Posted on 12/21/2005 2:06:09 PM PST by Zionist Conspirator
Competing Designs
Tuesday's ruling by a federal judge in Pennsylvania, disparaging intelligent design as a religion-based and therefore false science, raises an important question: If ID is bogus because many of its theorists have religious beliefs to which the controversial critique of Darwinism lends support, then what should we say about Darwinism itself? After all, many proponents of Darwinian evolution have philosophical beliefs to which Darwin lends support.
"We conclude that the religious nature of Intelligent Design would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child," wrote Judge John E. Jones III in his decision, Kitzmiller v. Dover, which rules that criticizing Darwin's theory in biology class is unconstitutional. Is it really true that only Darwinism, in contrast to ID, represents a disinterested search for the truth, unmotivated by ideology?
Judge Jones was especially impressed by the testimony of philosophy professor Barbara Forrest of Southeastern Louisiana University, author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Professor Forrest has definite beliefs about religion, evident from the fact that she serves on the board of directors of the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, which is "an affiliate of American Atheists, and [a] member of the Atheist Alliance International," according to the group's website. Of course, she's entitled to believe what she likes, but it's worth noting.
Religion and Smallpox
Other leading Darwinian advocates not only reject religion but profess disgust for it and frankly admit a wish to see it suppressed. Lately I've been collecting published thoughts on religion from pro-Darwin partisans. Professional scholars, they have remarkable things to say especially about Christianity. Let these disinterested seekers of the truth speak for themselves.
My favorite is Tufts University's Daniel C. Dennett. In his highly regarded Darwin's Dangerous Idea, he tells why it might be necessary to confine conservative Christians in zoos. It's because Bible-believing Baptists, in particular, may tolerate "the deliberate misinforming of children about the natural world." In other words, they may doubt Darwin. This cannot stand! "Safety demands that religion be put in cages," explains Dennett, "when absolutely necessary....The message is clear: those who will not accommodate, who will not temper, who insist on keeping only the purest and wildest strains of their heritage alive, we will be obliged, reluctantly, to cage or disarm, and we will do our best to disable the memes they fight for."
In an essay, "Is Science a Religion?", Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins is frank enough. Perhaps the leading figure on the Darwin side, he forthrightly states that "faith is one of the world's great evils, comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to eradicate." He equates God with an "imaginary friend" and baptism with child abuse. In his book The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design, Dawkins observed that Darwin "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
There is Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, of the University of Texas, who defended Darwinism before the Texas State Board of Education in 2003. In accepting an award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation,Weinberg didn't hide his own feelings about how science must deliver the fatal blow to religious faith: "I personally feel that the teaching of modern science is corrosive of religious belief, and I'm all for that! One of the things that in fact has driven me in my life, is the feeling that this is one of the great social functions of science — to free people from superstition." When Weinberg's idea of science triumphs, then "this progression of priests and ministers and rabbis and ulamas and imams and bonzes and bodhisattvas will come to an end, [and] we'll see no more of them. I hope that this is something to which science can contribute and if it is, then I think it may be the most important contribution that we can make."
There is University of Minnesota biologist P. Z. Myers, a prominent combatant in the Darwin wars being fought in an archipelago of websites. He links his own site (recently plugged in the prestigious journal Nature) to a "humorous" web film depicting Jesus' flagellation and crucifixion, a speeded-up version of Mel Gibson's Passion, to the accompaniment of the Benny Hill theme music "Yakety Sax," complete with cartoonish sound effects. "Never let it be said that I lack a sense of reverence or an appreciation of Christian mythology," commented this teacher at a state university. In another blog posting, Myers daydreamed about having a time machine that would allow him to go back and eliminate the Biblical patriarch Abraham. Some might argue for using the machine to assassinate other notorious figures of history, but not Myers: "I wouldn't do anything as trivial as using it to take out Hitler."
Then there is the Darwinist chairman of the religious studies department at the University of Kansas, Paul Mirecki. He emerged from obscurity recently when his startlingly crude A HREF="anti-Christian writings came to light. Mirecki's bright idea had been to teach a course about "mythologies," including intelligent design. Things got interesting when it came out that he followed up his announcement by crowing in an e-mail to a list-serve: "The fundies [Christian fundamentalists] want [ID] taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology.'"
Mirecki had previously posted a list-serve message responding to somebody's joke about Pope John Paul II being "a corpse in a funny hat wearing a dress." Mirecki wrote back, "I love it! I refer to him as J2P2 (John Paul II), like the Star Wars robot R2D2."
Administration officials at KU confirmed that the e-mails had come from Mirecki, who also wrote: "I had my first Catholic 'holy communion' when I was a kid in Chicago, and when I took the bread-wafer the first time, it stuck to the roof of my mouth, and as I was secretly trying to pry it off with my tongue as I was walking back to my pew with white clothes and with my hands folded, all I could think was that it was Jesus' skin, and I started to puke, but I sucked it in and drank my own puke. That's a big part of the Catholic experience."
Prudently, the university canceled Mirecki's proposed "mythologies" class and ousted him as department chairman.
I've already reported on NRO about the views expressed by Darwinist staff scientists at the Smithsonian Institution. The nation's museum was roiled last year when the editor of a Smithsonian-affiliated biology journal published a peer-reviewed article favoring intelligent design. His fellow staffers composed emails venting their fury. One e-mailer, figuring the editor must be an ID advocate and therefore (obviously!) a fundamentalist Christian (he is neither), allowed that, "Scientists have been perfectly willing to let these people alone in their churches." Another museum scientist noted how, after "spending 4.5 years in the Bible Belt," he knew all about Christians. He reminisced about the "fun we had" when "my son refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the 'under dog' [meaning 'under God'] part."
God and Darwin
Admittedly, there are those in the Darwin community who argue that Darwinism is compatible with religion. Judge Jones himself, in the Kitzmiller decision, writes that
many 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, plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
Some advocates go further, seeing Darwin as a friend to faith. When I was in New York recently I spent an enjoyable hour at the new Darwin show at the American Museum of Natural History. In the last few yards of exhibit space, before you hit the inevitable gift shop, the museum addresses intelligent design. There's a short film with scientists talking about Darwin and religion, seeking to show that Darwinism actually has religion's best interests in mind. Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project and a self-identified Christian, says that ID can "potentially [do] great harm to people's faiths." How so? Says Collins: by "putting God in the gaps" — by discovering God's creative powers at the junctures in life's history that science can't so far explain. When science at last finds mechanistic explanations for every presumed miracle, where will that leave God?
Never mind that his view, in which God can be assumed not to operate in the natural world, makes Collins a funny kind of Christian.
Never mind, also, that he inaccurately characterizes ID. The argument for design, whatever merit it may possess, is based on positive evidence, hallmarks of a designer's work. For example, the sudden infusion of genetic information 530 million years, when most of today's animal body plans appeared in the earth's ancient seas.
It should be clear by now that Darwinism makes an unlikely defender of religion's best interests. On the contrary, the ranks of the Darwinistas are replete with opponents of religion.
Does this delegitimize Darwinism as science? Obviously not — no more than ID is delegitimized by the fact that many Christians, Jews, and Muslims are attracted to its interpretation of nature's evidence. Of course, some avowed agnostics also doubt Darwin (e.g. evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Michael Denton, and mathematician David Berlinski who says his only religious principle is "to have a good time all the time"). But there is irony in the way the media generally follow Barbara Forrest's line in portraying ID as a "Trojan Horse" for theism. It would be equally accurate to call Darwin a trojan horse for atheism.
In fact, both Darwin and design have metaphysical implications and are expressions of a certain kind of faith. ID theorists are not willing to submit to the assumption that material stuff is the only reality. Darwinism takes the opposite view, materialism, which assumes there can never be a supernatural reality.
In this it only follows Charles Darwin, who wrote the Origin of Species as an exercise in seeking to explain how life could have got to be the way it is without recourse to divine creative activity. In a pious mode intended to disarm critics, he concluded his book by writing of "laws impressed on matter by the Creator." However readers immediately saw the barely concealed point of the work: to demonstrate there was no need for "laws impressed on matter" by a Creator.
In short, with apologies to Judge Jones, there is no coherent reconciliation between God and Darwin. Attempts to show how we can have both faith in a spiritual reality (religion) and faith in pure materialism (Darwin) always end up vacuuming the essential meaning out of either God or Darwin.
And this, I think, is why some Darwin advocates dislike religion. It's why they fight it with such passion: Because negating religion is the reason behind their belief system. To their credit, they recognize a truth that others prefer not to see. That is: One may choose Darwin or one may choose God.
Since recycling, resource conservation and other 'green' activities are tenents of the earth mother and wiccan 'religions', does this mean that these gov't mandated programs are in violation of the Constitution?
Which Bush?
If you are referring to how I pen "G_d", then you are sadly mistaken.
That said, I do have a hard time separating the Creationists from the ID folk. I'm new to the subject of ID, but not Darwin's observations. I've come to my own conclusions in my own ways. Honestly it was the wave/particle debate that opened my eyes. There's a much bigger picture out there than any book or books (Old or New) can explain or even allude to. And for me, that makes it all the more marvelous.
George W - appointed 2002.
"Since recycling, resource conservation and other 'green' activities are tenents of the earth mother and wiccan 'religions', does this mean that these gov't mandated programs are in violation of the Constitution?"
No, I don't think so. Such activities may reflect the tenets of certain religions, but they can be taught without reference to Wicca or other religious beliefs. In the same way that, say, personal responsibility, not cheating on tests, not stealing from other kids, and other behaviors can be taught without reference to any particular religion, or even to religion in general.
The way I see it, even if G_d is influencing and has influenced things along the way, He DID something. Something happened, even if He only knows the "science" behind it. There is a manipulation of space, matter, and time in some manner or another.
I think the challenge of existing in the universe is to figure out how G_d works. I'd personally like to know if this experiment is being tried elsewhere in the galaxy and the rest of the universe. What other cool stuff has G_d done out there? If we have "brothers" out there, I'd sure like to meet 'em.
