Posted on 11/01/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
A president who consults religious lunatics about who should be on the Supreme Court... Judges who want prayer in school and the "ten commandments" in the courtroom… Born-Again fanatics who bomb abortion clinics… bible thumpers who condemn homosexuality as "sin"... and all the other Christian fascists who want a U.S. theocracy….
This is the force behind the assault on evolution going on right now in a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Last year, the Dover city school board instituted a policy that requires high school biology teachers to read a statement to students that says Darwin's theory of evolution is "not a fact" and then notes that intelligent design offers an alternative theory for the origin and evolution of life--namely, that life in all of its complexity could not have arisen without the help of an "intelligent hand." Some teachers refused to read the statement, citing the Pennsylvania teacher code of ethics, which says, "I will never knowingly present false information to a student." Eleven parents who brought this case to court contend that the directive amounted to an attempt to inject religion into the curriculum in violation of the First Amendment. Their case has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The school board is being defended pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. The case is being heard without a jury in Harrisburg by U.S. District Judge John Jones III, whom George W. Bush appointed to the bench in 2002.
In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not teach the biblical account of creation instead of evolution, because doing so would violate the constitutional ban on establishment of an official religion. Since then Intelligent Design has been promoted by Christian fundamentalists as the way to get the Bible and creationism into the schools.
"This clever tactical repackaging of creationism does not merit consideration," Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union and a lawyer for the parents, told U.S. District Judge John E. Jones in opening arguments. "Intelligent design admits that it is not science unless science is redefined to include the supernatural." This is, he added, "a 21st-century version of creationism."
This is the first time a federal court has been asked to rule on the question of whether Intelligent Design is religion or science. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which opposes challenges to the standard model of teaching evolution in the schools, said the Pennsylvania case "is probably the most important legal situation of creation and evolution in the last 18 years," and that "it will have quite a significant impact on what happens in American public school education."
Proponents of Intelligent Design don’t say in the courtroom that they want to replace science with religion. But their strategy papers, speeches, and discussions with each other make it clear this is their agenda.
Intelligent Design (ID) is basically a re-packaged version of creationism--the view that the world can be explained, not by science, but by a strict, literal reading of the Bible. ID doesn’t bring up ridiculous biblical claims like the earth is only a few thousand years old or that the world was created in seven days. Instead it claims to be scientific--it acknowledges the complexity and diversity of life, but then says this all comes from some "intelligent" force. ID advocates don’t always openly argue this "intelligent force" is GOD--they even say it could be some alien from outer space! But Christian fundamentalists are the driving force behind the whole Intelligent Design movement and it’s clear… these people aren’t praying every night to little green men from another planet.
Phillip Johnson, considered the father and guiding light behind Intelligent Design, is the architect of the "wedge strategy" which focuses on attacking evolution and promoting intelligent design to ultimately, as Johnson says, "affirm the reality of God." Johnson has made it clear that the whole point of "shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God" is to get people "introduced to the truth of the Bible," then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."
Intelligent Design and its theocratic program has been openly endorsed by George W. Bush. Earlier this year W stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in the schools. When he was governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution. And he has made the incredibly unscientific, untrue statement that "the jury is still out" on evolution.
For the Christian fascists, the fight around evolution and teaching Intelligent Design is part of a whole agenda that encompasses reconfiguring all kinds of cultural, social, and political "norms" in society. This is a movement that is fueled by a religious vision which varies among its members but is predicated on the shared conviction that the United States is in need of drastic changes--which can only be accomplished by instituting religion as its cultural foundation.
The Christian fascists really do want--and are working for--a society where everything is run according to the Bible. They have been working for decades to infiltrate school boards to be in a position to mandate things like school prayer. Now, in the schools, they might not be able to impose a literal reading of the Bible’s explanation for how the universe was created. But Intelligent Design, thinly disguised as some kind of "science," is getting a lot more than just a foot in the door.
The strategy for promoting intelligent design includes an aggressive and systematic agenda of promoting the whole religious worldview that is the basis for ID. And this assault on evolution is linked up with other questions in how society should be run.
Marc Looy of the creationist group Answers in Genesis has said that evolution being taught in the schools,
"creates a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness, which I think leads to things like pain, murder, and suicide."
Ken Cumming, dean of the Institute for Creation Research's (ICR) graduate school, who believes the earth is only thousands of years old, attacked a PBS special seven-part series on evolution, suggesting that the series had "much in common" with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. He said,
"[W]hile the public now understands from President Bush that 'we're at war' with religious fanatics around the world, they don't have a clue that America is being attacked from within through its public schools by a militant religious movement called Darwinists...."
After the 1999 school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, Tom DeLay, Christian fascist representative from Texas, gave a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, blaming the incident in part on the teaching of evolution. He said,
"Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud."
The ID movement attacks the very notion of science itself and the philosophical concept of materialism--the very idea that there is a material world that human beings can examine, learn about, and change.
