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.
|
Funny, I don't think I've ever had a conversation about gun control with my friends; but I've had several about theocracy.
And if that were to go away, would they switch over to the GOP because of their naturally conservative views on spending, gun control, abortion (oops, can't mention that; "religious right" and all), and overregulation? Somehow I'm skeptical. "Religious right" is simply a convienient excuse for a lot of liberals, of all religious backgrounds. In reality, they're liberal because they're liberal.
Happy New Year Professor.
It's a good argument for them to use with libertarian conservatives like me, certainly. It makes the choice of the lesser of two evils a far more difficult one.
But the Jews of my acquaintance aren't necessarily liberal on other issues; in fact, one of the most principled libertarians I know is Jewish.
Same to you, jwalsh07. And a prosperous and healthy one.
And, so far as you know, does he vote Democrat or Republican? Or Libertarian, perhaps?
I'm pretty sure he voted for Reagan. I don't know what he's done more recently.
Really, the question that should be asked is why Religion *cant* be taught in schools - not as dogma, but at least as philosophy and theology. The ignorance of some students in secularized schools to basic Christianity is sadly very real.
I have no problem with religion being taught in schools. I think it is very valuable and has much to offer to students. I think it should be in the context of philosophy, history, or civilization. Religion is a major and integral component of the history of most, if not all, civilizations. It is almost impossible to teach art or literature without studying the context and historical footings within which they were created.
But - as for introducing young people to Christianity, that is yours and my job - do you really want some gormless public school teacher telling children what they understand the Bible to say about marriage or adultery or whatever? I'm pretty sure that Jesus charged us personally with that responsibility. I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats, however well-intentioned, to slide a pithy homily in between algebra and English and an epistle or two in after lunch.
"But - as for introducing young people to Christianity, that is yours and my job - do you really want some gormless public school teacher telling children what they understand the Bible to say about marriage or adultery or whatever? "
If I cant trust a teacher to talk to my children about marriage, WHY would I trust a teacher to teach them about other things? Why would any parent want their children subjected to a 'gormless public school teacher' at all???!?
"I'm pretty sure that Jesus charged us personally with that responsibility. I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats,..."
If we shouldn't hire bureaucrats to teach character, why bother hiring bureaucrats to teach anything at all?
We might as well abolish public education if that is your view.
"I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats, however well-intentioned, to slide a pithy homily in between algebra and English and an epistle or two in after lunch."
Oh, so Jesus is *against* Christian schooling now?!?
You object to nuns teaching, and to commited Christian teachers in private schools introducing Christian themes into the classroom? Jesus was againt non-parental evangelism, despite the Pentacost?!? Or are you saying Jesus only wanted home schooling? Fascinating what you learn on the web.
Let's get real: It's absurd to assert that Jesus wouldnt want to have taught the prayer that the gave to us, the Our Father. The objection that Christianity and Christian ethics cant or shouldnt be taught is contradicted by the direct experience of millions of chidlren well-educated in private Christian schools today, and millions more who did just fine in public schools at it prior to 1963.
Your objection certainly cannot be that Christianity can only be taught by parents - that is absurd and disproven by the existence of Christian schools and sunday sermons. It disproven also by my own experience, our children did quite fine in several years of Christian schooling and learnt many good moral lessons that we parent could NOT teach since we werent in the classroom; now the kids are at public school and we see the unfortunate difference already - lower standards, slackening of discipline, and lack of moral and religious instruction in school except for 'multicultural' mumbo-jumbo.
I find it hilarious and obtuse for those against 'religion' in the classroom to insist that it is impossible to instruct kids in such a way. Religion is in the classrooms of America today: In the public schools it's just the religion of environmentalism, the religion of multiculturalism and the religion of 'tolerance and the primary virtue'. That's the moral instruction our kids our getting at our 'exemplary' elementary school.
THUS ... The only reasonable objection to introducing religion into the classroom again, as it was in America from the 1800s to 1963 is that somehow it might introduce dogma to an unwilling audience. This is the only reasoned objection, sometimes wrongly fortified by misinterpreting the Constitution to demand classroom secularism (aka ACLU view). I agree with this objection. It would be wrong to force a Jewish kid to sit through Christian instruction,
just as it is wrong to force kids to sit through harangues on environmentalism when parents object (oops, that happens now).
