]

Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison

Piltdown.

[PatrickHenry]

This post [#67] is a bit long but some sentences might qualify for the "Your Brain on Creationism" series.

I was pondering that even before I scrolled down to your comment. Unfortunately, although that post is certainly a classic, the sentences I like are all too long for inclusion in THIS IS YOUR BRAIN ON CREATIONISM. However, the goodies should be highlighted here, so others can savor them:

Evolution is not science either. It is but a theory that some part of science supports and most science stands against; such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics and transmutation of species.
67 posted on 12/24/2005 10:01:09 AM EST by kindred

Gotta love it! Not only the 2nd Law again, but a phrase I've never seen before: "transmutation of species," presumably a linguistic re-packaging of macro-evolution (which is Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise).

The science of Creationism is so well grounded that the atheist liberals and conservatives refuse to even consider it and use the tactics of the liberal left neo nazi pols; attack and destroy politically that which you can not logically or scientifically defeat.
67 posted on 12/24/2005 10:01:09 AM EST by kindred

Fantastic! Where else can you find entertainment like this?

[Coyoteman]

Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison

Piltdown.

Nice quip.

But since you bring Piltdown up, a little data.

Some researchers recognized early on that Piltdown didn't fit, especially after the South African finds of the 1920s. Friedrichs and Weidenreich had both, by about 1932, published their research suggesting the lower jaws and molars were that of an orang (E.A. Hooton, Up from the Ape, revised edition; The MacMillan Co., 1946). Piltdown was disproved in 1954 (by paleontologists), but it had been widely ignored by the serious researchers for decades by then.

Summary: after the South African finds of the 1920s, a lot of folks realized that Piltdown simply did not fit the preponderance of the evidence and worked to figure out why. That is how science works.

[longshadow]

The science of Creationism is so well grounded that the atheist liberals and conservatives refuse to even consider it and use the tactics of the liberal left neo nazi pols; attack and destroy politically that which you can not logically or scientifically defeat.
67 posted on 12/24/2005 10:01:09 AM EST by kindred

Fantastic! Where else can you find entertainment like this?

I'm not sure, but while you await more brilliant and entertaining analyses like that one, here's a juicy morsel from the Dover ruling that effectively demolishes the quote you cited:

Not a single expert witness over the course of the six week trial identified one major scientific association, society or organization that endorsed ID as science. What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community. (21:37-38 (Behe); Fuller Dep. at 98-101, June 21, 2005; 28:47 (Fuller); Minnich Dep. at 89, May 26, 2005). P. 70

[emphasis added]

[PatrickHenry]

What is more, defense experts concede that ID is not a theory as that term is defined by the NAS and admit that ID is at best “fringe science” which has achieved no acceptance in the scientific community.

Shocking! All the evidence showed that? And even the defense conceded it? And based on the evidence -- as conceded by both sides -- this activist judge dared to conclude that ID isn't science? Oh, how horrible!

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Nice picture!

The "A" skull is a chimp; "B-F" skulls are from apes; "G-N" skulls are basically modern man.

What are you trying to show here? Are you suggesting "A" (chimp) evolved into "B" (ape) and eventually "F" (another ape) evolved into "G" (modern man)? Seems confusing.

What evidence lead you to believe this? The picture above?

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

I should add that the differences between G-N are no greater than the differences between an Inuit and an African, or a pygmy and a European.

[Coyoteman]

Nice picture!

The "A" skull is a chimp; "B-F" skulls are from apes; "G-N" skulls are basically modern man.

What are you trying to show here? Are you suggesting "A" (chimp) evolved into "B" (ape) and eventually "F" (another ape) evolved into "G" (modern man)? Seems confusing.

What evidence lead you to believe this? The picture above?

My only comment on these was "enjoy looking at some hard data." I prefer bones to genetics, so that is what I usually post.

It is originally from a Smithsonian site, and the labels are theirs.

But to answer your question, no Pan did not evolve into anything. I assume it is there as a reference skull.

Try the chart below for some thoughts on relationships:

[jwalsh07]

Yes he has, an excellent critique.

Merry Christmas to you and yours. God bless.

[Stultis]

"F" (another ape) evolved into "G" (modern man)?

LOL! G (Dmanisi cranium D2700) with its mixture of Habilis and Erectus traits, is almost exactly INTERMEDIATE between F and H. And even H isn't "modern man;" it's Homo erectus, which is followed by a whole series of "archaic" sapiens before you get anatomically modern forms.

And btw your "ape" F (KNM-ER 1470) had a LARGER BRAIN than your "modern man" G: ER1470 = 750cc, D2700 = 600cc. (Granted that ER 14170 had an unusually large cranial capacity for habilis, but D2700 is within the habiline range even without it.)

And if D2700 is so clearly "modern man," then why won't creationists say so?