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.
"Do you truly believe that any field of study that is based on what can be observed instead of what's in your heart is a religion? Is Chemistry a religion? Is Trigonometry a religion?"
I don't know where you get that from, I have never said that. What I have been saying is that Naturalism demands a natural explanation for the existence of life and the universe. Science has been defined by the mainstream such that an ID explanation is automatically ruled out...it is not science because...it is not naturalism.
If God exists, and is separate from nature, and created the natural world, naturalistic explanations can only go so far, at some point God has to enter the picture.
Fantastic article
Scopes Trial Part 2, but with a different ending...
Science in this nation is already dying a slow death, we do not need to be confusing kids by throwing something like ID into science classes.
Want to teach ID in social studies, or religious studies, ghost hunting 101? Sure, go right ahead. But leave it out of the science class. Science tries to find the answers to "how" and religion asks "why"- They are both vital, and are not in competition, but need to be kept apart.
First, you are a very uncivil and hostile debater.
Perhaps it has escaped your attention that I've been responding to uncivil and hostile posts.
How about calming down a bit?
I am perfectly calm.
That valium in your medicine cabinet may help.
Oh, gosh, that's a new one, that's clever, I am slain by your Oscar-Wilde-like wit. You should go on tour.
Second, I never proposed that there is any conpiracy.
That was a canned response. Feel free to disregard the parts that don't closely match your own version of the trite misconception.
That is in your paranoid mind.
Okay, I'll bite -- even if I had written the comment about the conspiracy theory in direct response to your post, and was mistaken about it, how would that make me "paranoid"? Look, if you're going to play the Pee-Wee Herman "I know you are but what am I?" card, it at least has to make *sense*...
Although Darwinism can mean simply evolution, I have always considered it in this debate to also mean first causes..too. So when I say Darwinism I include spontaneous formation of life from the infamous building blocks through chance.
I am not responsible for your misunderstanding of the term.
I, like Kenneth Miller believe that evolution can be reconciled with God, but creation of life by chance cannot.
Why not? And are you trying to say that Kenneth Miller shares your view? Your sentence is ambiguous in that regard.
I am not an opponent of evolutionary theory, though I do ask that its flaws be at least mentioned in school.
What might those be?
And with respect to first causes, I also ask the ID also be mentioned in school when speculating on this matter.
In my experience, it usually is. But to make it part of school policy to do so is to step over the line.
200, but who's counting?
Because Darwinists are some of the most insecure and bitter people you will ever meet.
They have no REAL answers for anything.
Remember when adults said to their kids you cannot have some item. I believe the judge has increased the curiosity of the "forbidden intelligent design" so that many will look into it.
Naturalists want something bigger out of the equation and because they have not developed an instrument that can see the invisible they dismiss its existence and yet we know animals can hear beyond range. What's not to say there is life are human eyes cannot see.
Naturalism says we have laws by chance and yet there is no earthly reason why we should be able to communicate over the internet by naturalism. Look at the range of temperature for human existence 98.6. Think about it. Get down to 90 or go to 102, and you start to have problems. Same with the earth temperature. Go to -100 For 200 F and life becomes impossible. Look at the other planets, and we find they are not fit for human life.
Naturalists say that man is the greatest being out there and yet one looks at Mt Everest and realizes we are very small. We see the power of tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes and tsunamis and see nature is more powerful than man. We build our computers and planes but have yet to fully replicate the human brain.
The argument goes forces of nature eventually brought about man and man builds a spaceship. Non-living force produces intelligent life and then intelligent life makes technological marvels. I choose to believe Intelligent Life brought about intelligent man who makes technological marvels.
You must be talking about evolutionists. You're confused.
Then he was one who slipped through the cracks. I refuse to believe President Bush had this kind of ruling in mind when he appointed this guy.
You're conflating methological naturalism with philosophical naturalism. Try again.
And it is not "the mainstream" which "has defined science" in a way that "automatically rules out ID". Science itself is predicated on necessary conditions and methods, which leave supernatural causes outside of its scope.
"ID" in its mundane form can be within the scope of science, as in how forensic science determines if a crime scene has been tampered with (via "intelligent intervention") or not. It's also possible to investigate whether a pathogen is natural or has been bioengineered into a weapon.
But the kind of "ID" being pushed by the "ID movement" is repackaged creationism, with the default "designer" being "the Christian God". And in that case, all bets are off, because nothing can be tested, validated, or falsified -- the "designer" could have tweaked the evidence in any conceivable way, for any conceivable (and inconceivable) reason. It makes scientific examination impossible, and scientific conclusions impossible.
This statement is proof that this is anti-Christian persecution."
