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.
Sorry. Meant to ping you to the preceeding post. Also VR since he often posts the Smithsonian skulls.
Did someone say "activist judge"? You mean, the staunch Republican judge appointed by staunch President Bush?
from pp. 137-138 of the Court's decision:
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.[emphasis added]
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 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.
So far, no one who has disagreed with the Judge's ruling, has been able to cite the specific text from the ruling and explain how his jurisprudence was in error.
FWIW, in Law a "best guess" is not admissible evidence.
No one? Perhaps you haven't been listening to or reading some of the legal scholars on this case, such as Judge Napalitano.
For a specific example, you might want to check out This Thread".
How does that thread/article qualify? Klinghoffer just quotes the judges conclusion. He doesn't say why it's wrong in terms of the evidence presented at trial. In fact he doesn't dicuss the trial at all. He just cherry picks a few athiestic evolutionists and ignores theistic evolutionsts.
From a legal perspective the trial itself and the opinions of the witnesses were all entirely irrelevant. The judge had no authority to rule one way or the other as to whether or not ID or Evolution was science or religion. The issue was whether the statement which the school board required to be read before the required teaching of evolution was "an establishment of religion" according to the Constitution?
The judge did not make his ruling on the statement itself (which was clearly innocuous and probably not a single student ever listened to it), but he made his ruling based upon his perception of the religious beliefs of those who passed the regulation.
That was clearly an improper judicial overreach. The Courts have no business WHATSOEVER in inquiring into the specific religious beliefs of lawmakers or School Boards. The Judge's sole obligation in this case was to simply make a determination as to whether the statement standing alone amounted to an establishment of religion. There was no need for a trial. On its face the statement was clearly not an establishment of religion and the case should have been dismissed on summary judgment motion.
But since the judge couldn't find an establishment clause violation on the face of the statement itself -- because on its face it was obviously innocuous -- he instead had to improperly inquire into the scientific validity of "Intelligent Design" and the motives and religious beliefs of the board members -- which is entirely irrelevant.
So there you have a legal critique of how the jurisprudence of the judge was in error. So don't go around saying that those who think this decision stinks to high heaven don't have a legal basis for our positions. We do. And those who support this decision need to ponder the implications of a court who can inquire into your religious beliefs to determine whether or not a law passed by you is constitutional or not.
If you want to check my qualifications, I have a law degree. I am an appellate Lawyer. What are your qualifications.
Absolutely.
This judge was theologizing and the implications are insidious.
Are discussions of Court rulings on the first amendment not a proper subject for the news forum or even the religion forum?
How nice. I assume you've read the opinion. And you therefore know that the judge was bound by Edwards v. Aguillard, holding that creationism doesn't belong in science class. That's the law, and conservative judges follow the law.
The defendant school board knew that too, as did their lawyers and the propagandists at the Discovery Institute. So the defense they cooked up (which has been in the works for years) was that they weren't pushing creationism. Oh no, heaven forbid! They were pushing ID. And ID is science! Yes indeed, science. Nothing but. So Edwards v. Aguillard doesn't apply. Right? That's the defense. That's the issue the school board presented to the court.
So what's a judge to do? Take their word for it and dismiss the case? Is that what you're claiming judges should do? Well, perhaps things are different where you practice law. Judge Jones didn't take the defendants at their word. Instead, he took testimony on their defense -- which is pretty much what goes on in every court.
And the record is an avalanche of evidence that ID is creationism and nothing but creationism. So the shabby defense didn't work. And the judge -- good conservative jurist that he is -- did his job as he's supposed to do.
Patrick, you've had too much Christmas Cheer!
On the sudden appearance of whole groups of Allied Species. The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by Professor Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species...Darwin, Origin, chap. 9
Merrry Christmas!
Perhaps you should read Scalis's dissent in Edwards v. Aguilard and decide if you agree with the majority or the dissent in that case.
Scalia predicted that the Lemon Test would be abused and it has.
"In the past we have attempted to justify our embarrassing Establishment Clause jurisprudence (7) on the ground that it "sacrifices clarity and predictability for flexibility." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Regan, 444 U.S., at 662. One commentator has aptly characterized this as "a euphemism . . . for . . . the absence of any principled rationale." Choper, supra n. 7, at 681. I think it time that we sacrifice some "flexibility" for "clarity and predictability." Abandoning Lemon's purpose test -- a test which exacerbates the tension between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, has no basis in the language or history of the Amendment, and, as today's decision shows, has wonderfully flexible consequences -- would be a good place to start."
You want to argue with that?
LOL, well, a small part of it anyhow.
Only Thomas would agree with that.
I've only just begun! But thanks for pointing out Darwin's usage of the term. I'll try to remember.
transmutation of species, transmutation of species, transmutation of species ...
I've read it. I suggest that if you ever argue before a conservative judge, like Jones, you should argue the actual holding, not the dissent. It'll carry you a lot farther.
In the Motion, Defendants argue that the DASD’s modest curriculum change does not violate the Constitution. In addition, Defendants assert that critically evaluating the theory of evolution, mentioning “intelligent design” in a ninth-grade biology class, and referring students to a book in the library on the subject of intelligent design do not violate the Establishment Clause. “The curriculum change at issue advances many secular educational purposes, and, given the undisputed fact that only the Darwinian theory of evolution will actually be taught in the ninthgrade biology class pursuant to Pennsylvania’s academic standards, DASD’s selection and purpose of Biology as its primary science text, and DASD’s unequivocal statement and disclaimer that intelligent design, creationism, or religion will not be taught in this class, its principal or primary effect neither advances nor inhibits religion.” (Defs.’ Br. Supp. Mot. Summ. J. at 21-22). Accordingly, Defendants contend that Plaintiffs’ claims fail as a matter of law.I've supplied the emphasis. It appears that both parties agreed to put the issue to the court as to whether the curriculum change was unconstitutional under that standard. You still say he had no authority to do what he did?We initially note that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” U.S. Const. amend. I. As Defendants submit, the prohibition against the establishment of religion applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Selman v. Cobb County Sch. Dist., 2005 WL 82829, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 13, 2005) (internal citations omitted); see also Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 49-50 (1985).
