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.
|
The ACLU uses the courts to override the will of the people. It also has the media in its pocket.
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.
But these people are nowhere close to obtaining control of public schools. And furthermore, history shows that religious (or other) extremism doesn't take hold of a country in normal times, but rather in abnormal, crisis-ridden times. And if we should be faced with a crisis of the type that historically has given rise to it, then it'll happen whether it's sanctified by the establishment or not (in fact not being sanctified can accelerate it, as in the case of the American Puritanism that you referred to in your post). It's far too distant and theoretical a concern for it to be taken seriously as a matter of public policy, especially when the trend is so manifestly in the opposite direction.
And it's also comparatively easy to use public schools and popular media to entice people, and especially children, to socialism, multiculturalism, and other "feel-good" stuff. A lot harder to entice them to Draconian religious impositions. Accomplishing that requires a whole different set of prerequisites that just don't exist in the U.S. today.
That's your opinion. I would have agreed with you five years ago; but having seen fundamentalists impose a religious agenda on the teaching of biology in Ohio, Kansas, Dover, and elsewhere, I no longer agree. I would have thought it impossible that they would try to overthrow much of modern science and attempt to substitute biblical literalism for it. Yet they did. I'm not waiting for the next action item.
As a scientist, this is a hot button issue for me, as, say, abortion is for others. And many scientists, maybe even most, feel the same way. If the GOP or a GOP candidate endorses creationism, it forfeits my support (though given its love of federal spending, illegal immigration, affirmative action, etc., I'm not sure why any conservative continues to support the GOP anyway).
I don't see where you get "impose" from. What they've done is persuade the people of these locales to alter their curriculum. They haven't "imposed" against the public will, or, in cases where they might have, the people have relieved them of their duties, as one would expect in a self-governing system.
If you're seriously drawing a connection between teaching ID and stoning recalcitrant children, I'm just not seeing it. I think any normal person in this country can immediately tell the difference, and is not about to tolerate the latter. And the fact that groups like DI have managed to pursuade some school districts to adopt some form of ID curriculum does not mean that they're controlling the school districts or are even close to doing so.
We went through the entire 19th century, which was often quite steeped in heavy-handed religious attitudes (moreso than much of the 18th century), and when there was absolutely no federal-court censorship of what was taught in public schools, without reverting to the kind of barbarism you describe. What makes you think it's going to happen now, especially with trends pointing so much the other way?
The 'public will' is insufficient to override the Bill of Rights. We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. They imposed their religious agenda on those who teach biology, and on those who send their kids to public school in the district and don't subscribe to the fundamentalists' religion.
The rest is simply repetition; I see no purpose in repeating our positions, again. You don't see a connection between ID and a wider agenda. I do. No doubt you see me as paranoid; I see you as disingenuous.
I think your concerns about repitition of arguments are unfounded, because now you're changing the focus of the discussion. You weren't talking about whether teaching ID violates the Bill of Rights (it doesn't), but whether it will somehow lead to the imposition of a Draconian theocracy on America.
No doubt you see me as paranoid; I see you as disingenuous.
You're being paranoid and disingenuous. You've completely ignored certain pertinent facts that have been presented to you, such as the fact that the trend has been moving in the opposite direction from the one you're talking about, that fanaticism like this doesn't just come about from mere normal political processes in a self-governing uncensored society, and that our historical experiences have demonstrated this.
At least one Federal Court disagrees with you.
but whether it will somehow lead to the imposition of a Draconian theocracy on America. You're being paranoid and disingenuous. You've completely ignored certain pertinent facts that have been presented to you, such as the fact that the trend has been moving in the opposite direction from the one you're talking about,
You haven't demonstrated this with any facts, You've asserted it.
In fact, trends have been moving towards more religion in public institutions - apart from the numerous and active creationist movements, we have renewed attempts to establish Ten Commandments monuments on public property, we have state funding of religious organizations, etc.
that fanaticism like this doesn't just come about from mere normal political processes in a self-governing uncensored society, and that our historical experiences have demonstrated this.
