Posted on 01/06/2005 7:39:47 AM PST by PatrickHenry
A Pennsylvania school district Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal.
The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. ["By chance" isn't quite accurate, but that's what the reporter wrote.]
The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
A Pennsylvania school district Wednesday rejected charges that plans to include references to an alternative to Darwin's theory of evolution in high school biology classes would be illegal.
The Dover Area School District near Harrisburg is the first in the United States to introduce "Intelligent Design," a theory that the natural world is so complex it must have been made by an intelligent being, rather than occurring by chance, as held by Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
The district was sued by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State on December 14 over plans to teach the theory starting next week. The lawsuit is the first to challenge the teaching of Intelligent Design, which the groups say violates the Constitutional separation of church and state.
The civil rights groups argued that "Intelligent Design" is a thinly veiled version of creationism -- the belief that the earth was made by God. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1980s that teaching creationism in public schools would violate the constitutional separation of church and state. [The case to which the article refers is probably this one: EDWARDS v. AGUILLARD.]
The school district said in Wednesday's court filing that its "biology curriculum policy does not advance religion."
Instead, it informs "students about the existing scientific controversy surrounding Darwin's Theory of Evolution." [Note: virtually all scientists in the field of biology deny that there is any scientific controversy involved.]
Christian conservatives, who played an important role in the re-election of President Bush, have been pressing for decades for creationism to be taught in schools. [Note: There are major political implications here if creationism (or ID) becomes Republican policy.]
Lawyers for the school board said that neither creationism nor "Intelligent Design" will be taught to students, and that no religious beliefs will be taught.
Intelligent Design does not presuppose any supernatural being, and is not creationism, the school district said in its response, saying the school district will also continue to teach evolution.
On January 13, teachers will be required to read a statement saying that Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view, and that if students want to read more about it, they can read a book called "Of Pandas and People" which they can find in the school library.
Witold Walczak, legal director of the ACLU in Pennsylvania, said the plaintiffs will not seek an order to stop the policy being implemented next week and hope the case will go to trial in the coming months.
"This is the first legal challenge to Intelligent Design, and that alone makes it important," Walczak said. "If we lose, we really fear that you will see school districts all across the country teaching Intelligent Design."
“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism”
Such a degree if intellectual honesty as this is hard to find these days.
I’m one of those relatively rare individuals that has debated this topic from both sides. I’m a former Darwinian believer that converted to Biblical Christianity. Though I don’t consider Creationism as it is commonly defined, to be scientific in the strictest sense, in that it is too front-loaded with the presumption that ‘GOD-created.’
I also think it is pointless to look at these two views while trying to decide which is more or less counter-intuitive than the other. Since, while life arising out of the muck may be counter-intuitive to the strict theist, the notion of an eternally existent Creator is equally counter-intuitive to the orthodox materialist; indeed, if not more so.
I think that ID is something of a compromise position between the two extremes. In that, it more or less allows the evidence [or lack of] to speak for itself. It doesn’t insist for the existence of designer, so much as allowing for it. In other words, if strict materialism is unable to come up with a plausible scenario for the origin of life, why is not proper to infer that, that the failure of materialism is the triumph [and, de facto evidence] of intelligent design?
Also, given that the genetic code shares certain attributes with what we know as information technology, why is impermissible to use the scientific method to explore the possibility that it was, in fact, designed by a higher intelligence?
Omar.
I'm a conservative and I've become unconvinced of evolution's evidence.
Read Bill Dembski and then tell me I.D. isn't science.
I have and I think it's a bunch of crap.
Teach everything to the youngsters. They need to understand how to think, not what to think.
The Behavior of Germany Considered from an Evolutionary Point of View in 1942
VISITORS TO GERMANY IN 1934 FOUND AN emotional storm sweeping through masses of the people, particularly the more educated. The movement had much in common with a religious revival. The preacher in this case was Adolf Hitler; his doctrine was, and is, tribalism; he had stirred in the emotional depths of the German people those long-dormant tribal feelings which find release and relief in mutual service; men and women who had been leading selfish lives or were drifting aimlessly were given a new purpose in life: service to their country the Third Reich. It is worth noting that Hitler uses a double designation for his tribal doctrine National Socialism: Socialism standing for the good side of the tribal spirit (that which works within the Reich); aud Nationalism for the ethically vicious part, which dominates policy at and outside the German frontiers.
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into
10.
modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!