In their submissions to the Court, both parties concede that the applicable test to ascertain whether the challenged Policy is unconstitutional under the First Amendment is that of Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971) (“Lemon test”). See Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) (applying Lemon test to strike down Louisiana’s “Creationism Act”); see also Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968) (considering the purpose and the primary effect of an Arkansas statute forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools). As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13. As the Lemon test is disjunctive, either an improper purpose or an improper effect renders the Policy invalid under the Establishment Clause.
In the Motion, Defendants argue that the DASD’s modest curriculum change does not violate the Constitution. In addition, Defendants assert that critically evaluating the theory of evolution, mentioning “intelligent design” in a ninth-grade biology class, and referring students to a book in the library on the subject of intelligent design do not violate the Establishment Clause.In other words, the defendant school board made the nature of ID the issue in the case. Thus the judge had no choice but to evaluate their defense.
When I got to this point my jaw dropped.
"Second, by directing students to their families to learn about the “Origins of Life,” the paragraph performs the exact same function as did the Freiler disclaimer: It “reminds school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught by their parents on the subject of the origin of life,” thereby stifling the critical thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt, to protect a religious view from what the Board considers to be a threat.
Breathtaking. Judge Jones knows that there is a God because he is it. Reminding school children that they can rightly maintain beliefs taught to them by their parents is now unconstitutional because it may stifle critical thinking of evolutionary theory.
Richard Dawkins could have written this.
"Even assuming, however, that the Fifth Circuit correctly chose to apply the Lemon test, I believe the manner of its application so erroneous as independently to merit the granting of certiorari, if not summary reversal. Under the second prong of Lemon, the "principal or primary effect [of a state action] must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion." Lemon, supra, at 612. Far from advancing religion, the "principal or primary effect" of the disclaimer at issue here is merely to advance freedom of thought. At the outset, it is worth noting that the theory of evolution is the only theory actually taught in the Tangipahoa Parish schools. As the introductory paragraph of the resolution suggests, the disclaimer operates merely as a (perhaps not too believable) "disclaimer from endorsement" of that single theory, and not as an affirmative endorsement of any particular religious theory as to the origin of life, or even of religious theories as to the origin of life generally. The only allusion to religion in the entire disclaimer is a reference to the "Biblical version of Creation," mentioned as an illustrative example--surely the most obvious example--of a "concept" that the teaching of evolution was "not intended to influence or dissuade." The disclaimer does not refer again to the "Biblical version of Creation," much less provide any elaboration as to what that theory entails; instead, it merely reaffirms that "it is the basic right and privilege of each student to form his/her own opinion or maintain beliefs taught by parents on this very important matter of the origin of life and matter," and neutrally encourages students "closely [to] examine each alternative" before forming an opinion.
As even this cursory discussion of the disclaimer amply demonstrates, the Fifth Circuit's conclusion that "[t]he disclaimer ... encourages students to read and meditate upon religion in general and the 'Biblical version of Creation' in particular," 185 F.3d, at 346, lacks any support in the text of the invalidated document. In view of the fact that the disclaimer merely reminds students of their right to form their own beliefs on the subject, or to maintain beliefs taught by their parents--not to mention the fact that the theory of evolution is the only theory actually taught in the lesson that follows the disclaimer--there is "no realistic danger that the community would think that the [School Board] was endorsing religion or any particular creed, and any benefit to religion or to the Church would have been no more than incidental." Lamb's Chapel, supra, at 395. At bottom, the disclaimer constitutes nothing more than "simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people of this country," Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 792 (1983). See also Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673 (1984) ("Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any").
In denying the petition for rehearing, the Fifth Circuit panel took another tack: "In denying rehearing, we emphasize that we do not decide that a state-mandated statement violates the Constitution simply because it disclaims any intent to communicate to students that the theory of evolution is the only accepted explanation of the origin of life, informs students of their right to follow their religious principles, and encourages students to evaluate all explanations of life's origins, including those taught outside the classroom. We decide only that under the facts and circumstances of this case, the statement of the Tangipahoa Parish School Board is not sufficiently neutral to prevent it from violating the Establishment Clause." 201 F.3d, at 603. Inasmuch as what the disclaimer contains is nothing more than what this statement purports to allow, the explanation is incoherent. Reference to unnamed "facts and circumstances of this case" is not a substitute for judicial reasoning. The only aspect of the disclaimer that could conceivably be regarded as going beyond what the rehearing statement purports to approve is the explicit mention--as an example--of "the Biblical version of Creation." To think that this reference to (and plainly not endorsement of) a reality of religious literature--and this use of an example that is not a contrived one, but to the contrary the example most likely to come into play--somehow converts the otherwise innocuous disclaimer into an establishment of religion is quite simply absurd.
In Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), we invalidated a statute that forbade the teaching of evolution in public schools; in Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), we invalidated a statute that required the teaching of creationism whenever evolution was also taught; today we permit a Court of Appeals to push the much beloved secular legend of the Monkey Trial one step further. We stand by in silence while a deeply divided Fifth Circuit bars a school district from even suggesting to students that other theories besides evolution--including, but not limited to, the Biblical theory of creation--are worthy of their consideration. I dissent."
Neutrality my ass. It will be simply amazing once Alito is confirmed how establishment and free exercise clause jurisprudence will evolve. Can't wait.
The judge is all mixed up in his values, priorities and thinking. Sad.
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.