Posted on 12/31/2005 12:41:23 PM PST by streetpreacher
| Darwin's Pyrrhic victory Posted: December 28, 2005
By Patrick J. Buchanan © 2005 Creators Syndicate Inc.
"Intelligent Design Derailed," exulted the headline. "By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about 'intelligent design' as an alternative to the theory of evolution," declared the New York Times, which added its own caning to the Christians who dared challenge the revealed truths of Darwinian scripture. Noting that U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III is a Bush appointee, the Washington Post called his decision "a scathing opinion that criticized local school board members for lying under oath and for their 'breathtaking inanity' in trying to inject religion into science classes." But is it really game, set, match, Darwin? Have these fellows forgotten that John Scopes, the teacher in that 1925 "Monkey Trial," lost in court, and was convicted of violating Tennessee law against the teaching of evolution and fined $100? Yet Darwin went on to conquer public education, and American Civil Liberties Union atheists went on to purge Christianity and the Bible from our public schools.
The Dover defeat notwithstanding, the pendulum is clearly swinging back. Darwinism is on the defensive. For, as Tom Bethell, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science," reminds us, there is no better way to make kids curious about "intelligent design" than to have some Neanderthal forbid its being mentioned in biology class. In ideological politics, winning by losing is textbook stuff. The Goldwater defeat of 1964, which a triumphant left said would bury the right forever, turned out to be liberalism's last hurrah. Like Marxism and Freudianism, Darwinism appears destined for the graveyard of discredited ideas, no matter the breathtaking inanity of the trial judge. In his opinion, Judge Jones the Third declared:
But if intelligent design is creationism or fundamentalism in drag, how does Judge Jones explain how that greatest of ancient thinkers, Aristotle, who died 300 years before Christ, concluded that the physical universe points directly to an unmoved First Mover? As Aristotle wrote in his "Physics": "Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. But this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some First Mover." A man of science and reason, Aristotle used his observations of the physical universe to reach conclusions about how it came about. Where is the evidence he channeled the Torah and creation story of Genesis before positing his theory about a prime mover? Darwinism is in trouble today for the reason creationism was in trouble 80 years ago. It makes claims that are beyond the capacity of science to prove. Darwinism claims, for example, that matter evolved from non-matter – i.e., something from nothing – that life evolved from non-life; that, through natural selection, rudimentary forms evolved into more complex forms; and that men are descended from animals or apes. Now, all of this is unproven theory. And as the Darwinists have never been able to create matter out of non-matter or life out of non-life, or extract from the fossil record the "missing links" between species, what they are asking is that we accept it all on faith. And the response they are getting in the classroom and public forum is: "Prove it," and, "Where is your evidence?" And while Darwinism suggests our physical universe and its operations happened by chance and accident, intelligent design seems to comport more with what men can observe and reason to.
If, for example, we are all atop the Grand Canyon being told by a tour guide that nature, in the form of a surging river over eons of time, carved out the canyon, we might all nod in agreement. But if we ask how "Kilroy was here!" got painted on the opposite wall of the canyon, and the tour guide says the river did it, we would all howl. A retreating glacier may have created the mountain, but the glacier didn't build the cabin on top of it. Reason tells us the cabin came about through intelligent design. Darwinism is headed for the compost pile of discarded ideas because it cannot back up its claims. It must be taken on faith. It contains dogmas men may believe, but cannot stand the burden of proof, the acid of attack or the demands of science. Where science says, "No miracles allowed," Darwinism asks us to believe in miracles.
|
Where is the "circular argument" in deducing intelligent design from the presence of organized matter that behaves according to predictable laws?
Judges have come up with their own ideas of "equality" whereby if some tiny minority objects to what's being taught, they're being discriminated against. And it's only rather recently that they've come to this conclusion. It has nothing to do with demographics, and everything to do with agenda.
If government-funded schools didn't exist at all, people would be sending their kids to private schools that would no doubt not be entirely secularized, as is their right. So what government has done is take away the money that these families would be spending on such private education, and, acting on their behalf, set up schools for them. To mandate that the schools be completely secularized is to take away from most people what they would have of right had otherwise, thus imposing an unnatural distortion. Since someone has to lose out when government does this (either the vast majority that is religious in some way, or the small minority that is not), why does it have to be the clear majority?
Yes, it's too bad that the small minority does lose out in some way, but that's price that's paid for a government-run school system. So unless courts are prepared to declare government-run schools unconstitutional on the grounds that they necessarily interfere with somebody's religious liberty, then they have no business favoring one group's sensibilities over another's.
It's one thing if a public school is teaching entire subjects that belong in more of a church setting - there's a colorable argument to say that that's unconstitutional. But to force a school to completely ignore religious principle is to impose a highly artificial restraint on education, and is really no more constitutional than forcing it to include it.
However, if the government is going to run public schools, then those schools must serve the whole public, not just a part of it. It's not acceptable for the government to tax 100% of the population and use the money to run schools that serve only 80% of the population. The compromises that the school system makes to do that are, for the most part, reasonable.