We must not lose sight of the purpose of our visit to Germany; it was to see how far modern evolutionary practice can provide us with a scientific basis for ethical or moral behavior. As a source of information concerning Hitler's evolutionary and ethical doctrines I have before me Mein Kampf, extracts from The Times covering German affairs during the last twenty years, and the monthly journal R.F.C. (Racio Political Foreign Correspondenee), published by the German Bureau for Human Betterment and Eugenics and circulated by that bureau for the enlightenment of anthropologists living abroad. In the number of that journal for July 1937, there appears in English the text of a speech given by the German Fuhrer on January 30, 1937, in reply to a statement made by Mr. Anthony Eden that "the German race theory" stood in the way of a common discussion of European problems. Hitler maintained his theory would have an opposite effect; "it will bring about a real understanding for the first time." "It is not for men," said the Fuhrer, "to discuss the question of why Providence created different races, but rather to recognize that it punishes those who disregard its work of creation." I may remark incidentally that in this passage, as in many others, the German Fuhrer, like Bishop Barnes and many of our more intellectual clergy, regards evolution as God's mode of creation. God having created races, it is therefore "the noblest and most sacred duty for each racial species of mankind to preserve the purity of the blood which God has given it." Here we have expounded the perfectly sound doctrine of evolutionary isolation; even as an ethical doctrine it should not be condemned. No German must be guilty of the "greatest racial sin" that of bringing the fruits of hybridity into the world. The reproductive "genes" which circulate within the frontiers of Germany must be kept uncontaminated, so that they may work out the racial destiny of the German people without impediment. Hitler is also a eugenist. Germans who suffer from
11.
hereditable imperfections of mind or of body must be rendered infertile, so that "the strong may not be plagued by the weak." Sir Francis Galton, the founder of eugenics, taught a somewhat similar evolutionary doctrine namely, that if our nation was to prosper we must give encouragement to the strong rather than to the weak; a saving which may be justified by evolution, but not by ethics as recognized and practiced by civilized peoples. The liberties of German women are to be sacrificed; they must devote their activities to their households, especially to the sacred duty of raising succeeding generations. The birth rate was stimulated by bounties and subsidies so that the German tribe might grow in numbers and in strength. In all these matters the Nazi doctrine is evolutionist.
Hitler has sought on every occasion and in every way to heighten the national consciousness of the German people or, what is the same thing, to make them racially conscious; to give them unity of spirit and unity of purpose. Neighborly approaches of adjacent nations are and were repelled; the German people were deliberately isolated. Cosmopolitanism, liberality of opinion, affectation of foreign manners and dress were unsparingly condemned. The old tribal bonds (love of the Fatherland, feeling of mutual kinship), the bonds of "soil and blood," became "the main plank in the National Social program." "Germany was for the Germans" was another plank. Foreign policy was "good or bad according to its beneficial or harmful effects on the German folk now or hereafter." "Charity and humility are only for home consumption" a statement in which Hitler gives an exact expression of the law which limits sympathy to its tribe. "Humanitarianism is an evil . . . a creeping poison." "The most cruel methods are humane if they give a speedy victory" is Hitler's echo of a maxim attributed to Moltke. Such are the ways of evolution when applied to human affairs.
I have said nothing about the methods employed by the Nazi leaders to secure tribal unity in Germany methods of brutal compulsion, bloody force, and the concentration camp. Such methods cannot be brought within even a Machiavellian system of ethics, and yet may be justified by their evolutionary result."
"...Here a question of the highest interest is raised: the relationship which exists between evolution and Christianity; so important, it seems to me, that I shall devote to it a separate chapter. Meantime let me say that the conclusion I have come to is this: the law of Christ is incompatible with the law of evolution as far as the law of evolution has worked hitherto. Nay, the two laws are at war with each other; the law of Christ can never prevail until the law of evolution is destroyed. "
Basically, a man can no more be a Christian and an evolutionist than he could be a Christian and a Nazi. The two are opposites.
So then torturing or killing people is Christian doctrine? That's what the Inquistors did in the name of Christianity. To argue that evolution is antichristian because of Nazism is intellectually dishonest just as using the Inquisition to argue that Christianity supports the torturing and killing of people is similarly dishonest. Now please answer my question. The basic tenet of evolution is that the variation over time in the allele frequency in the gene pool of populations of organisms is sufficient to produce new species. The basic tenet of Christianity is that Jesus is the son of God who died on the cross to redeem us from our sins. How are these two statements in conflict?
