Posted on 10/01/2005 5:09:16 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Professor focused on intelligent design as theology, not science, at Dover trial Friday.
HARRISBURG If there is a God, then he could have made the monkey and the human with similar genetic material.
In the fifth day of Dover Area School Districts trial over intelligent design, John Haught, a Georgetown University theology professor, agreed that was true.
So, the idea that we came from some monkey or ape is conjecture at this point? Dovers lead attorney Richard Thompson asked Haught under cross-examination.
Haught disagreed.
In a First Amendment battle in U.S. Middle District Court in Harrisburg, the Dover district is defending its decision last year to include intelligent design in its biology curriculum. Eleven parents filed suit against the district arguing the concept is a veiled attempt to force religion into science class.
On Friday, Thompson, in trying to cast doubt over the theory of evolution referred to as the unifying concept of modern biology raised the issue of common descent.
But Haught said that in the world of science, there is little debate that humans share a common ancestor.
The professor, who spoke deliberately and extensively on the philosophical differences between religion and science, was the days sole witness.
Questioned by plaintiffs attorney Alfred Wilcox, he said intelligent designs basic premise that the complexity of life defies all explanation but the existence of a designer is essentially an old religious argument based on the 13th-century writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the watchmaker analogy put forth in 1802 by British philosopher William Paley.
A person walking through a field stumbles upon a watch. It is carefully assembled and wouldnt function without all its parts working together. The persons inevitable conclusion? The watch must have a maker.
Under cross-examination, Thompson asked if there was a controversy in the scientific community over the idea of irreducible complexity essentially, the watchmakers observation that if a single working part of an organism were to be removed, the entire system would cease to function.
Haught told him that there exists a controversy between Lehigh University biochemistry professor Michael Behe, who coined the term, and most of the scientific community.
So, you agree there is a controversy? Thompson asked.
While most of plaintiffs expert testimony this week focused on establishing that intelligent design is not science, Haughts focused on why its theology.
Science asks, How? he said. Religion asks, Why?
As an example, Haught compared the differences to water boiling on the stove.
What causes it to boil?
Well, one could answer its because of rapidly vibrating water molecules.
Another answer could be because I want a cup of tea, Haught suggested.
Both are correct answers, but one doesnt discount the other.
One doesnt bring the subject of desiring tea into the study of molecular movement.
Its also a mistake to say, Haught said, Its the molecular movement rather than I want tea.
People can still pray or engage in discourse about God freely. This hasn't changed, and I hope to God it never does.
Like I said, I disagree with the last few court decisions you mentioned.
Let me give you the wording: "Congress can make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof." Do you see "government" in there? I see "Congress" only, since they are the only branch that can make law. Is the court Congress now? The Amendment was intended to prevent a National Denomination and persecution of the church. Nothing more. But it has been twisted and tortured and the meanings of words have been changed, etc. etc. By the way, what law is being broken by teacher-led prayer in school. Cite it. And if you cite a court, you are mistaken, because courts can't make laws.
I suggest you read "Persecution" by David Limbaugh in which he chronicles scores of examples, many of them in schools, wherein religious liberties are infringed at local, state and federal levels.
Which ones?
You have not responded to the rest of my post.
The decisions against allowing school-led prayer are based on the Establishment Clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the 1st Amendment.
Tell me, would you like it if teachers in public schools took a time out during class to lead their students in prayer prostrated toward Mecca?
"When I joined I didn't think they were about bashing evolution," Davidson said. But he was shocked when he realized that the Discovery Institute was calling evolution "a theory in crisis," according to the Times. "It's laughable: There have been millions of experiments over more than a century that support evolution," he said. "There's always questions being asked about parts of the theory, as there are with any theory, but there's no real scientific controversy about it." Finally, Davidson said, "It just clicked with me that this whole movement is wrongheaded on all counts." Just bringing this into the text of this (these) thread(s).
