Intelligent Design Advocates Face Uphill Fight

Legal Intelligencer ^ | 12/22/2005 | Hank Grezlak

[KingofZion]

Like many evolutionary mistakes, intelligent design may be on the road to extinction, put there Tuesday by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III.

When Jones ruled that the Dover Area School District's intelligent design policy violates the First Amendment and barred the district from mentioning intelligent design in biology classes or "from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution," he wasn't just applying a pinprick to the trial balloon intelligent design supporters had chosen to float in this case.

He aimed a cannon at it. And fired. Several times. Odds are, other courts will find it hard to argue that he missed his target.

In one of the most closely watched cases in recent memory -- not just in Pennsylvania but across the nation -- Jones took the opportunity in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District to frame the case in the much larger context many, including supporters of intelligent design, had seen it in.

The impact of his ruling can't be overstated. Not only did Jones find the policy unconstitutional but he also ruled that intelligent design is not science.

"[M]oreover ... ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents," he said in the 139-page opinion.

Jones didn't pull any punches in making his ruling, criticizing the school board for its policy, as well as those who saw the case as an opportunity to make law that would pave the way for greater acceptance of intelligent design.

"Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge," he said. "If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy.

"The breathtaking inanity of the board's decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources."

Not surprisingly, several groups that endorse the teaching of intelligent design, or "ID" as Jones referred to it throughout his opinion, lashed out and accused him, as he anticipated, of being an "activist federal judge."

Who knew that Republican judges appointed by Republican presidents could be such hacks for the left?

Well, if activism is changing the norm and imposing one's will from behind the safe confines of the bench onto the helpless masses, then Jones' decision in Kitzmiller hardly fits the bill, since the opinion follows closely the reasoning of other federal courts on the issue, including the U.S. Supreme Court. If anything, Jones was critical of the changes the Dover Area School Board made for an entire community and potentially a whole generation of school children.

But organizations like the Discovery Institute, the Thomas More Law Center and the Cato Institute Center for Educational Freedom should be angry with Jones. Because what he did in his opinion, systematically and ruthlessly, was expose intelligent design as creationism, minus the biblical fig leaf, and advanced by those with a clear, unscientific agenda: to get God (more specifically, a Christian one) back into the sciences.

Jones goes into an exhaustive examination on the intelligent design movement, and what he found will make it difficult for future pro-ID litigants to argue that the whole thing isn't religion masked in neo-scientific terms.

According to Jones, the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture developed a "Wedge Document" in which it said the goal of the intelligent design movement is to "replace science as currently practiced with 'theistic and Christian science.'"

He said that one of the professors, an ID proponent, who testified for the school board "remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

Jones also points out that the ID textbook the Dover policy encouraged students to check out, "Of Pandas and People," is not only published by an organization identified in IRS filings as a "religious, Christian organization," but that the book was meticulously changed following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in 1987 that the U.S. Constitution forbids the teaching of creationism as science.

By comparing the early drafts to the later ones, he said, it was clear that the definition for creation science was identical to the definition of intelligent design and that the word creation and its variants were replaced with the phrase ID and that it all happened shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

As Jones points out throughout his opinion, ID's supporters couldn't shake two problematic facts -- its close association with creationism and its inability to divorce itself from the supernatural.

"ID is reliant upon forces acting outside of the natural world, forces that we cannot see, replicate, control or test, which have produced changes in the world," he said. "While we take no position on whether such forces exist, they are simply not testable by scientific means and therefore cannot qualify as part of the scientific process or as a scientific theory."

All of which lead Jones to conclude that "ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory."

There's plenty of other things worth noting in Jones' opinion, including how school board members talked at meetings about creationism and complained of "liberals in black robes" taking away "the rights of Christians," or how the Discovery Institute was in contact with board members prior to the policy change, and a number of other machinations that might leave one feeling less than secure about the separation of church and state in Pennsylvania, but those are facts specific to this case.

The real impact of the opinion is what Jones lays out with regard to intelligent design's roots, its proponents, its agenda and the tactics (and there's really no other way to describe them) being used to advance it. It reads like a cautionary tale, one that we should all be reading.

And while it's unlikely that the country has seen the last of this issue, one can hope that Jones' decision might save future judges a little bit of time, if not discourage groups with a religious ax to grind from using residents of small communities as pawns in the name of a dishonest, fruitless agenda.