Yes, it's too bad that the small minority does lose out in some way, but that's price that's paid for a government-run school system. So unless courts are prepared to declare government-run schools unconstitutional on the grounds that they necessarily interfere with somebody's religious liberty, then they have no business favoring one group's sensibilities over another's.
The courts aren't going to do that though. Why would they tear down the entire edifice of the public school system when they can simply throw out the part that's biased towards Christianity?
Essentially what Jones is saying here is that a state actor reminding students of their right to free exercise runs afoul of the constitution because free exercise may "stifle critical thinking".
I've seacrhed the United States Constitution for the words "stifling the critical thinking that the class’s study of evolutionary theory might otherwise prompt" but have come up empty.
You seen them in there anywhere?
As I said, bias is inevitable. Either you're inconveniencing the theists, or you're inconveniencing the atheists. The courts have taken sides, and that's unfortunate.
And then Jones will get what he's got coming, a lecture in constitutional law.
This is when I like Pat Buchanan.
At one time in this country, schools began every day with Bible reading. There are still people not much older than I who remember prayer in schools. Creation was taught exclusively in schools until the Scopes trial in 1925. Constitutionally, the United States has no official religion but in practice it is a Christian nation. If it weren't for the concerted efforts of the ACLU, not much of that has changed. While I'm sure some would like to turn schools into instruments of evangelism, there is a big difference between actively promoting and proselytizing, and allowing; and it has gotten to the point these days where it isn't even allowed. That's the issue that most people I know have with the whole thing. It's the direct efforts to remove all reference to God from the schools that is causing the problem.
I believe that God is supernatural in the sense that He is and can operate outside the physical, material universe. But I also believe that He can manifest Himself in the physical world. Either physically by direct intervention or by displays of His power. I think that what we call miracles is evidence of that. Now the problem with that is that while many miracles are documented, catching one while it's happening to record it and analyze it is a different matter. I don't know of any that have been caught in the act.
So be a Mythbuster and come up with a plan to test for God. Be inventive. It might be a hard task, but if you succeeded, just think of the witness for God you will be.
THANK YOU. Way too many people equate ID with people pushing evangelical Christianity and evolution with pushing atheism. Just because it happens sometimes, doesn't comdemn the whole concept. Everything in this life is distorted and misused by some for their own purposes but you don't throw the whole thing out just because of the actions of a few. Creation accounts abound in this world's religions and to state that ID is actively promoting just ONE creation account or religion is wrong. Stating that the universe is intelligently designed IS NOT the same thing as promoting Christianity, regardless of the fact that Christians believe it to be true.
Personally, I think that the little that is allowed in is too much. The old adage about the camel getting his nose in the tent applies here; if you let a little religion into schools, there's always someone who wants to take it a little further, then a little further, and then further still.
Better to not begin at all.
There is no such thing as neutrality when it comes to the matter of religion. Everyone has a world view or belief system and removing any mention of God from it is imposing someone's belief system on another. Christianity, Judiaism and Islam all have their foundation in the OT and theoretically, the same God. Why should the vast majority bow to the wishes of a few? Maintaining neutrality is not done by removing all references to God because that is an action in favor of one point of view; it is not neutral when action is taken.
Because that's the society that we've agreed to live in, one which protects the minority from the majority. That said, I doubt you could get the majority of Christians in this country to all agree on the nature of God and how best to worship Him. Not to mention the different Muslim and Jewish sects that you'd like to include in this endeavor.
Maintaining neutrality is not done by removing all references to God because that is an action in favor of one point of view; it is not neutral when action is taken.
I disagree, by not voicing an official opinion on the matter, the government best adheres to the spirit of religious freedom. One can choose whatever spiritual path they desire without being ostracised. This, in turn, creates an atmosphere of openness that is beneficial to society.
however, doesn't seem to be well adhered to. It appears that in practice it is assumed that anything natural is strictly separated from the supernatural and vice versa. So that the natural world is considered to be "godless"; meaning *without God* as opposed to the usual definition of *evil*. So that, anything that is measured or observed is automatically assumed to not have God as it's origin; thus making it impossible to *prove* God.
I suppose you think a word of that makes any sense?
What a load of donkey dung, just like the liberals excused old bjclinton's saying he could compartmentalized his public behavior from his private so have you in walling off the origins of life.
Don't the people who work on a theory, and in a particular field, have the right to limit their study to that field? You don't gripe about a football player who doesn't want to play rugby, do you?
It seems like you are upset because you (the broad you, not necessarily you in particular) got all geared up to do heated battle with "evilution" over the origin of life, and now you feel snookered when you finally learn that evolution doesn't deal with the origin of life.
I can hear it now...
"Too bad, we came to fight, we'll make 'em deal with it anyway. Then we'll get 'em for sure!"
Someone (I can't remember who) was saying on one of these threads that the Dover defendants were not going to appeal. Is that false?
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.