Posted on 09/27/2005 9:21:27 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
HARRISBURG, Pa. - The second day of a trial over what students should be told about evolution and alternative views of life's origins veered briefly into a discussion of faith.
Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, a witness for eight families suing the Dover Area School District for introducing the concept of "intelligent design," was asked by a school attorney whether faith and reason are compatible.
"I believe not only that they are compatible but that they are complimentary," said Miller, who had earlier volunteered that he was a practicing Roman Catholic.
Pressed on that point, Miller was asked why a biology textbook he had written included a statement that evolution is "random and undirected." Miller said he had a co-author on the textbook, a 1995 edition, and that he missed that statement. He said he did not believe evolution was random and undirected.
It was the second day on the witness stand for Miller, whose testimony Monday made the landmark trial sound like a science lecture, with references to DNA, red blood cells, viruses and complex charts shown on a projection screen.
Even U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was a little overwhelmed.
"I guess I should say, 'Class dismissed,'" Jones said before recessing for lunch.
Dover is believed to be the nation's first school system to mandate students be exposed to the intelligent design concept. Its policy requires school administrators to read a brief statement before classes on evolution that says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps." It refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.
Intelligent design holds that Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force.
Eight families sued, saying that the district policy in effect promotes the Bible's view of creation, violating the constitutional separation of church and state.
On Monday, Miller said the policy undermines scientific education by wrongly raising doubts about evolutionary theory.
"It's the first movement to try to drive a wedge between students and the scientific process," he said.
But the rural school district of about 3,500 students argues it is not endorsing any religious view and is merely giving ninth-grade biology classes a glimpse of differences in evolutionary theory.
"This case is about free inquiry in education, not about a religious agenda," said Patrick Gillen of the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, Mich., in his opening statement. The center, which lobbies for what it sees as the religious freedom of Christians, is defending the school district.
The non-jury trial is expected to take five weeks.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs began their case by arguing that intelligent design is a religious theory inserted in the school district's curriculum by the school board with no concern for whether it has scientific underpinnings.
"They did everything you would do if you wanted to incorporate a religious point of view in science class and cared nothing about its scientific validity," attorney Eric Rothschild said.
Miller, who was the only witness Monday, sharply criticized intelligent design and questioned the work that went into it by one of its leading proponents, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who will be a key witness for the district.
The statement read to Dover students states in part, "Because Darwin's theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered." Miller said the words are "tremendously damaging," falsely undermining the scientific status of evolution.
"What that tells students is that science can't be relied upon and certainly is not the kind of profession you want to go into," he said.
"There is no controversy within science over the core proposition of evolutionary theory," he added.
On the other hand, Miller said, "intelligent design is not a testable theory in any sense and as such it is not accepted by the scientific community."
During his cross-examination of Miller, Robert Muise, another attorney for the law center, repeatedly asked whether he questioned the completeness of Darwin's theory.
"Would you agree that Darwin's theory is not the absolute truth?" Muise said.
"We don't regard any scientific theory as the absolute truth," Miller responded.
The Dover lawsuit is the newest chapter in a history of evolution litigation dating back to the Scopes Monkey Trial in Tennessee nearly 80 years ago. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1987 that states may not require public schools to balance evolution lessons by teaching creationism.
Reading glasses gone missing. Good excuse?
I'll buy that ;)
What religion is being "imposed on students"? By your standards, you are a liar if you can not answer that question. Claiming that ID is a religion is simply false and arguing that ID is being imposed as a mandadtory requirement is patently false since any reading of any ID information is strictly voluntary.
As a rule I don't like to toss the word liar around casually but I also don't flinch at tossing it back in the faces of people who do use it casually. So I repeat, what religion in the context of the 1A has been "imposed on students"?
You're a fair minded guy general but I knew you wouldn't buy the dog ate my glasses excuse so I came up with that one. :-}
Use your brain. At 10,000 years ago, what are the chances that you would be on FreeRepublic on September 27th, 2005? Or even be born at all?
Astronomically looooooooooooow. But yet you're alive. How is this possible?!
What would expect of the religion of Love?
Deism. Which happens to be my religion, by the way.
ID denying religious motives is akin to Peter denying Christ. It is a falsehood, and one meant for selfish benefit.
The reading of the statement is a mandatory requirement being imposed on the teachers by the school board. That statement presents ID as an implied equivalent competing theory and endorses an ID text, which is conveniently available right there in the classroom.
To me it appears you either cannot or will not see the deception being put forth, and instead you are willing to rationalize it as virtuous through word parsing. As such, you are aiding in the promotion of Satan's plan of forcing God's children back to Him by denying them their free agency.
>>> Biology is science, while evolution is merely academic opinion based largely on philosophy...Biology continues regardless of what the origin of any species is, whether one be creationist, or evolutionist, biology remains the same.
Would you apply similar thinking to say Geology and the theory of plate tectonics(continental drift)? Should ID be taught in Earth Science classes as well?