Johnson says in his "The Wedge Strategy" paper,
"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating…we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, points out:
"Evolution is a concept that applies to all sciences, from astronomy to chemistry to geology to biology to anthropology. Attacking evolution means attacking much of what we know of the natural world, that we have amassed through the application of scientific principles and methods. Second, creationist attacks on evolution are attacks on science itself, because the creationist approach does violence to how we conduct science: science as a way of knowing."
The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (another Christian think tank) says that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
Teaching Intelligent Design in the schools is part of a whole Christian Fascist movement in the United States that has power and prominence in the government, from the Bush regime on down. And if anyone isn’t clear about what "cultural legacies" the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture wants to overthrow--take a look at the larger Christian fascist agenda that the intelligent design movement is part of: asserting patriarchy in the home, condemning homosexuality, taking away the right to abortion, banning sex education, enforcing the death penalty with the biblical vengeance of an "eye for an eye," and launching a war because "God told me [Bush] to invade Iraq."
When "scientists" have to resort to cr@p like that to save their therory from alternative inquiry, then their science is obviously nothing but a house of cards. One only sees that kind of panic when the house has begun to crumble.
Obviously these guys are afraid of the consequences should any alternative theory even be considered in public schools. They are pushing the panic button. Obviously they are scared to death.
Possibly.. I see the wind and know that I cannot see everything there is.. and when my body has a fever that things are not always what they seem.. and a mirage shows me that what isn't can appear that it is..
A snowflake was not designed and yet it has intricate design.. and a Picasso print proves that a designer can be nuts.. I have faith the Universe was designed but if that designer could be proved then faith would be worthless..
The reason faith is so precious is because the designer of the Universe is unprovable on purpose.. Which challenges your spirit not your brain.. The brain don't like faith, and the spirit don't need the brain.. Quite simple really.. The designer of the Universe is more obvious to children, more obscure even opaque to rational thinking adults..
Is God COOL or WHAT.?.
Hm. I am convinced that the designer exists, and have faith that He is good. To me, that is the cool part.
"Isn't that special"-(Lily Tomlin as Ernestine doin the Church Lady)
Hi betty,
Been a while -
Was reading a little of your stuff and was compelled to reply. Forgive me if I am taking your discussion backwards.
Regarding your 620, the horse analogy and the statement along the lines that 'Truth is God's ...and He freely reveals that Truth', hopefully paraphrased effectively.
It seems the analogy is in opposition to the statement.
I think God does reveal His works through the 'laws' of science and nature. (I put laws in quotes because a true scientist knows that there are no 'laws', only currently operating theories - which will be modified by future scientists.)
That said, I believe God has shown His method of creation, and science currently calls it the theory of evolution.
I see no real opposition between Intelligent Design and Evolution.
Science is never going to explain all the truth of life. Thereby developing a Law of Evolution. Science has never fully explained anything, or stated the last word through *any* experiment or paper. Science is solely in the business of providing a working understanding of a controlled portion of observed physical reality.
Conversely, there is no way "God did it, and that is that" is going to be a sufficient answer for the inquisitive minds in today's society.
Good science advances understanding of the physical world, but never arrives at "The Truth." Intelligent Design is likely "The Truth," but it does not advance understanding of the physical world. They can and should coexist peacefully.
Regards,
PS - on my scintific scale; Gravity is a theory, and evolution is an hypothesis that is supported through observation, but has yet to rigorously tested.
Neither do I, Triple. Thank you so much for your astute observations.
I especially liked this:
"Good science advances understanding of the physical world, but never arrives at 'The Truth.' Intelligent Design is likely 'The Truth,' but it does not advance understanding of the physical world. They can and should coexist peacefully. ... on my scientific scale; Gravity is a theory, and evolution is an hypothesis that is supported through observation, but has yet to rigorously tested."It's really good to see you again! Indeed, it has been a while.... Thanks, guy!
Thank you so much for the heartfelt benediction, dear Alamo-Girl, so astute and timely. May the peace of God preserve us in faith, understanding -- and thanksgiving.
Amen! I join in your plea for God's blessing for the correspondents.
Namely, there is a "system-level" aspect to the problem that is hard to address by appealing to individual mutations that may or may not be advantageous.
Likely you've both heard of Richard Sternberg, the evolutionary biologist involved in the Smithsonian flap. I suspect his "process structuralist" school of biology might attempt to address this lacuna, but I can't find much more on it. I came across a talk of his(my sketchy notes are here) where he, like you, notes Darwinism's blindness to the organism as a whole.
Recovering a scientific concept of the organism seems incredibly important, especially since so much is now being dismissed as epiphenomena to be ignored without consequence.
Can't say I know of Sternberg. I did, however, also notice that E. Gilson wrote on this topic toward the end of his writing career. Several articles. The odd thing is that the mistakes that are made are philosophical and logical, not scientific. But, I regret to say, I haven't done any reading in this area. I shouldn't even be posting.
You have a colorful web log!
The meaning of "going to crickets" has finally dawned on me. For me these are the final moments before sleep when all that can be heard is the chirping of night-time insects. Perhaps there is a double entendre intended. Good night and blessings abound.