Au contraire. Where there is an strong and active fundamentalist movement, the universal experience has been that democracy leads to imposition of religious control of public life. This is evident in Turkey, in Algeria, and elsewhere in the Islamic world; it happened in England in the 17th century; it happened in Northern Ireland in the mid-20th century; to a limited extent it's happening in Europe now, where Islamic-dominated areas are allowed a lot of latitude by civil authorities in imposing Islamic customs.
What we have are renewed (largely successful) efforts to take them down from public property. It was only in the last few decades that the court decided they were unconstitutional, and we weren't in any kind of danger of sliding into theocratical tyranny prior to then. And not only have the secularists managed to take down the Decalogue, but also things that are only tangentially related to religion, such as the inconspicuous cross on the Los Angeles seal (while leaving a much larger pagan symbol on the same seal untouched). That's the real trend, and it shows few signs of subsiding.
we have state funding of religious organizations
Actually we have non-discrimination as to who receives funds for purely secular purposes. Interestingly enough, there are a lot of religious conservatives who are nervous about this trend, because of the danger of secularizing these religious organizations that become dependent on the government spigot.
Where there is an strong and active fundamentalist movement, the universal experience has been that democracy leads to imposition of religious control of public life. This is evident in Turkey, in Algeria, and elsewhere in the Islamic world; it happened in England in the 17th century
England in the 17th century wasn't terribly democratic by our standards, and it definitely wasn't uncensored. If you were an Englishman then, the Church of England was your religion - or else. My whole point is that censorship can lead to fanaticism by giving people a persecution complex.
Turkey is an even closer example of my point. That country has a strict secularist government, with a military establishment that considers itself constitutionally bound to enforce secularism. Religion-based parties are outlawed, and religious schools have to submit to heavy oversight. There are prohibitions against overtly religious garb in public, including headscarves for women, and even fezzes for men. On top of which, it's politically restrictive. Excessive criticism of the government is heavily frowned upon, at the least. Under those conditions, radical religion becomes the only vehicle with the staying power to challenge the establishment.
to a limited extent it's happening in Europe now, where Islamic-dominated areas are allowed a lot of latitude by civil authorities in imposing Islamic customs.
Yes, quite true, and it's almost the direct result of decades-long efforts in those countries to drive Christianity from the public square. Similar trends are beginning to happen here, and if you ask me, that's something that you (and especially your Jewish friends) would have far greater cause for concern about than about Christians doing something that Christianity has completely outgrown.
Tell that to Roy Moore.
Actually we have non-discrimination as to who receives funds for purely secular purposes.
Yeah, right. Money is fungible.
Turkey is an even closer example of my point. That country has a strict secularist government, with a military establishment that considers itself constitutionally bound to enforce secularism. Religion-based parties are outlawed, and religious schools have to submit to heavy oversight. There are prohibitions against overtly religious garb in public, including headscarves for women, and even fezzes for men. On top of which, it's politically restrictive. Excessive criticism of the government is heavily frowned upon, at the least. Under those conditions, radical religion becomes the only vehicle with the staying power to challenge the establishment.
Exactly backwards. Turkey is the only one that has withstood - somewhat - fundamentalist pressure. Algeria and Pakistan became dictatorships under threats from fundamentalists; Egypt is close to a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia and Iran are theocracies. And the US won't push most of them towards democracy because we know that if they do, fundamentalists will take over.
Yes, quite true, and it's almost the direct result of decades-long efforts in those countries to drive Christianity from the public square
No, it's a result of allowing influx of a religious minority who don't accept the Western ideal of a secular, tolerant democracy. Ireland doesn't have a problem, right now. Why? Because Ireland doesn't have a substantial population of Muslims.
Many European countries were secularized long before the Muslims arrived. And they had no problem.
I don't have time to reply to the whole thing but:
"I do think it's a major ducking of responsibilities to try to foist those responsibilities off on public school teachers."
0) My argument was that this can be held for math, and other things. There is an attempt, phony one IMHO, to put matters of faith, character and ethics on a different plane.