[Moorings]

Well said. The establishment clause was set up by the founders, so that the state will not establish a state religion. The founders came from countries that had an official state church. This was decided not to be a desirable thing. The founders would probably be surprised at the way the establishment clause is being used nowadays.

[Mark Felton]

"It would be if anyone actually did that, but in many decades of studying science and being among scientists and reading the works of thousands of scientists, I've never once seen anyone do the kind of stupid thing you describe."

We are often blind to the differences of those with whom we agree.

After decades as an engineer and scientist in R&D, and after reading thousands of papers, going to dozens of conferences worldwide and meeting ansd talking with hundreds of such men worldwide, I can tell you I see this kind of thing everyday.

I read just such a quote today in a book "6 numbers" by Martin Rees;

"These 6 numbers constitutie a recipe for a universe. Moreover the outcome is sensitive to their values: if any one of them were to be 'untuned', there would be no stars and no life. Is this tuning just a brute fact, a coincidence? Or is it the owrk of a benign Creator? I take the view that it is neither. An infinite number of other universes may well exist where the numbers are different. Most would be stillborn or sterile. We could have emerged in a universe with the right combination." - Dr. Martin Rees, "6 Numbers" 1998, pg 4

The good Dr. takes a view that is far less probable than there being a Creator strictly because he personally prefers to believe there is no Creator, tus he bends over backwards to develop a new Godless paradigm, no matter how improbable.

Less evidence exists to support his view but far more evidence exists already to support the view of a Creator. Yet nonetheless he lurches forward, without further argument agaisnt the God case, but with plenty of rationalization to support his case. All the time the simpler and more likely answer 9there is a God) is bolstered by his argument throught the book. Yet he ignores it.

He started with the supposition; there can be no Creator.

But this is nothing new at all as the following scientist explains (from over 100 years ago)

"It has been my experience that the disbelief in the revelation that God has given...is more prevalent among what I may call the camp followers of science than amongst those to whom science is the business of their lives." -- Alexander MacAlister, Biologist, Physiologist. He was Professor of Anatomy at Cambridge for many years.

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man." -- Albert Einstein

"With regard to the origin of life, science...positively affirms creative power." --William Thompson Kelvin, Physical Scientist, Mathematician, Inventor. Degrees Kelvin named after him. He held 21 honorary doctorate degrees.

I believe most scientists believe in a Creator. To think that such a Creator, who can manufacture a universe, has neither the power nor interest in intervening in our everyday lives is simply, illogical and a bit silly. He intervenes everyday.

God Bless you. My wife calls me to bed.

[jess35]

Christians have been persecuted since the time of Christ and it will never stop.

Christians are not persecuted in America. The inability to teach children that God created man in a science class is not persecution. When you attempt to cry persecution because you can't use the government to promote Christianity, you are minimizing the very word. You insult every single Christian who has suffered REAL persecution for merely practicing their faith. Why don't you take a few years and live in Saudi Arabia as I have and then come back and tell me all about the horrid persecution of Americans in their own county. When you can't have any outward displays of your own faith and you are forced to worship in secret, then you'll be fit to come back and have this discussion with me.

[Rudder]

...quote from Behe's testimony contrasted with how ID proponents generally argue the a priori exclusion of the supernatural...

I think Behe's statements betrayed those ID proponents who, falsely, argued for the exclusion of the supernatural. There was no logical need in the idea of ID to rule out a priori the supernatural, but it was done to simply avoid litigation. But along came Behe and, under the pressure of cross examination, he blew it and thus showed ID to be nothing more than a Trojan Horse for the inclusion of religion into the science curriculum.

[DaGman]

"Really? Quote me the words that state this in the Constitution."
Read the first amendment.

"You are proof that our education system has been dumbed-down with a bent towards creating mind-numbed robots that are hostile to Christianity."
I teach Catholic CCD Confirmation prep classes on Sunday. Hostile to Christianity? Ha!

"Simply show me the scientific evidence against ID and we can refute it scientifically, not based on anti-Christian religious values"
Read the transcript of the trial. There's plenty of evidence there.

[bobdsmith]

I believe most scientists believe in a Creator. To think that such a Creator, who can manufacture a universe, has neither the power nor interest in intervening in our everyday lives is simply, illogical and a bit silly. He intervenes everyday.