No one is telling you that you cannot believe in ID if you want to believe in it. That is your right and no one can take that away from you. You can discuss the ID concept at church, discuss it with your friends and discuss it with the guy next to you at the coffee shop. Just don't push the ID concept off as real science and require government schools to teach ID. The government has no business teaching religion and that is the whole point of this. Government and religion are never to be mixed according to the constitution.
The Judge did a good job of not being an activist, but one who followed the tenets of the law very tightly in this decision.
Unfortunately for you, the law is not in your favor.
I'll be generous and say that that was an absolutely ignorant statement of yours. Clearly you do not know any better, I am sorry to say. You certainly have not read the New testament. The problem is yours, not mine.
The Inquisition was not a Christian act. It was the program of a corrupt and all too powerful Catholic church, not Christistianity. Catholicism of the time was a combination of a personality cult, authoritarian dictatorship, and religion. They used Christ to sell the people on their authority. That is why they did not want the people to read the Bible. The Bible does not authorize the Catholic church to behave the way they did.
There is no chapter or verse of the Bible which tells men to behave like the grand tyrants of the medieval catholic church. They were tyrants first and Christians not at all. They used Christ to acquire and abuse power. Satan knows Bible front to back, and better than you. Satan ruled the old catholic church.
The Catholic church did not behave like Christ and it does not define what it means to be christian.
You insult the founders of this great nation and most American Christians by charging them with the sins of those who violate the teachings of Christ.
Only the New testament defines what it means to be a Christian. No man has authority over my faith. No man tells me what to believe. I follow Christ only and His words as recorded in the gospels. No church governs my faith or that of any Protestant. I am responsible for my own actions and I listen to my own conscience as I read the Bible.
Perhaps you were never educated enough to learn the difference between Catholics and Protestants. Perhaps you never read the New Testament. In that case you are merely ignorant and clueless about the meaning of Christianity.
I am sorry for you.
I am really sorry if the purpose of your remark was intended to be malicious towards Christians. It was inept on all accounts.
BTW: The US Constitution and Bill of Rights were produced by Christians. In particular the BoR exists primarily because of the efforts of US Baptists, in particular, John Leland, who a Baptist preacher who forced Madison to include the BoR in the new Constitution.
You obviously did not know that Baptists were the first of any association of men to promote the sepration of church and State. It has been a tenet of faith for Baptists since 1612 that men should be free from government influence over their faith and that churches should not become involved in government. Why" because they were persecuted by other Christians. AFTER 1776 baptists were still being imprisoned for preaching in states like Virginia. Leland had been jailed a couple of times, and beaten many times.
No atheist ever created a free society.
Only Christians have ever created a free society. (There is a reason for that).
Without Christ you will never be free, and you can never create a free society because you believe men are smarter than God. Without Christ men are tyrants. Christ was not a tyrant.
You must be talking about evolutionists. You're confused.
There's one now! Here's another one of your greatest hits from the "insults iridule, and half-baked pompous answers" file:
"Evolution is an idiot theory designed to disprove the Bible."Here's one of your "half-baked pompous" ones:
Actually biology was one of my strongest subjects, and I got straight A's not only in College but also in High School. "I love biology and bet I could run circles around you in any discussion on the topic."Here are some examples from your fellow creationists:
"ances to you are twisted by your insistance in clinging to the completely disproven religion of evolution (otherwise known as the "I-can-have-any-kind-of-sex-I-want-to" faith." [by: editor-surveyor. And yes, his post started in the middle of a word like that.]Etc., etc."Evo cannot stand on its own, so its prognosticators (demented nutcase on this thread) must turn quickly to an attack on 'creationists'" [by: Running Wolf]\
"You are still in denial: not one tiny proof exists to support Darwin or Neo-Darwin evolution." [by: caffe]
"Please tell us you have a clue. I'd hate to see you guys show yourselves ignorant prejudicial jackboot drones marching to some script cause you can't think for yourselves..." [by: Havoc]
Insults? How big of you. Christians have been persecuted since the time of Christ and it will never stop. They will be challenged however expecially when they attempt to overule parents and indoctrinate their children with the religion of secular humanism, and atheistic value systems.
" When Christians are caught lying in order to advance a religious agenda, they have no right to shriek persecution. That's what happened with creationism and that is what's happening with ID."
So, no matter what the truth, if a Christian claims it is so stated in the Bible then it must automatically be countered and refuted by anti-Christians because they cannot afford to give the Bible any credibility whatsoever.
Only people of a very weak, false, faith fear the words of Christ, or the Old Testament.
Why do you fear Christ? Are you a sinner? No, you must be perfect because Christ died for sinners and God only forgives sinners. All Christians are sinners, I was one of the worst. Thanks to Christ I am now a better man. (Before Christ I thought I knew it all, like you.)
What the judge and most of the maroon ignore is: That man is the only animal thats "needs" relgion. He/they will NEVER change that.
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.