Of course you want a qualified teacher, but it's absurd to argue that only a parent is qualified to teach such matters, when Religious Education goes on all the time in settings other than public schools.
"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)."
1) Yes, plenty of nonChristians send their kids to Christian schools. In the Christian school our children attended, some of the families were Asian buddhists. We were catholics, although this was not a Catholic school. Conversely, the parochial schools in many inner cities are consistly of a large number of non-catholics.
"And - here's a radical idea: we (parents and the extended faith community) teach our children our religion ourselves ..."
3) If the extended faith community is included, I didn't say otherwise, except 'ourselves' is not just the parents or you reach illogical conclusions. People of faith need to teach of the faith ... now, try getting a pastor or a lay Religious Education teacher into an elementary school for after school bible study in your local public school ... Just try, and tell us how it goes.
2) It's almost absurd to ask if I'm 'against Hebrew schools'... I am for school choice and if Jewish parents choose a school to teach the Jewish faith, fine.
As I said...
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.
Claims that it can't be woven into even a public school education are false claims. It can be, in a number of ways that meet constitutional bars and other objections or dangers.
"Christian Reconstructionists, for example, would replace our law with Biblical Law. "
Come now, I am a confirmed Right-winger and I don't even know what that term *means*... I've never even heard such people were around (not that I doubt you). Just because there's a few nuts on our fringe, doesn't make them politically of any import and therefore Liberals fear of such a thing happening reasonable. You, me and 90% of the GOP would fall off that wagon pronto.
There are 150 Democratic Progressives in the House of Reps, who want to socialize medicine, raise taxes, make Iraq the next 'bugout' Vietnam, and a whole lot more.
Yet I dont know of a single Congressional Rep who would go for "replace our law with Biblical Law". Which is the reaonable fear then? Our country is more likely to go Communist than go in that direction.
The mainstream christian right today is about: Pro-life; pro-traditional-marriage/anti-gay-agenda; anti-pornography; values/morals in education and society at large. Creationism may rank in the top ten, but not the top five. Arguable stuff but not arguably 'theocracy'.
Tell that to Roy Moore.
That's an example of what I'm talking about.
[Actually we have non-discrimination as to who receives funds for purely secular purposes.]
Yeah, right. Money is fungible.
So? As long as religion isn't the reason the money is being given, then religion isn't being promoted any more than non-religion. To take your objection to its logical conclusion, government employees should be prohibited from giving their own salary money to their local church, because it's "taxpayer money".
Turkey is the only one that has withstood - somewhat - fundamentalist pressure.
You first cited Turkey as an example of how democracy leads to religious control, and now you're saying it's an example of how to work against it. You're not making a consistent point. But you were right the first time. Islamic radicalism is on the rise in Turkey. It's likewise on the rise in many other countries of the Middle East because when dissent is stifled, religion becomes the only viable carrier of it.
It should scarcely need to be added, of course, that the Islamic religion itself is rather geared towards extremism, so it doesn't take a whole lot to set it off.
No, it's a result of allowing influx of a religious minority who don't accept the Western ideal of a secular, tolerant democracy.
That's part of it also. Basically it's the whole multicultural disease, which denigrates everything about one's own culture - religion, attitudes, everything - and elevates other cultures above it.
You should educate yourself. GWB has made at least one political appoinment of a CR (J. Robert Brame III to the NLRB). The National Reform Association, a CR organization, has met with various GOP congresspersons. Televangelist D. James Kennedy has teamed up with CR Gary DeMar to publish books and work on projects. Pat Robertson has expressed dominionist sentiments. And so on.
These guys are under the radar a lot of the time, but they're extremely well funded, active, and have a lot of (quiet) support in the GOP.
That's not a logical conclusion. There's a big difference between paying a private individual for his labor; and financing an organization. The US cannot prevent a federal employee from beiong a member of the KKK. Does that mean the US should give contracts to the KKK to, say, run child-care centers?
You first cited Turkey as an example of how democracy leads to religious control, and now you're saying it's an example of how to work against it
I said secularism works against it. Stop trying to distort what I wrote.