What if the creator (or creators?) are actually scientists and this universe is one big computer simulation on a very powerful computer. That is actually quite likely given that soon we may be in a position to do such a thing ourselves.

[RogueIsland]

They're upset because they can't account for how life began.

And neither can the Goddidit crowd. So what? And how many times do you folks have to be educated to the simple and demonstrable fact that the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis in its scope? Do you guys keep using that canard because you are incapable of intellectually countering 150 years of rigorous scientific research with your mythological fantasizing?

[Fester Chugabrew]

Using government to put Christianity's notions into the head of other people's children is what is under discussion.

What is specifically "Christian" about the notion of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws as best explained by intelligent design? What is specifically "Christian" about ascribing the generic term "God" to a single intelligent designer whose works exceed those of all intelligent human beings combined?

[indcons]

Thanks for the clarification. Though I am sure Benedict will have a few things to say about that :)

[Free Baptist]

Are the "Intelligent Design" promoters (whoever they might be) just trying to avoid using the name of God, Jehovah, Jesus Christ (Who is the Creator - Col. 1:15-17; He, 1:2,3 -- He is the Intelligent Designer.)?

If they are Christians, attempting to promote "Intelligent Design" without using the name of the Intelligent Designer, then it is a witness that is weak at best, and dishonest, crafty and deceitful at worst (2 Cor. 4:2).

If they are Christians, I wonder if the True Intelligent Designer, Whom I have named herein, is even within a million miles of their efforts. That is, I don't think He will bless the efforts.

[gcruse]

You're going to tell me we're talking about Zeus, here, right? I agree with the judge. The disingenuous inanity of the ID pushers betrays their agenda.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is unbelievable the outright distortions that are perpetuated in this debate.

If someone wants to believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old it does little good to take issue. If someone wants to believe matter can organize itself without any directing agent, intelligent or not, who am I to prove him wrong? Neither assertion is particularly germane to the practice of science. But to see lawsuits over these beliefs fairly well tips the hand of those who pretend science is an innocuous pursuit, void of philosophical implications. Do you know which side of the debate filed the Dover lawsuit?

[Free Baptist]

"Christians are not persecuted in America. The inability to teach children that God created man in a science class is not persecution."

Well, there are now, and have been real cases of (anti)Christian persecution in America. You are probably not in the position of paying attention to those kinds of things, so you may be unaware. And much of what is really persecution will never be deemed as such by non-Christians.

But my thoughts keep returning to another question; let me see if I can pose it here in an understandable manner.

Let's first consider the hours spent by, say, Christians, in trying to get government and the government schools to accept "Intelligent Design," and the hours, days and weeks spent in trying to get "Intelligent Design" incorporated into science curricula. Let us then consider the amounts of money the "ID" people (IF Christians) are spending in various ways, including in the courts, trying to get "ID" legally permitted in the government schools.

Now, here's the question: WHAT IF (i.e. What would happen if...) those same people (if Christians) were to spend the same amount of time, money and energy actually introducing the Intelligent Designer, Himself, to their own relatives, neighbors, friends, colleagues, work mates, school mates, and to any others who will listen?

I believe that the "ID" people (if Christians) would be much more effective in the long haul if they were to put their time, money and energies into personal Christian evangelism, introducing Jesus Christ, the Savior, and the Intelligent Designer. The reason that we have what we have in this nation -- such widespread unbelief in the CREATOR, and such anti-Christian militancy in publicly financed institutions, is because Christians, by-and-large, stopped practicing personal evangelism 65 years ago. Professing Christian church people have left the preaching of the Gospel to their "clergymen." From 1800 to 1940 there had been a much higher percentage of church folks who thought it to be their personal responsibility to win their neighbors to Jesus Christ through personal witnessing. If Christians had continued, there would be more Christians on the school faculties and school boards, more Christians in the judicial system, more Christians in government in general.

Christians have ceded the the tax-supported schools (and the remainder of government) to unbelievers. We have peeled off and begun Christian schools and home schools. I certainly have departed from any government involvement in the education of my children. We do go out into our neighborhood (my whole family), and witness for Christ. It is part of our home school requirements as well. We distribute free Bibles and Gospel literature. We print leaflets and letters offering to any of our neighbors our time, biblical counsel and prayers to their loved ones who might be in jail, hospitals and nursing facilities.

