Posted on 11/22/2005 12:44:07 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
THE first court trial over the theory of intelligent design is now over, with a ruling expected by the end of the year. What sparked the legal controversy? Before providing two weeks of training in modern evolutionary theory, the Dover, Pa., School District briefly informed students that if they wanted to learn about an alternative theory of biological origins, intelligent design, they could read a book about it in the school library.
In short order, the School District was dragged into court by a group insisting the school policy constituted an establishment of religion, this despite the fact that the unmentionable book bases its argument on strictly scientific evidence, without appealing to religious authority or attempting to identify the source of design.
The lawsuit is only the latest in a series of attempts to silence the growing controversy over contemporary Darwinian theory.
For instance, after The New York Times ran a series on Darwinism and design recently, prominent Darwinist Web sites excoriated the newspaper for even covering intelligent design, insulting its proponents with terms like Medievalist, Flat-Earther and "American Taliban."
University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers argues that Darwinists should take an even harder line against their opponents: "Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough," he wrote. "The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians."
This month, NPR reported on behavior seemingly right out of the P.Z. Myers playbook.
The most prominent victim in the story was Richard Sternberg, a scientist with two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology and former editor of a journal published out of the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. He sent out for peer review, then published, a paper arguing that intelligent design was the best explanation for the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms 530 million years ago.
The U.S. Office of Special Counsel reported that Sternberg's colleagues immediately went on the attack, stripping Sternberg of his master key and access to research materials, spreading rumors that he wasn't really a scientist and, after determining that they didn't want to make a martyr out of him by firing him, deliberately creating a hostile work environment in the hope of driving him from the Smithsonian.
The NPR story appalled even die-hard skeptics of intelligent design, people like heavyweight blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds, who referred to the Smithsonian's tactics as "scientific McCarthyism."
Also this month, the Kansas Board of Education adopted a policy to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. Darwinists responded by insisting that there are no weaknesses, that it's a plot to establish a national theocracy — despite the fact that the weaknesses that will be taught come right out of the peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific literature.
One cause for their insecurity may be the theory's largely metaphysical foundations. As evolutionary biologist A.S. Wilkins conceded, "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."
And in the September issue of The Scientist, National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell argued that his extensive investigations into the matter corroborated Wilkins' view. Biologist Roland Hirsch, a program manager in the U.S. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, goes even further, noting that Darwinism has made a series of incorrect predictions, later refashioning the paradigm to fit the results.
How different from scientific models that lead to things like microprocessors and satellites. Modern evolutionary theory is less a cornerstone and more the busybody aunt — into everyone's business and, all the while, very much insecure about her place in the home.
Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists are openly skeptical of Darwin's theory, and a recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that only 40 percent of medical doctors accept Darwinism's idea that humans evolved strictly through unguided, material processes.
Increasingly, the Darwinists' response is to try to shut down debate, but their attempts are as ineffectual as they are misguided. When leaders in Colonial America attempted to ban certain books, people rushed out to buy them. It's the "Banned in Boston" syndrome.
Today, suppression of dissent remains the tactic least likely to succeed in the United States. The more the Darwinists try to prohibit discussion of intelligent design, the more they pique the curiosity of students, parents and the general public.
"Could it be that the 'junk DNA' found in the genome is actually meta-DNA that can 'think' and design useful, instead of random, mutations?
Godwin's Law is getting a major workout of late.
You paint a pretty good picture of a close-minded person yourself.
I think this article is onto something watching how a lot you ATTACK posters on this forum who do not cow to Evolution.
What are you so afraid of?
I read these ID vs. Darwin threads from top to bottom, but what I really want to know is, when do I get to have sex with an ape?
(If what I just wrote makes you sad or angry,
Ever Notice how these howling Darwinist
"defenders", are so *very* *anti*-Darwinist
is their personal and social policies?
In fact, these "Darwinists", are by
Darwinian theory...*Devolutionary*
in they things they do, and what they
praise, ans seek to foster..a culture of
decivilizing narciscism and sexual
dead enderism.
To put things in perspective, the argument is not whether General Evolution or Intelligent Design offers a better explanation for the way things are. The argument is whether ANY THEORY OTHER THAN DARWINISM will be permitted to make even a token appearance in our public schools.
In other words, Darwinists want a permanent monopoly, and no dissention permitted. They wouldn't even sit still for an agreement that the science teacher, almost certainly a Darwinist himself, could mention to the kids if he really felt like it that there was a stupid book in the library by some kook, if they really wanted to take the trouble to go look at it and risk getting a D in the course.
If Darwin's theory is so blindingly and permanently obvious, why not allow some discussion about it?
ID is not an "alternative" theory. It isn't even a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. "ID proponents" do not do any science. They wont read anything about science.
They just start throwing the words "nazi", "atheist", "marxist", etc around. Call somebody a nazi or a marxist on a conservative forum and you can expect insults and attacks. I don't know how you could expect otherwise.
Did you try flowers and candy?
Awwww, wah-wah. Are they stating those awful facts at you again, little boy?
Look LauraLee...you're wrong. Darwinism has long ago been shown to be pure mythology. It's only supporters are the phoney profs that use it as a vehicle for dumbing down the naive student population and applying for federal grants, AND gullible followers. Tell me, when's the last time you saw a half man-half ape OR a half man-half fish? You suggest: Tell the truth and people can decide. It seems to me people are deciding and the darwinist "groupies" view this independent thought as encroachment on their turf. Since they cannot bear detailed scrutiny, they make haste to silence the opposition.
Isn't the law suit really an attempt at censorship?
Did you read the article? It is about shouting down other points of view. That is NOT science.
I don't care what people believe about evolution. But it is clear that the group who claims to have science on its side does not understand what science means any more that those who disagree with them.
I don't know what a "darwinist groupie" is, but your suggestion that we should find a half-man/half-ape, or a half-man/half-fish isn't "independent thought". It is asinine, and laughable.
And when, exactly, was "darwinism" shown to be "pure mythology"? I must have missed that one.
There are several in here. Can you spot them?
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.)
"What are you so afraid of?"
Rampant, willful ignorance, masquerading as "faith". Isn't that what we are fighting against in the GWOT?
If you want to have a reasoned, intelligent debate, great! I'm all for it! If you start calling the other side "Nazis" or other hyperbolic names, you have removed yourself from said reasoned debate, IMO....
HIV usually causes AIDS. Or did you miss the memo?
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.