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.
"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"
Examples please.
"A less than omnipotent and not quite comniscient God would have to resort to the ID tinkering"
I don't follow this. Either the Judeo Christian God exists, and created Man in his image...meaning a directed creation towards that goal...or the Judeo Christian God does not exist and some other type of God created the universe without any intention or goal but just for the Hell of it...so to speak.....or no God exists, as according to Dawkins, and this entire discussion is just a big waste of time.
Well said.
I am so tired of the not-Scottish-enough-for-me creationist.
The one with the orange codpiece, or the Lime green one?
"Well said."
Thanks. We may be a bit outnumbered here on this one.
The Grand Master is not that kind of man.
Hah!
Another six months in the janitorial pool.
Of course.
Where are those photos....
Um, fizzi, this guy is saying that Hitler's dreams are "Fellatious". I don't want to see any 'examples'. Maybe that's just me, but... there are some places that I'd rather not go...
"Um, fizzi, this guy is saying that Hitler's dreams are "Fellatious".
Well I suppose in the sense that Hitler dreamed of engineering a race of super men and then, I suppose, fellating them.
you owe me a beer... and a keyboard...
Oh, man....
Actually Stultis, neither Alamo-Girl nor I is a "new ager." In fact, we are so "old ager" in mentality and spirit as to be virtually prehistoric. (I hope she will forgive me for putting it that way.) :^)
Seriously, by "old ager," I mean we stick with God's revelation, as shown forth in the holy scriptures and in "the book of nature." I don't think I speak for myself alone when I say there are no "new" truths under the sun, only God's truth, from the beginning....
Merry Christmas, Stultis!
Wonderfully put! I've never seen the case for providential evolution put as well as you have put it!
ZC: you've been wondering about the difference between ID and thesitic evolution, or "providential design" as you like to call it. Well, I think Stultis has summarized it better than anyone.
Faith and Science Ping.
I'm very glad he mentioned that. That is precisely the motivation behind the DI's pursuit of the whole ID crusade: They think that we're all incapable of learning from history. We're incapable of reasoning our way to a moral system that's objectively good & life-affirming. So they think that without everyone believing in a supernatural Authority Figure, all major moral struggles will always end up being more passionate versions of Coke vs. Pepsi. And therefore, without God all there is is Hobbes' war of all against all, as the most ruthless interest groups try to crush each other in pursuit of their own interests, unrestrained by any objective morality.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. ... 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.
IOW, creationists fear that the postmodernists are right: There is no objective Truth. Creationists, to their credit, hate this possibility, but they are stuck in stage 3 of the grieving process: magical thinking. They hope that if the intelligentsia can get back to believing in the same Authority Figure god again, then the major moral arguments of the day can get settled once & for all, and everyone will be happy again.
But it's all so unnecessary. It may take time & much painful experience, but we can learn from history, because there is objective Truth out there to learn from.
Blasphemy!
:-)
Superb post. I've touched on this earlier, by asking, and getting no answers, to this question: If God announced that His work here is done and He's leaving this universe forever, wouldn't we still have the ability to know right from wrong?
Some of the ID advocates are motivated as you suggest, but others have a darker purpose. They want what every swami since time began has always wanted. They want to convince you that you have no capacity to observe and understand reality. Thus paralyzed, you will have no alternative but to turn to the swami for his profound wisdom, and his gentle guidance.
The Discovery Institute's campaign against evolution -- and against the scientific method itself -- literally amounts to a full-blown war against reason. Those who don't understand this are already in swami-land.
So then, what are you arguing about? You are against teaching ID but for teaching "providential theism" in the classroom? Either way there is a Designer, is there not? Six of one, half a dozen of the other. The only possible difference I can see is that you PD'ers want the atheists to like you so you attack your fellow Theistic evolutionists and ignore the fact that the most dogmatic Darwinists themselves insist that G-d is "superfluous," G-d forbid. I certainly never see you PD'ers scolding dogmatic atheist Darwinists.
I suggest you read my Chanukkah post on the "religion" board.
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.