Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Intelligent Design Advocates Face Uphill Fight
Legal Intelligencer ^ | 12/22/2005 | Hank Grezlak

Posted on 12/22/2005 6:09:22 PM PST by 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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy; US: Pennsylvania
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; eduction; intelligentdesign; judicialactivism; law
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-293 next last
To: jess35
ID isn't a constitutional right.

Of course it isn't. The ability to teach it in a public school is. Scientific observers are not beholden to what the government declares as acceptable starting points. Under the Constitution public schools are free to treat scientific matters from both an atheistic and a theistic standpoint. Moreover, they are obligated either to include both points of view or get out of the school business altogether.

161 posted on 12/23/2005 11:47:45 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Okay, thanks for settling thousands of years of scientific inquiry for us.

Assuming the universe was intelligently designed by God does not at all "settle" scientific inquiry. It opens the door and gives direction, so that it approaches the universe expecting order and purpose. One can certainly still make some sense of the universe without such an assumption, but that does not necessarily make the approach "more scientific."

162 posted on 12/23/2005 11:53:11 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: News Junkie
which the Judge's accepted definition of science doesn't allow for.

Behe and the ID crowd can't get ID accepted as science unless they change the definition of science. The Intelligent Design proselytizers are kind of like the gay marriage people. They want to redefine words and practices to accomodate and include their personal beliefs. Who'd have thought the gay marriage proponents and the ID proponents would use the exact same tactics...and have so much in common?

163 posted on 12/23/2005 11:53:53 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

What you describe is not Science.


164 posted on 12/23/2005 11:54:31 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Fester Chugabrew

Fester, come on...be honest, unlike the school board in the Dover case. Just admit that you want to take science, completely destroy the traditional purpose and meaning and use it as a tool for proselytizing. Lying about it and pretending you're not really doing that doesn't glorify you or make it worthy of the Lord.


165 posted on 12/23/2005 11:57:55 AM PST by jess35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: jess35

Sure it is. Science is merely the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. It happens nicely when one begins with the assumption that the universe is intelligently designed. The presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws is most supportive of that same assumption.


166 posted on 12/23/2005 11:59:25 AM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: jess35

Interesting analogy.

You're right, of course. ID proponents are arguing openly for a change in the definition of science. That is discussed in the Dover decision as well.

Whether or not that change in definition is warranted is one, if not the, key question in this whole debate.


167 posted on 12/23/2005 12:03:53 PM PST by News Junkie (Awed by science, but open to transcendancy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: jess35
Just admit that you want to take science, completely destroy the traditional purpose and meaning and use it as a tool for proselytizing.

No one has a monolpoly on science or it's definition. The common definition is simply "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." If anyone is interested in re-defining science, it is those who would divorce it from the notion of intelligent design. Who would do a thing like that without saying so up front? Who is it that is attempting to establish atheistic science in public schools without calling it "atheistic?"

168 posted on 12/23/2005 12:04:39 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: KingofZion
Intelligent Design as "science" is officially dead."""

Unless it's true. The judge didn't say it isn't true, only that it relies on the existence of an agent or power outside of the natural order. If that power or agent exists, then ID isn't dead.

169 posted on 12/23/2005 12:05:14 PM PST by churchillbuff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: News Junkie

"The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." Exactly how does this definition of science particularly address the concept of intelligent design or lack thereof? Why should someone need to change, or expand, this definition in order to interpret the presence of organized matter as a product of intelligent design?


170 posted on 12/23/2005 12:09:24 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: News Junkie

You really should read Behe's testimony (it's here at FR). In the beginning of this trial the defendants took the position that ID was not proposing anything to do with the supernatural. It seemed clear that position was designed to ward off any conclusion that might view ID as a religious concept. Any way, Behe's statements while on the stand are very interesting to read...he simply gets befuddled and is his own worst enemy.


171 posted on 12/23/2005 12:28:03 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

Comment #172 Removed by Moderator

To: Fester Chugabrew
theistic science

What exactly is "theistic science"?

173 posted on 12/23/2005 2:39:42 PM PST by RightWingNilla
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon
It makes scientific examination impossible, and scientific conclusions impossible.

Actually it does nothing of the sort. One of the basis of ID is Irreducible Complexity, which certainly requires scientific examination.

174 posted on 12/23/2005 2:52:26 PM PST by Hacksaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: News Junkie
Behe's point, was that if you are to examine if a Designer exists you have to have a thought system that allows for the supernatural to exist.

"I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it!"