I don't think my views on religion and evolution are of the ID train of thought, but I'd like an outside opinion. In my post on another thread I give this short description of my view:
" There are many of us who are very comfortable with the idea that God created the universe and everything in it. Evolution is part of that creation. So is the big bang" [Big Bang].Any comments would be appreciated.
You can't have it both ways. If there is a "higher order of abstraction" (whatever the blue blazes tht means) - another "world" which CANNNOT BE EXPLAINED BY MATERIAL FORCES or processes (such as the mind), then there necessarily is existence that is not material in nature? I put it to you simply: Are emotions and feelings and other processes of the mind, material in nature or not? Yes or no.Yes. There is no reason to think that there needs to be anything more than a functioning brain in order to produce a mind.
Your view sounds to me very like mainstream Christian scientists.
Nothing at all in evolution precludes God. I don't have enough understanding of cosmology to comment there.
My impression of the anti-evolution posters is that many of them have some weakness of Faith and would like to somehow do away facts that present a challenge.
Most of the Genesis literalists I know personally wouldn't bother posting arguments since their belief is a true act of faith. They are quite comfortable learning what scientists believe, or, as you do, see the two as compatible.
You'll get no argument from me.
That sounds a lot like Kenneth Miller's view too.
Nothing in cosmology precludes God either. No cosmologist can tell you why the conditions were correct to produce the Big Bang; most would probably ascertain that that is out of their province. (The more atheistic-leaning ones would invoke the anthropic principle, i.e. "giving up", to quote one atheist string-theory physicist I know.)
Funny thing is though, when one is doing good science, the science stays the same whether or not you invoke the Creator.
No, sorry. Again, the 1st Amendment is very specific. Judges and government aren't even mentioned in the 1st amendment, only Congress is mentioned. The 1st Amendment was never intended to apply to the states anyway since we know that states did in fact establish state denominations. The 14th Amendment has been perverted as badly as the 1st amendment. So, where is that law again? Please read the text of the law that says that government cannot promote religion.
Tell me, would you like it if teachers in public schools took a time out during class to lead their students in prayer prostrated toward Mecca?
I wouldn't live in such a community, but if that is what the local community wants, that is what "self government" means. The federal governnment has no business telling local communities what they can and cannot teach in schools.
Well if it is only matter, and we know that matter has no personality and no higher purpose, just how can you state that your thought processes (ideas, theories) somehow have objective value, when the matter that produces them doesn't? What is the evidence that they have objective value? Does your brain tell you that they do (oops -back to chemical material processes again!)? How are your colliding brain atoms any more meaningful than mine?
Sort of got off topic here. I agree the federal government shouldn't stick it's nose where it doesn't belong. As for what the laws are as to what can be done in Pennsylvania or Dover, I don't really know. Like I said before, I think it would be great if creationism could be mentioned in classrooms, then science teachers would be able to expose the flaws in the creationism and teach the reasons why evolution is good science.
The point is, you can either teach creationism as good science, or you can have an honest science education. You can't do both. I would certainly hope a school district would choose the latter. You're placing science teachers in quite a jam when you ask them to teach honestly and teach the creation is a viable scientific alternative to evolution. It can't be done.
It's a category error, exactly the same as trying to measure the surface tension, boiling point, or flame-quenching ability of water by measuring the properties of oxygen & hydrogen atoms taken alone.
The notion of "Good science" is quite arbitrary. There are many scientists who question and reject neodarwinism, on scientific grounds. Whether science is good or not is dictated by one's worldview and a priori assumptions. Worldview determines everything. For example, a secular humanist does not believe in God, and will invariably believe in evolution because it is the only theory that fits his idea of a godless cosmos, that all of reality can be reduced to material forces, that human beings have no intrinsic value (which only comes from being created in God's image), and that all religion is superstitious nonsense.
