Posted on 12/25/2005 11:16:00 AM PST by PatrickHenry
If there is such a thing as home-field advantage in a courtroom, intelligent design should have carried the day in the Dover evolution trial.
Advocates of ID had the support of the local school board, a case presented by experienced lawyers from the Thomas More Legal Foundation, expert witnesses with scientific credentials, and a conservative judge appointed by President George W. Bush. That judge gave them all the time they wanted to lay out the scientific case for ID. And lay it out they did.
But that was exactly the problem.
In the harsh light of the courtroom, ID shriveled and died. As Judge John E. Jones 3d noted in his opinion, he was forced to come to "the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science." After six weeks of watching from the bench as ID's pseudoscientific arguments fell apart, as it advocates admitted they had no positive evidence for "design," and as school board members "testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath," it was clear that the judge had seen enough.
He slammed the Dover school board's "breathtaking inanity," and he enjoined the board from making ID a part of its curriculum at any time in the future. Jones' devastating opinion is written in clear and accessible language and should be required reading for every administrator, school board member, and science educator in the United States. [Here's the judge's opinion.]
So, exposed, discredited and defeated, ID is finished as an anti-evolution movement, right? I wouldn't count on it.
As the Dover trial showed, ID is nothing more than old-fashioned creationism, distinguished only by its advocates' willingness to be disingenuous about its origins, motivations and goals. But that does little to detract from its appeal. Advocates of ID, such as Sen. Rick Santorum (R., Pa.), oppose evolution not because of its scientific flaws, but because they see it as a cultural and moral threat.
In an Aug. 4 interview on National Public Radio, Santorum stated that "if we are the result of chance, if we're simply a mistake of nature, then that puts a different moral demand on us. In fact, it doesn't put a moral demand on us - than if in fact we are a creation of a being that has moral demands." In other words, the problem with evolution, in his view, is that it invalidates morality because it does away with God.
Santorum, of course, has recently retracted his support of those involved in the Dover case. But his principled opposition to evolution remains.
That kind of visceral opposition isn't going to respond to scientific evidence, and it certainly isn't going to be affected by a judge's ruling - even from a judge whom the senator himself supported for the bench.
Nationwide, ID is on the march, and Dover notwithstanding, it's winning. The ID movement has rewritten science-education standards in Kansas, gained the support of legislators in more than a dozen states, and regularly pressures teachers, administrators and textbook publishers to weaken the coverage of evolution. Dover represents a substantial victory for science, but the greater war goes on. And, like many wars, this one results from a profound misunderstanding.
The great fiction that powers the ID movement is that evolution is inherently antireligious. By emphasizing the material nature of evolutionary science, ID advocates are convinced that they can force their antiscience ideas into the classroom in the name of balance and fairness. Once there, they are convinced, students in a society as religious as the United States will surely turn their backs on mainstream science, embracing ID and strengthening their faith in God. Any harm in that?
Why, none at all, if we are prepared to abdicate world leadership by raising a generation of young people so mistrustful of science that they turn their backs on the scientific community and abandon science as a way of knowing about the world and improving the human condition.
A deeper understanding of Western religion in general, and the Christian message in particular, would end this war and blunt the attempts of the anti-evolution movement to divide Americans along cultural lines. As conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote last month, "How ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God. What could be more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine than a planet with millions of life forms, distinct and yet interactive, all ultimately derived from accumulated variations in a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein?" What indeed? For just as Darwin said, there is "grandeur in this view of life," and a deeper understanding of the ways in which "endless forms most wonderful and most beautiful have been and are being evolved" can only deepen our faith and enhance our respect for the unity of scientific and spiritual knowledge.
On this Christmas season, I thank the Lord for the wonderful people of Dover who fought for this decision, and I hope the good news of its wisdom will spread throughout the land.
