Posted on 11/01/2005 6:27:26 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
A president who consults religious lunatics about who should be on the Supreme Court... Judges who want prayer in school and the "ten commandments" in the courtroom… Born-Again fanatics who bomb abortion clinics… bible thumpers who condemn homosexuality as "sin"... and all the other Christian fascists who want a U.S. theocracy….
This is the force behind the assault on evolution going on right now in a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Last year, the Dover city school board instituted a policy that requires high school biology teachers to read a statement to students that says Darwin's theory of evolution is "not a fact" and then notes that intelligent design offers an alternative theory for the origin and evolution of life--namely, that life in all of its complexity could not have arisen without the help of an "intelligent hand." Some teachers refused to read the statement, citing the Pennsylvania teacher code of ethics, which says, "I will never knowingly present false information to a student." Eleven parents who brought this case to court contend that the directive amounted to an attempt to inject religion into the curriculum in violation of the First Amendment. Their case has been joined by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
The school board is being defended pro bono by the Thomas More Law Center, a Christian law firm in Ann Arbor, Mich. The case is being heard without a jury in Harrisburg by U.S. District Judge John Jones III, whom George W. Bush appointed to the bench in 2002.
In 1987, the Supreme Court ruled that public schools could not teach the biblical account of creation instead of evolution, because doing so would violate the constitutional ban on establishment of an official religion. Since then Intelligent Design has been promoted by Christian fundamentalists as the way to get the Bible and creationism into the schools.
"This clever tactical repackaging of creationism does not merit consideration," Witold Walczak, legal director of the Pennsylvania American Civil Liberties Union and a lawyer for the parents, told U.S. District Judge John E. Jones in opening arguments. "Intelligent design admits that it is not science unless science is redefined to include the supernatural." This is, he added, "a 21st-century version of creationism."
This is the first time a federal court has been asked to rule on the question of whether Intelligent Design is religion or science. Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, which opposes challenges to the standard model of teaching evolution in the schools, said the Pennsylvania case "is probably the most important legal situation of creation and evolution in the last 18 years," and that "it will have quite a significant impact on what happens in American public school education."
Proponents of Intelligent Design don’t say in the courtroom that they want to replace science with religion. But their strategy papers, speeches, and discussions with each other make it clear this is their agenda.
Intelligent Design (ID) is basically a re-packaged version of creationism--the view that the world can be explained, not by science, but by a strict, literal reading of the Bible. ID doesn’t bring up ridiculous biblical claims like the earth is only a few thousand years old or that the world was created in seven days. Instead it claims to be scientific--it acknowledges the complexity and diversity of life, but then says this all comes from some "intelligent" force. ID advocates don’t always openly argue this "intelligent force" is GOD--they even say it could be some alien from outer space! But Christian fundamentalists are the driving force behind the whole Intelligent Design movement and it’s clear… these people aren’t praying every night to little green men from another planet.
Phillip Johnson, considered the father and guiding light behind Intelligent Design, is the architect of the "wedge strategy" which focuses on attacking evolution and promoting intelligent design to ultimately, as Johnson says, "affirm the reality of God." Johnson has made it clear that the whole point of "shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God" is to get people "introduced to the truth of the Bible," then "the question of sin" and finally "introduced to Jesus."
Intelligent Design and its theocratic program has been openly endorsed by George W. Bush. Earlier this year W stated that Intelligent Design should be taught in the schools. When he was governor of Texas, Bush said students should be exposed to both creationism and evolution. And he has made the incredibly unscientific, untrue statement that "the jury is still out" on evolution.
For the Christian fascists, the fight around evolution and teaching Intelligent Design is part of a whole agenda that encompasses reconfiguring all kinds of cultural, social, and political "norms" in society. This is a movement that is fueled by a religious vision which varies among its members but is predicated on the shared conviction that the United States is in need of drastic changes--which can only be accomplished by instituting religion as its cultural foundation.
The Christian fascists really do want--and are working for--a society where everything is run according to the Bible. They have been working for decades to infiltrate school boards to be in a position to mandate things like school prayer. Now, in the schools, they might not be able to impose a literal reading of the Bible’s explanation for how the universe was created. But Intelligent Design, thinly disguised as some kind of "science," is getting a lot more than just a foot in the door.
The strategy for promoting intelligent design includes an aggressive and systematic agenda of promoting the whole religious worldview that is the basis for ID. And this assault on evolution is linked up with other questions in how society should be run.
Marc Looy of the creationist group Answers in Genesis has said that evolution being taught in the schools,
"creates a sense of purposelessness and hopelessness, which I think leads to things like pain, murder, and suicide."