They're financing an organization in exchange for its labor - labor that serves a secular purpose, in accordance with the Lemon test (which takes the establishment clause to quite an secularist extreme to begin with).
[You first cited Turkey as an example of how democracy leads to religious control, and now you're saying it's an example of how to work against it]
I said secularism works against it. Stop trying to distort what I wrote.
Actually you didn't say anything about secularism when talking about Turkey. All you said was, "Turkey is the only one that has withstood - somewhat - fundamentalist pressure." And that was right after you got through saying, "Where there is an strong and active fundamentalist movement, the universal experience has been that democracy leads to imposition of religious control of public life. This is evident in Turkey, in Algeria, and elsewhere in the Islamic world".
Those two statements are in complete conflict with each other. The only one doing any distorting here is you.
So you're OK with the government hiring the Klan to run day care centers then? There are no issues other than paying them for work done?
All you said was, "Turkey is the only one that has withstood - somewhat - fundamentalist pressure."
In response to, and directly after a paragraph where you talked about secularism in Turkey.
And that was right after you got through saying, "Where there is an strong and active fundamentalist movement, the universal experience has been that democracy leads to imposition of religious control of public life. This is evident in Turkey, in Algeria, and elsewhere in the Islamic world".
Fundamentalists have been quite successful in increasing Islamic influence in Turkey.
Since you're being obtuse here, let's go through it again. The experience of the Islamic world has been that democracy, in the presence of a strong fundamentalist movement, tends to lead to the imposition of fundamentalism on the society. This has happened in Turkey, in Algeria, in Pakistan, and elsewhere. In Turkey, official constitutional secularism has mitigated the effect of fundamentalism. In other societies, fundamentalism had to be turned back by dictatorship. In either case, none of this bodes well for the future of American democracy in the face of a strong fundamentalist movement, though we can hope the secularism of our Constitution, that you so deplore, can hold it back, as it has in Turkey.
Got it now?
Pat should learn some elementary science rather than make such ignorant statements. Of course, his economics are no better.
And the Left will indubitably come up with a baser counter-buffoon.
Indeed, one way the Left excels is in lowering standards.
No constitutional issues. As for moral issues, there's absolutely no comparison between them and a mainstream Christian organization. I don't suppose, for example, that you'd have any particular objection to a Catholic representing you in Congress. Would you feel the same way about a KKK member?
Since you're being obtuse here, let's go through it again. The experience of the Islamic world has been that democracy, in the presence of a strong fundamentalist movement, tends to lead to the imposition of fundamentalism on the society. This has happened in Turkey, in Algeria, in Pakistan, and elsewhere. In Turkey, official constitutional secularism has mitigated the effect of fundamentalism. In other societies, fundamentalism had to be turned back by dictatorship. In either case, none of this bodes well for the future of American democracy in the face of a strong fundamentalist movement, though we can hope the secularism of our Constitution, that you so deplore, can hold it back, as it has in Turkey.
First of all, you're just making an assumption that it's Turkey's secularism that's been mostly responsible for keeping fanaticism in check, rather than the fact that Turkey is a (relatively, by Middle Eastern standards) open society politically. But the most common thread surrounding Islamic radicalism is that it's the outgrowth of a region where there's massive censorship of unapproved views, and where there's a religion that's in many ways predisposed to fanaticism. There's simply no comparison at all between the extent to which Islam is radicalized and to which Christianity is radicalized. In the West, Christian extremism is confined to a small fringe. In the Middle East, Islamic extremism has gone mainstream. And that radicalization has definitely not taken place against the backdrop of free, pluralistic, democratic, uncensored societies. If democratization brings this radicalism onto the levels of power, it's because the people were already radicalized as a result of the unfree nature of their societies.
And it's a bit ironic that you're accusing me of being obtuse. Once again - prior to the supreme court's secularism fetish, we weren't close to being a theocracy as envisioned by these CR fringers, even during the religious revivalism of the 19th century. You're insistent on chasing a phantom that simply does not arise under these kinds of conditions.
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.