If I ever receive any letters from "Christian" organizations soliciting donations to the "ID" cause, I will throw them in the garbage! Any donation that I might make would be much better spent purchasing Bibles and Gospel literature for my next door neighbors, introducing them to the Intelligent Designer. Every new Christian, won to Christ by another Christian will mean one less person who will become a worshiper of Charles Darwin and his crowd.

[NonLinear]

And how many times do you folks have to be educated to the simple and demonstrable fact that the Theory of Evolution does not encompass abiogenesis in its scope?

You must have missed post post #47

[Fester Chugabrew]

You're going to tell me we're talking about Zeus, here, right?

As far as I know, "Zeus" was a personal name given to a very strong "god." "The principal god of the Greek pantheon, ruler of the heavens, and father of other gods and mortal heroes." The name is found in Greek mythology, which clearly presents itself as such, and thus would hardly be considered a scientifically reasonable entity.

"Theos" was the generic name ascribed to the ultimate intelligent designer. This concept is handy for explaining the fact that particle matter and biological entities demonstrate a manner and degree of organization and function far beyond the capacity of intelligent human beings. Intelligent design has been a standard assumption of science from the start. Science cannot detect any data that is wholly unstable and disorganized and thus not manifest to any human sense.

There is no harm in beginning with the assumption that particle matter is intelligently designed in such a way that intelligent deings are able to observe it and comment about it. Nor is there any harm in simply saying "God did it." In fact, it is a very reasonable starting point for science. From there it may explore and describe in whatever way it wishes exactly what God did.

Meanwhile science must leave it an open question as to what may or may not become manifest during its investigation. It may become apparent, after further study of the speed of light, for example, that it has not always been constant. What would such an observation imply for the rest of the scientific world? I happen to believe the speed of light is slowing down.

Science calls the natural force of attraction "gravity." Great. But is it really "natural?" All that means is that it's usual and ordinary, not unlike intelligence and design. But what makes these things "usual and ordnary?" Is it merely the length of time the process happens, or its predictability?

Merry Christmas!

[Fester Chugabrew]

At bottom, government endorsement of atheistic science is an unconstitutional infringement upon the rights of those who would undertake science from a theistic point of view. If goverment is prohibited from favoring one belief over another, then it must accomodate them both. That includes both atheists and theists. If government cannot accommodate both points of view, then the public school system should be dismantled altogether. I believe it is proper to allow the atheistic point of view to be presented in public schools, but that point of view is by no means entitled to an exclusive hearing.

[Broker]

Some have posted here in how Darwinists are Christians (words are interchangable). Furthermore inferring how they are reconciling their faith with a genesis of random events from primordal goo.

It is comical/tragical how the God who is there offends simplistic Darwinist world viewers.

Let science study the wonders of the universe. We are not God. We are earth travelers in a heavenly universe. SETI will find nothing. We are alone. Some of us thank God for his creation and grace. Some us use science to appreciate it more .

Merry Christmas.

[Mamzelle]

More evo-clutter.

[gcruse]

From the article itself by  --

Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture developed a "Wedge Document" in which it said the goal of the intelligent design movement is to "replace science as currently practiced with 'theistic and Christian science.'"

Jones also points out that the ID textbook the Dover policy encouraged students to check out, "Of Pandas and People," is not only published by an organization identified in IRS filings as a "religious, Christian organization," but that the book was meticulously changed following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in 1987 that the U.S. Constitution forbids the teaching of creationism as science.

By comparing the early drafts to the later ones, he said, it was clear that the definition for creation science was identical to the definition of intelligent design and that the word creation and its variants were replaced with the phrase ID and that it all happened shortly after the Supreme Court decision.

Elsewhere --

  As far as I can tell, there's hardly a liberal in this story. The judge is a Republican. The voters who kicked out their school board come from a staunchly conservative community. It appears that the movement to sneak religion into science class -- which has commanded a national debate -- is the work of a noisy few.

[Fester Chugabrew]

I disagree with any attempts to replace atheistic science with theistic science. Both serve a purpose. The battle for exclusivity between the two is unnecessary. The debate should take place heartily and cordially. In general it has little bearing on how the universe operates.