175 posted on 12/23/2005 2:58:11 PM PST by Oztrich Boy (so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about - J S Mill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

Interesting point. Thanks for pointing me to source material, in this case Behe's testimony. So far, I've only been reading and referencing the Dover decision language.

I'll look for, and read, Behe's testimony and draw my conclusions further after I've read that.


176 posted on 12/23/2005 3:22:09 PM PST by News Junkie (Awed by science, but open to transcendancy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Oztrich Boy

Cute. Misleading, inaccurate, and not particularly helpful. But cute.


177 posted on 12/23/2005 3:23:43 PM PST by News Junkie (Awed by science, but open to transcendancy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: News Junkie

Excellent. Let me know what you think.


178 posted on 12/23/2005 3:26:04 PM PST by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
"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."

Could be. God is a spirit, says Jesus. A spirit is something that cannot be seen or touched in our dimesions yet can have an effect and cause action in our dimension. The interesting thing is that this entire universe is comprised of spirits. We call them fields, such as the magnetic field, electric, strong, weak fields....they are essentially spirit-like.

Isn't it interesting that in the time of Jesus they could conceive of spirits, force fields?

Could we be an experiment? sure, could be. God has given us 2 important attributes; free-will and the ability to love. God is certainly interested in how many people will love Him versus those who succumb to dark spirits. God refuses to force us to love Him because then it would not be true love which comes only with free-will.

So in a way we may already be a vast experiment to see how God creates a people that will voluntarily love Him without actually coercing them (a difficult task for God).

God's original experiment was to give man a soul and immortality. God spoke directly with man, Adam and Eve, and by the force of His presence and knowledge that an all powerful God existed they were to love Him forever. That experiment failed, because of free-will and the knowledge that they could indulge in worldly things against Gods will, even stop loving Him...forever. They learned how to sin, forever. God did not want sinners who lived forever without loving Him so he gave them mortality. He let them die off. They would die and turn to dust, and a new man would be born who might choose a different path. Those who did choose to love God would simply continue their lives as spirits, after their natural death They would live alongside God in His realm instead of on earth.

Since that didn't work God tried another approach, as told in the Old Testament. He would still make Himself known directly to certain men by appearing and speaking with them (ala Moses) and they would worship by making sacrifices and attempting to convert others by conquest. But this wasn't working too well. Men kept becoming more and more sinful. So He told them instead he would send a representative to directly intervene in the experiment and prove once and for all that God was real for all men, but also that he was vengeful and that he was forgiving and loving, but that he was real and we all needed to love and worhip Him. If we did so then he would forgive our sins, and the experiment would proceed in a very different manner than before he sent His rep, the Messiah. We would no longer convert by conquest either, only by love. In fact, only God would do the conversions.

Jesus was the beginning of a third variation of the experiment.

Jesus became the portal to God. By sincerely accepting Jesus as Lord and Saviour He would place inside of you a spirit (Holy spirit) that would give you a direct, personal connection with God. It's resolution is not like HDTV but it provides a sense of passion and love for you when you do those things God prefers you to be doing. Everybody is given a specific purpose by God and the Holy Spirit guides us to that purpose when we tune into it.

We cannot know God's purpose beyond what he tells us through scripture, but we can know our purpose given to us by God. God may look at this as an experiment, like I've described, or as you describe, or it may mean something else entirely beyond our ken.

Whatever the truth, it is for each of us individually to find that truth by studying the Bible and letting the Holy Spirit guide us. The truth will be different for everybody because we are all unique with unique purpose.

I do know that Jesus is truly the Messiah, and that the Bible can tell us the truths we need to know for ourselves, if we let it.

No man that was devoted to God and Jesus and who studied the Bible everyday ever died an empty, unrewarded life.

179 posted on 12/23/2005 6:08:31 PM PST by Mark Felton ("Your faith should not be in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: knowledgeforfreedom

The so-called key word "natural" is not a scientific concept. It is an arbitrary assignment of meaning that cannot be ascribed without indulging a circular argument or a tautology, such as "natural is whatever is not supernatural." But what ultimately determines whether a phenomenon is natural or supernatural? I think you'll find it is determined solely from the standpoint of each observer.

How do you know the force of gravity is not supernatural? Fact is, you don't. We've merely adopted a human convention of calling it "natural." Did it suddenly become "natural" just because we've seen it in operation for a while? Sorry, but nomenclature does not effect the nature inherent in a given object.

By insisting that the definition of science necessarily employ the arbitrary term of "natural," you have not only constrained it to your own narrow version of what you think science ought to be, but you have introduced a concept science cannot definitively address.


180 posted on 12/23/2005 6:21:22 PM PST by Fester Chugabrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-293 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson