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.
You'll understand if I disagree with you. You'll understand why when I'm done correcting your misunderstanding of the 1A establishment clause, American history and establishment clause jurisprudence.
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.
Like a lot of people on the left you see the words "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" but you read "No public entity shall mention anything respecting religion." The fellow who penned those words, one Fisher Ames, would probably know a bit more of the original intent of same than you and I. In his words:
Kinda blows your liberal reading of the establishment clause right out of the water Stultis. Taken to its logical conclusion your reading of the establishment clause would ban anything respecting religion from the public square. Your reading is simply wrong. Respecting religion and respecting an establishment of religion are two entirely different notions and you'd do well to understand that.
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 says no such thing. What the 1A say, in simple English, is that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, ie no Church of England, or prohibit the free exercise thereof. The free exercise clause makes your respecting argument null and void as does American history.
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.
Historically incorrect, the establishment clause was narrowly written prohibiting Congress from establishing one religion as favored over another. Since several of the states had established religions prior to, during, and after the ratification the evidence for that is quite clear. They didn't want their choice of establishments overridden by the federal government.
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).
Historically inaccurate once again and a big surprise to those states who disestablished without the help of the 14th Amendment.
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.
Hardly, the establishment clause was a proscription on Congress. The free exercise clause on the other hand is an individual right. You see the difference?
I think it's pretty clear that government policies tending to validate the existence of an "intelligent designer" advance religion.
What religion? What religion has been established in Dover?
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.
Evolution is not a religion., evolution is a fact. ID is not a religion, id is a fact. Using the establishment clause in a federal case to ban either is a joke, that's a fact as well.
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.
Valid secular purpose for what? For stating that ToE has gaps? You must be joking. Of course the federal courts may well agree with the strong central government types and rule that they are the final arbiter of what gets taught in local schools but the holding will in no way be consistent with the first amendments original intent or conservatism.
I think they will lose, and rightly so.
Your hopes are based on a flawed understanding of the the Constitution. I hope you lose.
If you looked a bit more into his writings, you would know that while he described himself as an athiest, he had great respect for others beliefs. BTW, thw quote that you offered seems to be somewhat of a condensation of the one that I posted.
======
If you looked a bit more into his writings, you would know that while he described himself as an athiest, he had great respect for others beliefs. BTW, thw quote that you offered seems to be somewhat of a condensation of the one that I posted.
I've read virtually every novel and short story he wrote, along with much of his commentary, many as they were published. I have read most of his works a dozen times or more.
We'll let the audience (and lurkers) decide.
Your lack of understanding is showing. The use of numeric manipulation to deal with non-mathematical logic has been one of the most time consuming elements of the digital age. Boole was the pioneer in such operations. The statement that you made above turns it on it's head.
Is this one of those forest vs. trees things? At the level at which it is to be introduced, 'science' is dealt with as a single class that jumps from discipline to discipline, week by week.
It was a purely objective decision; Heinlein had no tolerance for academic intransigence, and were he alive, he would likely be a strong proponent of showing all the evidence.
Heinlein had ample opportunity in his lifetime to object to the TOE. Did he? And if not, what's that say about what he thought? And, BTW, he had a lot to say about religion.
Exactly wrong dingbat. They made one statement that states "ToE has gaps", they teach nothing concerning ID, deism or Christianity.
And how DARE you denigrate my religion with terms such as 'stupidity' and 'lunacy'! I respect your choice of religion; you show no such character!
Oh geez, another drama queen. I wasn't denigrating your religion I was denigrating you're stupid argument.
Bigot!
Moron!
You do yourself a disservice by showing absolute ignorance regarding the weight of motive in a courtroom. That is all I have to say on that as far as the legal case goes.
Good, because you have your cabeza about as far up as it will go. You have to have a crime before motive becomes weighty. Comprende?
But how about in your heart? Do you excuse their motives because you like what they are saying? Does that not make you an accomplice to their deception?
In my heart, I think you're a drama queen. In my head, I think you and faux conservatives like you who cheer on the federal robes meddling in local affairs need a lobotomy.
It is not the practice of setting policy that is the problem, but this specific policy in question.