Oh, well that makes it OK then.
There are far to many variables. We're not talking coin flips here. And that's even if we knew all the applicable laws of nature precisely, which we don't. For instance there's much that's relevant (even if independent of evolution per se) that is unkown or inadequately known in the realm of simple chemistry.
Forget lying, this is simply stupidity. Now you're arguing that Christian Creationists are imposing Deism on public school students. Your argument is breathtaking in its lunacy.
ID denying religious motives is akin to Peter denying Christ. It is a falsehood, and one meant for selfish benefit.
You don't seem to understand that motives are non-justiciable. Why is that?
The reading of the statement is a mandatory requirement being imposed on the teachers by the school board.
That's what school boards do in the American Federalist system. Local school boards tell teachers what to teach. You with me here?
That statement presents ID as an implied equivalent competing theory and endorses an ID text, which is conveniently available right there in the classroom.
Well, by all means, call Farhrenheit 451, a book needs burning. The book is not taught, it is not in the classroom and thus you have made another false assertion. False assertions win no arguments and put no gold stars on your forehead.
To me it appears you either cannot or will not see the deception being put forth, and instead you are willing to rationalize it as virtuous through word parsing.
What I see as non virtuous is faux conservatives driven by their science influenced ideology willing to trash the Constitution and the powers of locals. That would be you. You don't want your kids in that school, move. You want school board members who won't challenge scientific dogma, vote them out. But keep the feds the hell out of my towns business. Clear enough for you?
As such, you are aiding in the promotion of Satan's plan of forcing God's children back to Him by denying them their free agency.
LOL, you can't help yourself, you are what you claim anybody who disagrees with you is, a damn liar. I belive that's called projection.
Project on!
In this particular federal case the school in question does not teach ID. Got another argument?
Now here's a question for you. Is there anything you don't think the federal courts should have their black robed noses stuck in?
You suggest a false, even farcical, reading of the First Amendment. It doesn't prohibit only the establishment of a full and functioning religion complete with churches. It prohibits any law (and by extension of the 14th Amendment, any formal government policy) "respecting," an establishment of religion. "Respecting" is not a throwaway word. It means that anything like an establishment, or anything touching upon an establishment, is prohibited.
IOW it doesn't merely say you can't go all the way toward establishing religion, it says you can't go part of the way either.
It's also worth bearing in mind, which is frequently forgotten today, that "establishment of religion" had a much broader connotation in the American colonial and early republican context than it did in the European context.
The Europeans did typically, and in some cases still do, establish a particular church or denomination as the official state religion. This was almost never done in the colonies or the early American states. Virtually all "establishments of religion" in America were either multiple (more than one denomination was recognized as official and supported by the state or by taxes) or general (for instance the citizen might be able to specify without restriction which denomination his otherwise mandatory religion tax would go to).
In consequence of these uniquely American patterns of religious establishment the writers of the constitution would have, and in fact did, recognized the term as including general measures respecting the advancement, or inhibition, of religion, not just specific favors toward a chosen sect or denomination.
I think it's pretty clear that government policies tending to validate the existence of an "intelligent designer" advance religion.
Now if there are independent reasons for such policies (for instance that ID really is, on objective examination, a part of science) then there's no problem with that. This same issue came up concerning evolution back in the 70's, when some creationists were still trying to ban it outright. They argued in court that evolution either inhibited religion, or that it advanced the "religion of secular humanism," and therefore that it was illegal to teach it. Judges refused to consider this argument because, they noted, evolution clearly was a part of science, and therefore there was a valid secular purpose in teaching it in a science class. IOW it didn't matter if it incidentally advanced or inhibited religon, so long as that wasn't the purpose of principal effect of the policy.
In short it seems to me that the defendants will have to show a valid secular purpose, and that this purpose was the intent of the school board, and will be the principal effect of the policy, or they will lose.
I think they will lose, and rightly so.
So what? They reference and recommend specific ID materials. Therefore the policy advances ID, and therefore subjects the school board to the same vulnerability (if the court finds that advancing ID = advancing religion) as if they were teaching it more actively.
Drivel !!!
Show us the philosophical component of any branch of Mathematics, or Physics, or Chemistry? I engage in no dichotomy whatsoever. Philosophy negates the necessary objectivity, thus rendering academic dogma rather than scientific observation. Belief in evolution is an insurmountable barrier to objective science.
In 1939 the late, great Robert Heinlein, Naval officer, futurist, and author wrote:
"There are but two ways of forming an opinion in science. One is the scientific method; the other, the scholastic. One can judge from experiment, or one can blindly accept authority. To the scientific mind, experimental proof is all-important, and theory is merely a convenience in description, to be junked when it no longer fits. To the academic mind, authority is everything, and facts are junked when they do not fit theory laid down by authority."It is this point of view - academic minds clinging like oysters to disproved theories - that has blocked every advance of knowledge in history."
Only if the disproven philosophy of evolution is being presented there.
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.