I have read Dembski (and Behe and Johnson). That the reason that I know ID isn't science.
I think that ID is something of a compromise position between the two extremes. In that, it more or less allows the evidence [or lack of] to speak for itself. It doesn’t insist for the existence of designer, so much as allowing for it.
That is fine theology, but as soon as you allow for a non-natural or supernatural creator (designer, if you will) then you are making a theological, and therefore non-scientific, statement. And ID requires a supernatural or non-natural designer. As theology, I have no quarrel with ID. It's just not science.
In other words, if strict materialism is unable to come up with a plausible scenario for the origin of life, why is not proper to infer that, that the failure of materialism is the triumph [and, de facto evidence] of intelligent design?
Because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Even if the science of abiogenesis never comes up with a plausible scenario for the origin of life (which I find extremely doubtful), it does not mean that there was a supernatural cause. It may simply mean that we didn't look in the right spot or didn't look hard enough where we did look.
Once you bring God into the equation, then science ends:
Why do apples fall? God.
What makes the Earth spin? God.
What causes earthquakes and volcanoes? God.
Why are the galaxies all moving away from us? God.
Why is there only one dimension of time? God.
Why does it appear that the universe is full of dark matter? God.
How does hydrogen and oxygen make water? God.
Where did life come from? God.
This is all fine theology, but it isn't science. And we return to the original question: what should be taught in science class, science or theology?
Also, given that the genetic code shares certain attributes with what we know as information technology, why is impermissible to use the scientific method to explore the possibility that it was, in fact, designed by a higher intelligence?
First, because what you are describing is just that, shared attributes. There are similarities, only because they aim to accomplish similar things, but they are not the same thing. It is, at best, a gross analogy. For example, the formation of crystals in ice also has similar features with the human pursuits of engineering. However, we know that crystal formation has a chemical and molecular basis; we need not posit an "intelligent engineer" to formulate the answer to why they exist, nor is the answer to the question in the realm of engineering.
The second reason is the one I keep coming back to: because allowing the presence of a supernatural creator takes the exercise out of the realm of science and into the realm or religion. Again, if you want to incorporate ID into your religious belief, that it fine. It just doesn't make it science.
Just one more reason to home school your children.
The main purpose of the inquisition was to rid Spain of Islam, which I would guess was about as much fun to deal with then as it is now.
One thing I've noticed on these threads is that people seem to think that subjects in school should never overlap. Whether or not ID is scientific really shouldn't be the point. Math is used in science class. English is used in science class (writing papers). Reading is used in science class (reading the textbook). Even History is used in science. The point is, subjects are not exclusive and they cross over into each other's territory. Even if ID is viewed as being philosophical rather than scientific, that does not mean that it cannot be brought up in a science class.
So then, Christianity teaches that it's okay to kill and torture people as long as they're not Christians? BTW, study your history, the Inquisition occurred in the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon AFTER the Muslims were driven out. The target of the Inquisition was primarily the Jews, who Ferdinand and Isabella thought were a threat to the "religious purity" of the new kingdoms. Church leaders gave full support to the effort. Still doesn't answer my question, though. How are the main tenents of evolution and Christianity contradictory?
Junk science (astrology, spoon-bending, psychic channeling, ID, creationism, etc.) never belongs in science class. Junk science has no overlap with any other academic subject -- except abnormal psychology.
Nah, they weren't the primary target. It was witchcraft, heresy, unbelief in general. That's why the Inquisition went after Galileo. And the Inquisition had jurisdiction in the New World too. The Church was policing its own people.
That is assuming that ID is junk science. Actually it is a perfectly valid philosphical viewpoint.
Again, as I've read it, the main purpose of it was ridding Spain of Islam, and I cannot blame anybody for wanting to do that.
Other than that, evolution amounts to claims that life arose from inanimate matter via a series of fortuitous accidents, and that afterwards, progressively more complex and sophisticated life forms arose via mutation and "natural selection". Aside from denying any role in the creation of life to God or anything outside our material world, this doctrine denies any basis for ethics, Christian or otherwise, as Sir Arthur Keith notes. The only conception of "good" which there could logically be under such a system, would be things leading to the evolutionary success of the particular group in question.
Again, Christianity and evolution are utterly incompatible.
That is a poetic way of looking at it. I have no qualms about that, so long as that poetry does not cause you to resort to the supernatural in carrying out that study or in teaching science to children in public schools.
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.