LOL, so only policies you agree with are the province of the locals, the rest are the province of the federal courts? Aieee.
You rationalize the lie by telling yourself that they don't actually put the book in the students' hands, but their intent is clear. They first undermine the scientific teachings, then propose an alternative and endorse a text. It is undeniably suggestive guidance that relies on, and preys upon, the curiosity and trust of an authority figure that is an innate part of human nature. It is a despicable tactic of deceit and manipulation. And you embrace it, crying out that those who would dare to make this claim are the liars to hide from it yourself.
Enough of the drama already.
Yeah, how dare us 'faux conservatives' be appalled that theocrats are hijacking science, the schools, and indeed even the Constitution that was meant to keep their authoritarian power in check, in a assault on our freedoms!
Man the barricades, the theocrats are coming, the theocrats are coming!
Your claims pervert the core of our right to be free from controlling religious power-mongers in order to deliver us up to this very fate! You want the fed to stay out of your town's business? Then keep them the hell out of my religious rights!
What religious right of yours has been abridged DQ?
Calling me a liar because I have pointed out that others are is not a defense, it is a dodge. You cannot refute my claim so you attack it. Come up with something better than what amounts to 'Oh, yeah? Well you're a liar too!'
I called you a liar because you lied. You can deal with that or not, I could not care less.
That's a good question. Likely one which most ID advocates will want to avoid answering.
Welcome to the club :o)
His address to the class of '73 is my favorite.
"It implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force. "
This is one of the very, very few times I have seen I.D. described as I.D. folks describe I.D. - most of the time, the MSM says, "ID folks believe a 'supernatural' force must be the explanation for the complexity of life", or worse, 'divine'....
Nice change for the better.
=====
This is one of the very, very few times I have seen I.D. described as I.D. folks describe I.D.
Then you'll probably like this story.
Long ago all the elements were mixed together with one germ of life. This germ began to mix things around and around until the heavier part sank and the lighter part rose. A muddy sea that covered the entire earth was created. From this ocean grew a green shoot. It grew and grew until it reached the clouds and there it was tranformed into a god. Soon this god grew lonely and it began to create other gods. The last two gods it made, Izanagi anf Izanami, were the most remarkable.
One day as they were walking along they looked down on the ocean and wondered what was beneath it. Izanagi thrust his staff into the waters and as he pulled it back up some clumps of mud fell back into the sea. They began to harden and grow until they became the islands of Japan.
The two descended to these islands and began to explore, each going in different directions. They created all kinds of plants. When they met again they decided to marry and have children to inhabit the land. The first child Izanami bore was a girl of radiant beauty. The gods decided she was too beautiful to live in Japan, so they put her up in the sky and she became the sun. Their second daughter, Tsuki-yami, became the moon and their third and unruly son, Sosano-wo, was sentenced to the sea, where he creates storms.
Later, their first child, Amaterasu, bore a son who became the emperor of Japan and all the emperors since then have claimed descent from him.
Is this one of those forest vs. trees things? At the level at which it is to be introduced, 'science' is dealt with as a single class that jumps from discipline to discipline, week by week.
What?
Elementary general science classes.
Elementary general science classes.
Are you saying ID 'theory' should be introduced in elementary science classes?
That is the thrust of the whole thing.
Do you consider introductory classes in physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc. 'elementary science' classes?
It's been a long time since I was in school, but in the 7th and 8th grades we had 'science' classes where we were given a taste of the basics of each discipline, I suppose so that we might better make up our minds about where we were headed.
It makes me feel much better knowing that you called my argument (and by extension me personally) 'stupid' and 'lunacy', and not my religion. A personal attack is so much nicer. Too bad you were wrong and my argument actually is correct. Maybe you should try learning what ID actually says before you try to define it.
The evidenciary weight of motive is a factor in determining if there was a crime. You seem to think it only has weight after the crime has already otherwise been proved, which is absurd.
Beyond that, all I can see in your post is more name calling. That seems to be your main weapon, which is too bad. I would much rather debate someone that has a sound basis for his position.
IIRC, this trial is about introducing students to ID 'theory' at the start of a biology class. Do you think it should be introduced in earlier science classes that cover multiple scientific disciplines in a single class?
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.