Hence my comment about the absolute necessity for SCHOOL CHOICE. That is the ONLY way to both satisfy the demands and needs of *both* the Christian community and the secularists without forcing one viewpoint or the other to the 'back of the bus'.
"Funny, I don't think I've ever had a conversation about gun control with my friends; but I've had several about theocracy."
Just ask them if they think America was a theocracy when John F Kennedy, Harry Truman and FDR were President.
Whether they say "yes" or "no", it will prove the point that their fears of theocracy coming from the modern-day GOP are groundless.
Ask them what today's Christian Right would do that would make America any more 'theocratic' that it was under JFK?
Answer: Nothing.
If they have issues, it is not about 'theocracy' but about cultural assumption and parochial views of other groups in America.
It's not neutral to present in a natural science class the supernatural as an alternative. Teaching Creation Biology, Creation Geology, or Creation Astronomy utterly undermines the teaching of the sciences, and would be an establishment of religion.
Neither is "a" the best answer, of force-feeding multiculturalism to kids as the way of giving them everything. It undermines *our* culture.
THE BEST SOLUTION IS SCHOOL CHOICE - (c). There is no other solution that gives parents and student the education they need and deserve.
You can see why multiculturalists and secularists are adamantly opposed to school choice, now.
The left does want ideological control over our children; but there is also the NEA union jobs, the feeding of the NEA establishment, and the provision of shock troops and massive funds for the Democratic party; and the powerful lobbying power over legislation that the NEA enjoys. This will be a tough nut to crack.
As far as vouchers...I wouldn't be overly upset about voucher money going to religously-oriented schools...except in the UK the government has allowed Muslims to have their own publicly funded schools...schools of hate and subversion. I don't want to fund the training of generations of Hardiest Muslims. If we could forbid the teaching of every bit of Muslim hate ...but they would do it anyway, wouldn't they?
I like the approach of the Alliance for the Desperation of School and State...no government support for school...and stop collecting the taxes that paid for those schools so that people can afford to pay for their own schools; and for those too poor to pay full boat, others will have the funds to voluntarily help them.
That wopuldn't be my answer. Christian Reconstructionists, for example, would replace our law with Biblical Law. That's, for sure, far more theocratic than the US under JFK.
And their chances of doing that are what? You can always find some nutball screwball group on either side of any issue. Certainly there are militant Communists who, if they had their way, would outlaw all organized religion, including Judaism. And given that the trend, if it could be said to be moving in the direction of either of those two packs, is moving more toward the latter than the former, I don't understand this irrational fear of the more general Christian conservative movement which would, as WOSG said, simply move things back to around 1960 (minus the racial segregation).
"The Goldwater defeat of 1964, which a triumphant left said would bury the right forever, turned out to be liberalism's last hurrah."
Huh? What alternate universe is this guy from? I wish to god that statement was true but in 45 years of life I've just seen an enormous reduction in freedoms due almost entirely to liberlism.
The strategy is to 'Christianize' America by nose-under-the-tent methods. You say, it's only a little bitty nose, and why should we care if it's inside the tent? After all, it might not be attached to a very large camel. A few years ago, I believed that too. Not any more.
Well - because some people can be trusted to do some things, but not others. I do not want my mechanic doing heart surgery on me or a heart surgeon fixing my car. Music teachers usually don't teach math. Likewise, I would not trust nor expect the gym teacher or history teacher, etc., to teach my children our religion. I would expect merely that they model an ethical life while teaching my children and be good teachers of their subject material. They may not be even the same religion as I am, and I have no reasonable expectation that they be.
"I'm pretty sure that Jesus charged us personally with that responsibility. I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats,..."
If we shouldn't hire bureaucrats to teach character, why bother hiring bureaucrats to teach anything at all?
We might as well abolish public education if that is your view.
Not real clear why you say this. Once again, refer to my previous statement. BUT - I do think it's a major ducking of responsibilities to try to foist those responsibilities off on public school teachers.
"I don't think he meant for us to go hire some bureaucrats, however well-intentioned, to slide a pithy homily in between algebra and English and an epistle or two in after lunch."
Oh, so Jesus is *against* Christian schooling now?!? What? How did you come up with this?
You object to nuns teaching, and to commited Christian teachers in private schools introducing Christian themes into the classroom? Jesus was againt non-parental evangelism, despite the Pentacost?!? Or are you saying Jesus only wanted home schooling? Fascinating what you learn on the web.