David Klinghoffer, a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute and a columnist for the Jewish Forward. His most recent book is Why the Jews Rejected Jesus: The Turning Point in Western History.
Discovery Institute...I'm shocked!
You obviously haven't read the posted article.
So you're saying the difference between anti-ID Theistic evolutionists and pro-ID Theistic evolutionists is that the former keep their opinions about the Creator to themselves?
ID'ers start with their literal religious conclusion and then use scientific sounding language to conjure up supporting evidence. That's religion in my book and doesn't belong in science class.
ID-ers are Theistic evolutionists. They consider Genesis to be a "metaphor" for a Divinely-guided evolutionary process. And since their anti-ID Theistic evolutionary critics believe the exact same thing, I don't see what they're arguing about.
"Science" deals with the way the world works. Science can speculate all it wants about finch beak variations or "survival of the fittest" or "descent with modification." However, the moment "science" moves from these things to speculation as to how finches came into existence in the first place (by assuming that observable evolution in the fully created universe is the continuation of the creation process itself) it has jumped into metaphysics.
No theory of origins can be scientific by its very nature. "Origins" (like eschatology) is an inherent metaphysical/religious field and outside the scientist's purview.
BTW, your contribution to humanity will also never amount to a fraction of that of Abraham. Do you also have fantasies of travelling back in a time machine and murdering him, like one of the evolutionists quoted (and hyperlinked) in the article?
His official biography is here:
Jones, John E. III
Born 1955 in Pottsville, PA
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania
Nominated by George W. Bush on February 28, 2002, to a seat vacated by James F. McClure; Confirmed by the Senate on July 29, 2002, and received commission on July 31, 2002.
Education:
Dickinson College, B.A., 1977
Dickinson School of Law, J.D., 1980
Professional Career:
Private practice, Pottsville, Pennsylvania, 1980-2002
Law clerk (part-time), Hon. Guy A. Bowe, Schuylkill County Court of Common Pleas, 1980-1984
Assistant public defender (part-time), Pennsylvania Public Defender's Office, 1984-1995
Executive officer, Phoenix Contracting Co. & Affiliated Corporations, 1980-2002
Director, Union Bank and Trust Company, 1993-2002
Chairman, Liquor Control Board, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1995-2002
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
From http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/kitzmiller/jonesbio.htm
Judge John E. Jones III commenced his service as a United States District Judge on August 2, 2002. He is the 21st judge to sit in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Judge Jones was appointed to his current position by President George W. Bush in February, 2002, and was unanimously confirmed by the United States Senate on July 30, 2002.
Just because NRO doesn't mention it doesn't mean it's not a fact.
This guy is a freakin' braindead nut.
So let's see: if we take everything that exists, which we used to believe was created by God and as such was supposed to be evidence of God's existence, and then come up with a way to explain its existence 100% without reference to God, so that suddenly everything in the universe can be understood without the slightest attribution to God as its creator, this does not "in any way" diminish in our minds' the notion of God as its creator????????
Where the heck did this guy get his law degree? Some sort of mail-order Evolution U?
So we've got a creator who never created anything? Or maybe he creates things somewhere else, just not in our universe. Or maybe he creates them and destroys them again really quickly where no-one can see them. Or he creates things in a way is massively inefficient, morbid, and actually doesn't require his involvement at all, and then tells everyone to look at it as evidence of his existence an greatness?
I'm starting to think this entire ruling was posted by someone from scrappleface. If I was that dumb I'd shoot myself.
No, no, no, that's not possible. He said he wasn't an activist judge. So he must not be.
The old evolutionist argument: "It's true because I said so. Don't believe the facts in front of your face."
This is a very interesting point. Alas, the left doesn't think rationally enough to figure this out. As I've said before, Darwinism appeals to liberals for the same reason running away from home appeals to children: if you don't think it through, it seems to provide you with a way to live life on your own terms.
It is enough for them that Darwin gives them a way to be their own gods. They don't realize that when they killed the root of the tree of morality and meaning, they killed the whole tree too. When you kill the roots of a great oak, the branches will still support you for some time.
The fact that without God there is no coherent basis for objecting to human suffering eludes them. It is very ironic to me that Darwin was vehemently against slavery; apparently even he didn't figure out all the ramifications of his own ideas.
The fact that people may believe in something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that belief has any philosophical coherence.
Not being a Biblical literalist is hardly the same thing as "negating religion".
Sure, there are a thousand ways to be religious. But Darwinism is completely incompatible with Christianity. Christ came and died so that we could be forgiven for our sins. The Christian understanding of sin is 100% rooted in the doctrine of human depravity, original sin, and Adam. With no literal Adam, no literal garden, no literal first sin, no literal curse, the entire doctrines of Christianity are reduced to fairy tales. Christ died for NOTHING. If only he had consulted Darwin first.
One of the principal scientific witnesses for the plaintiffs in the Dover trial, btw, was a practicing Catholic.
It would appear he/she needs more practice.
Archival ping.
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.