"Intelligent design will be happening when the humans master not only reading the genomes, but understanding them and then writing them ourselves. If we write [and then implement] them intelligently, then it will be Intelligent Design. Probably something like year 2150, give or take."
Adolph Hitler's dream....
Actually, no, that's not ID. Remember ID bases it's "inference" of "intelligent design" on the presumption that certain features COULD NOT have evolved, even though many ID'ers believe many other things did evolve. ID may coexist with evolution as a kind of supplement: somethings evolved, others were "intelligently designed". And granted it's entirely mysterious what ID might be in terms of positive process, since IDers resolutely refuse to even speculate about how (or when, or where) instances of ID are actually instantiated.
But it's entirely clear what ID is NOT. If it's possible that something "evolved" then that is definitely not "ID".
Still, we have Pantheism, which is a nice cozy God that lets you do whatever you want because all is God...both good and evil. Its very popular among new agers and compatible fully with Darwinism.
Sure, pantheism's compatible too. And most "new ager" types are probably evolutionists of some description (although certainly not all -- as witness our own Alamo-Girl and betty boop, Christian new agers who take the creationism side in these debates). But it should be noted that new agers have often been hostile to Darwinism -- that is to specifically darwinian versions of evolution -- and sometimes champion creationism, or at least creationism's antievolution arguments.
Just a few example of works by new agers in my antievolution library that come to mind: Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (repeats many typical creation science arguments); William Fix, The Bone Peddlers (ditto); Maharahji PradaYadaWhatchmacallhim Life Comes from Life (Hare Krishna -- evolution contradicts reincarnation which holds that souls evolve but species remain fixed); and several others (e.g. anything related to Theosophy, which has it's own evolutionary scheme including "root races" and "vibrational levels" that is utter incompatible on multiple grounds with any scientific account).
NOG ... HAZE ... THICKENING ...
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
Aquinas already did so, at least from the epistemological standpoint. The sum total correlations of things are different from the individual correlations as they are known to us. In other words, the dichotomy regular and irregular are not equally observer contingent.
Secondly, just as the presence of regularity does not make irregularity disappear, the causality of intelligence does not make random events disappear.
Hegel did something similar when he raised non-being (a logical concept) to an existential reality. Can't do that.
And to you.
Those who missed the annual Christmas party at Darwin Central's headquarters missed out on seeing the Grand Master in his Santa outfit. Quite a sight!
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
He also believed in multiplication table, if you didn't notice. Ad hominem arguments are fellatious.
"No one believes life came into being by pure blind chance"
You cannot be serious? Millions do. Richard Dawkins, king of blind chance and Darwinism, does. I read his book...The Blind Watchmaker...its very good. I don't believe it but he is an intelligent man and persuavsive debater.
Cmon, lets not make such overtly ridiculous statements.
"He also believed in multiplication table, if you didn't notice. Ad hominem arguments are fellatious."
I have no idea what you are referring to.
I agree though, fellatious arguments such as ad hominem arguments really suck.
"There's plenty of room for ground where both science and religion can meet in harmony."
I agree, but evolution by chance is completely incompatible with the Judeo Christian concept of God, and certainly incompatible with the Christian concept of the fall of man and redemption through Christ.
But we have been down that road...you don't believe there are any true athiests out there (i.e. blind chancers) but I cannot fathom how you can come to that conclusion.
What I am referring to is that even Hitler believed in and dreamed about many of the same things you or me are believing in or dreaming about. Thus ad hominem references to his dreams are not arguments in the least - and therefore by their proper antillectual quality are to be designated as fellatious.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
A less than omnipotent and not quite comniscient God would have to resort to the ID tinkering
Among the many implications of this trial here in Pennsylvania is that the outcome is but one more nail in the coffin of Rick Santorum.
Fellatious isn't really a word, but if you are to attempt to derive it from a real word, the best guess would be the verb "to fellate". I think that you meant "fallacious". I hope you meant that, anyways.
In any case, you are quite amusing...
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.