Let's get real: It's absurd to assert that Jesus wouldnt want to have taught the prayer that the gave to us, the Our Father. The objection that Christianity and Christian ethics cant or shouldnt be taught is contradicted by the direct experience of millions of chidlren well-educated in private Christian schools today, and millions more who did just fine in public schools at it prior to 1963. I like the idea of children being taught in private schools. However, if the parents aren't Christian, they probably don't want to send their children to Christian schools. Are you against, Hebrew schools, for instance? (You haven't said that you are - I'm just asking).
And - here's a radical idea: we (parents and the extended faith community) teach our children our religion ourselves and don't try to force someone else to do it. Someone who is most likely not able, willing, or qualified to do it.
Your objection certainly cannot be that Christianity can only be taught by parents - that is absurd and disproven by the existence of Christian schools and sunday sermons. It disproven also by my own experience, our children did quite fine in several years of Christian schooling and learnt many good moral lessons that we parent could NOT teach since we werent in the classroom; now the kids are at public school and we see the unfortunate difference already - lower standards, slackening of discipline, and lack of moral and religious instruction in school except for 'multicultural' mumbo-jumbo.
I find it hilarious and obtuse for those against 'religion' in the classroom to insist that it is impossible to instruct kids in such a way. Religion is in the classrooms of America today: In the public schools it's just the religion of environmentalism, the religion of multiculturalism and the religion of 'tolerance and the primary virtue'. That's the moral instruction our kids our getting at our 'exemplary' elementary school.
THUS ... The only reasonable objection to introducing religion into the classroom again, as it was in America from the 1800s to 1963 is that somehow it might introduce dogma to an unwilling audience. This is the only reasoned objection, sometimes wrongly fortified by misinterpreting the Constitution to demand classroom secularism (aka ACLU view). I agree with this objection. It would be wrong to force a Jewish kid to sit through Christian instruction,
just as it is wrong to force kids to sit through harangues on environmentalism when parents object (oops, that happens now).
Hence my comment about the absolute necessity for SCHOOL CHOICE. That is the ONLY way to both satisfy the demands and needs of *both* the Christian community and the secularists without forcing one viewpoint or the other to the 'back of the bus'.
I do appreciate your willingness to engage in discussion. These are important questions and they need to be addressed.
That proves nothing about the influence of CR. That just proves, at most, that it has an influential backer. But in order for CR itself to be influential, its ideas need to take root somewhere. And I don't see any way of it happening. Nor is there any major trend moving in that direction. The trend has been moving in the opposite direction.
To illustrate the point further, what if a Communist foundation was funding evolutionary teaching? Would you then disavow evolution? Would you at that point conclude that it's nothing more than a vehicle for the imposition of a Communist dictatorship? Of course not. They're still two separate things. As it is with ID and CR.
And the danger is all the lesser in that the CR people would need popular support to implement much its agenda, and it's just not going to get it. The Left, on the other hand, can accomplish much of its agenda throught the courts. A lot else can be done quietly through the soft operation of government policy, which is very convenient for the stealth imposition of socialism. But agendas like CR's can't be implemented through stealth, only through very overt action.
No, they're not. ID is nothing more than a stealth attempt to introduce the teaching of biblical literalism in schools. Its scientific content is zero. Introducing biblical literalism to schools is part of the CR agenda.
And driving all traces of religion out of the schools is part of the agenda of the ACLU, which was founded by Communists. You're engaging in what's known as the Fallacy of Division, the assumption that what must be true of a part must also be true of the whole. Or, that whatever immediate goals are desired by someone plotting a grand nefarious scheme, can have no other effect than to bring that scheme into fruition.
The CR people, whoever they are, are not going to be able to implement their agenda without provoking the strident opposition of the American people. It doesn't matter if the people accept ID in schools, or even school prayer or any other pre-Engel vs Vitale practice. The only way the Discovery Institute or the TMLC or anyone else like that can implement any of their goals is by getting public support. Without that, they're dead in the water. And they're not going to get public support for any kind of theocratic (by which I mean, above and beyond anything that's existed in this country for the past 100 years at least) government.
Yet the ACLU has been able to acheive its goals without public support.
You claim we would only go back to the 1960's. Why should they stop there? Why not to 1700?
One route to wider public acceptance for an intrusive role of religion in government is to obtain control of public schools. The American people, right now, would not accept the stoning of disobedient children or the execution of homosexuals and apostates. But they did once, and there's no reason to believe that their attitudes, having been changed once, could not be changed again.
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.