Brian Goodwin's name has come up in a lazy google of process structuralism. His "complexity theory" seems to have an almost Platonic conception of biology, and if that weren't enough to sideline him he seems to be kind of a New Ager. He's reviewed here towards the bottom of the page, and there's an interview with him somehere I can't take the time to look up at the moment.
You have a colorful web log!
In content, or presentation? The color scheme was a default setting. I've been thinking of changing it.
Gilson devoted his last three series of Toronto lectures to a sharpening of his presentation of the role of metaphysics as complementary to the sciences of nature. the first of theses series, "Finalism Revisited," comprised four lectures: "The Case for Final Causality," "The Case for the Mechanical Cause," "Finalism and Physical Probability," and "Evolution: Teleology and Theology," They were delivered on 6, 15, 22, and 29 January 1970, respetivley. "Finalism Revisted" . . . covered material later published in D'Aristote à Darwin et retour . . The dominant theme of the lectures was "the pull of creation toward the causes whose effect it is," . . he moved into nineteenth-century research by Claude Bernard and recent work by Walter M. Elsasser on the biological sciences . . . .In 1971 Gilson's lectures series for Toronto was "In Quest of Evolution": the three component lectures were "Darwin without Evolution," "Evolution without Darwin," and "From Malthus to the Twilight of Evolution." . . . Gilson now wanted to show how antifinalism had actually produced nineteenth-century evolutionism [just say "teleology" on this forum and you have all porcupines squealing] . . . Darwin had originally been inspired by his reading of Malthus on the principle of population. The first philosophical theory of evolution was presented not by Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer. The general public, however, confused the two theories, and began to misread Darwin's scientific demonstration of the origin of species as a demonstration of the origin of being; Darwin himself was too good a scientist to ever mistake his scientific theory for a philosophical one [hmmm.] once the transference was made . . . Darwin never contradicted them. For Gilson theories of evolution had never proven themselves scientifically tenable, and had raised many questions that science could not answer . . . .
[15 May 1971 Gilson gave an address at Catholic University "Evolution: From Aristotle and Back."] In January 1972 Gilson gave his last series of lectures in Toronto. "In Quest of Species" probed philosophy for some means of reconciling Darwin's findings on the origin of species; the three lectures in the series were called "Species for Experience," "Species for Science," and "species for Philosophy." Nothing he wrote satisfied him:
I now shall type up a third redaction . . . What I now want to say is that species is not a scientific notion either . . . Adler . . . pointed out the mistake of those scholastics who confuse logical with biological species."Ultimately, it was to Aristotle that Gilson turned for inspiration: "[Aristotle] merely says: 'No part of an animal is purely material or purely immaterial." Drop the immaterial and the notion of species makes no sense; it is not a scientific notion but a philosophical one." Gilson's "In Quest of Species" led to this same conclusion:
True species can be found in zoos. There are no others. Darwin despaired of trying to differentiate species from varieties. Adler is driven to affirm that there are three species: plant, brute, man. The only explanation I can see for the very possibility of species is the notion of substantial form.
Gilson opened the first lecture of the series with a strong assertion. At eighty-six he was still, as he had been throughout his life, profoundly convinced of the specificity of the philosophical order: "I call specifically philosophical," he said, "those problems that arise in science from science, but have no scientific conclusion" . . . . In Cravant, on 30 July 1972, Gilson finished his preparation of his next three lectures for Toronto, "In Quest of Matter." The papers surveyed three ways of examining matter: the Greek method, the Christian philosopher's method, and the scientific method followed since Descartes . . . .
Although Descartes and his scientific successors have presented many varying opinions on matter, most have thought of matter as a thing discoverable in its properties and uses, and as useful and profitable to science. For them matter is no longer an obscurity, a mutability, or a potency; rather, matter is an extension, a quantity, a figure or situation, a movement. For the sciences the distinguishing mark of matter is its usefulness. [Ghost of general_re] The ancients and the medievals asked themselves the philsophical question. "What is matter?" The moderns merely pry into its properties:
The result of Descartes' victory is that modern scientism leaves us without any metaphysical notion of matter . . . . Science has discovered an unbelievable quantity of truth concerning the structure of material bodies; it has pushed beyond the notion of atom and discovered in elemental molcules an infinitely small universe of unbelievable complexity . . . . Because [scientists] are busy investigating the nature of matter, they believe they are examining the question of what it is.In Gilson's view, despite all such progress, "the nature of reality is other than our knowledge of it." To illustrate he repeats Einstein's reply to the wife of physicist Max Born, who asked him if he believed that absolutely everything could be expressed scientifically. "Yes," he replied, "it would be possible, but it would make no sense. It would be description without meaning--as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure."
The first philosophical theory of evolution was presented not by Darwin, but by Herbert Spencer. The general public, however, confused the two theories, and began to misread Darwin's scientific demonstration of the origin of species as a demonstration of the origin of being
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.