Conversely, a creationist believes in God, and therefore in special creation, , and that God governs in the affairs of men (as our founding fathers declared over and over), andn that human beings are created in the image of God and therefore have special intrinsic value. This is very predictable simply based on one's first assumptions about God - and EVERYONE has a first assumption about God. One starts with a belief in God, and then forms all other beliefs. A materialist is an atheist first. A cretionist is a theist first. It's all about presuppositionsm, not science - and everyone has them. Everyone. Science is interpreted thru the lens of the worldview presuppositions.
The irony is that another view of Geniuses is that it brilliantly foretold of evolution. It says right in G.2:
4These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,There is absolutely no conflict in my mind that God inspired the writer of Genesis 2 with an era appropriate insight into the creation, of which science is just now scratching the surface.5And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [So man and all things came out of the mist]
7And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
Thanks to all of your for your replies. I took a look at the Miller book and will put it on my list.
Forgot to mention that the emphasis in the Biblical quotes above is from yours truly.
I've read post 111 but that does not insulate you against defending your metaphysical statement. You are defending materialism with metaphysics, which is self-refuting on its face. You have not explained what this mystical "higher-level structure" is - what is it? Is it material or non-material? If it is non-material, then materialism is false. Making an unsupported unscientific assertion doesn't cut it - especially from an evo. How does it work from chemical processes? How does it produce personality? Where is the hard scientific data to support what you are saying?
But, there is another problem with your statement. How do you know that your brain chemicals are perceiving true "objective reality?" You can't know. It is this precise dilemma that discredited the philosophy of logical positivism - it's a dead philosophy - haven't you heard? You cannot be sure you are perceiving correctly. The viewer is ALWAYS subjective to some degree. Gotcha.
The atoms themselves, being totally non-thinking, have no choice but to come along for the ride. In considering the actions that the person takes, it only makes sense to think about the decisions & judgement of the mind as a whole.
Did your "higher level structure" tell you this or is there scientific proof of it? JennyP - come on - this is metaphysics du jour. Those are some amazing atoms - they produce personality, indeed, a self-aware cognitive agent that tells your other mental atoms what to do! Wow! But, is this "mind" made of matter itself? If it is, then perhaps you can point to the area of your brain that houses your personality and your mind, hmm?
This wrongly suggests that believing the bible is an non-rational leap of faith. Far from it. If you really want to learn on this particular topic, I suggest you read Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live" or "Escape From Reason" in which he breaks down that falsehood piece by piece.
No, it most definitely isn't. Sounds a lot like relativism, to me.
There are many scientists who question and reject neodarwinism, on scientific grounds.
As I pointed out before, the biological community is almost 100% unanimous in its support of evolutionary theory, because it empirically works to describe nature. No other scientific theory explains biodiversity and the fossil record. Dissenting voices among educated scientists are a very, very, very tiny minority indeed, and none of them have been able to produce any evidence against evolution that withstands even a little scientific scrutiny.
Whether science is good or not is dictated by one's worldview and a priori assumptions. Worldview determines everything.
Wrong. Whether science is "good" or not is dictated by its ability to create a consistent model to explain observations and its ability to predict observations that have not yet been made. Evolution has succeeded on these grounds. Creationism and intelligent design have failed. It's that simple.
For example, a secular humanist does not believe in God, and will invariably believe in evolution because it is the only theory that fits his idea of a godless cosmos...
Just because (almost) all of A believes in B, does not mean B implies a belief in A. Evolutionary theory is in no way dependent on secular humanism, and many religious people (including devout Christians) acknowledge that evolution is good science.
...that all of reality can be reduced to material forces, that human beings have no intrinsic value (which only comes from being created in God's image), and that all religion is superstitious nonsense.
Evolutionary theory says none of these things. You are either drawing false connections or repeating a mantra that has been passed on to you.
The rest of your comments, which are about religion, have nothing to do with evolution in one way or the other. A belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
The science behind evolution is on solid ground. This has been well supported by modern science, and you have provided no information that shows otherwise.
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.