Ken Cumming, dean of the Institute for Creation Research's (ICR) graduate school, who believes the earth is only thousands of years old, attacked a PBS special seven-part series on evolution, suggesting that the series had "much in common" with the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks against the United States. He said,
"[W]hile the public now understands from President Bush that 'we're at war' with religious fanatics around the world, they don't have a clue that America is being attacked from within through its public schools by a militant religious movement called Darwinists...."
After the 1999 school shooting in Littleton, Colorado, Tom DeLay, Christian fascist representative from Texas, gave a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives, blaming the incident in part on the teaching of evolution. He said,
"Our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who are evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud."
The ID movement attacks the very notion of science itself and the philosophical concept of materialism--the very idea that there is a material world that human beings can examine, learn about, and change.
Johnson says in his "The Wedge Strategy" paper,
"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating…we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."
Dr. Eugenie C. Scott, the Executive Director of the National Center for Science Education, points out:
"Evolution is a concept that applies to all sciences, from astronomy to chemistry to geology to biology to anthropology. Attacking evolution means attacking much of what we know of the natural world, that we have amassed through the application of scientific principles and methods. Second, creationist attacks on evolution are attacks on science itself, because the creationist approach does violence to how we conduct science: science as a way of knowing."
The Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture (another Christian think tank) says that it "seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies."
Teaching Intelligent Design in the schools is part of a whole Christian Fascist movement in the United States that has power and prominence in the government, from the Bush regime on down. And if anyone isn’t clear about what "cultural legacies" the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture wants to overthrow--take a look at the larger Christian fascist agenda that the intelligent design movement is part of: asserting patriarchy in the home, condemning homosexuality, taking away the right to abortion, banning sex education, enforcing the death penalty with the biblical vengeance of an "eye for an eye," and launching a war because "God told me [Bush] to invade Iraq."
38; DOH!!
IMHO, the Discovery Institute threw a prime rib roast into the arena of hungry theologians and scientists. It seemed as if the effort stopped with the hypothesis – and they sat back waiting for investigators to come up with the experiments to evidence or falsify the hypothesis.
Personally, I believe they are excellent strategists and it was intentional to separate the politics and legal aspects so they could play out separately – that they always knew the mathematicians and the physicists would vindicate the hypothesis.
I have no other explanation for the cautious, superb wording of the hypothesis which says:
The “intelligent cause” keeps it from being theology and opens the door to phenomenons such as emergent properties and fractals.
The “universe and life” changes the focus from strictly biology to cosmology, physics and math (which is the key).
The “undirected process such as natural selection” reveals the target: randomness. In that regard, I can think of two unequivocal statements which will make the point without any help at all from the Discovery Institute:
Order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system. Chaotic systems, by definition, must be bounded, be sensitive to initial conditions, be transitive and have dense periodic orbits. Order requires a guide.
That subtle change of expression from “random mutations” to “variations” leaves the door open to “autonomous biological self-organizing complexity” and thereby the vindication of the hypothesis even if every single one of the investigators deplored the entire "intelligent design movement".
I have absolutely no idea of what you mean by an "unguided physical system", or what you might mean by a "guided" one. How does this not flatly contradict your earlier paean to the concept of "emergent properties"? Emergence is all about order (or higher levels of organization) arising spontaneously, i.e. without specific guidance, in complex systems.
Physical causality is itself a guide. Thus the only scenario under which there are no guides "in" the physical system is the void from which there was a beginning of geometry (cosmology). That there was a beginning from the void points to guides which are not "in" the physical system, the geometry.
In the void there is no space, no time, no energy, no matter, no physical laws, no physical constants, no mathematical structure, no logic, no physical causality. There is no physical causality in the void.
The cause of a beginning must be uncaused - and the only candidate for uncaused cause is God Himself.
Thus when I say "order cannot arise from chaos in an unguided physical system" I'm making a very obvious and unequivocal statement about physical systems.
When we examine guides to physical systems more deeply - taking it to the void of cosmology - it also becomes a theological statement. As Jastrow said (paraphrased) the fact of a beginning is the most theological statement ever to come out of science.
These attractors are the additional "guides" in self-organizing complexity. Self-organizing Systems
Well, maybe I should say that's what it's all about to the New-Agey types at the SantaFe Institute (as well as to many more conventional thinkers and researchers). But more simply "emergence" can simply mean the observation that higher levels of organization are often not entirely reducible in explanation to the most fundamental applicable principles. For instance it's been claimed that you could know everything possible to know about hydrogen and oxygen atoms, and yet still be unable to predict in advance all of the properties of water.
But this still seems to contradict your dictum that "Order requires a guide".
It is not unusual to find many investigators who still regard space/time as three dimensional space evolving over time. That, even after nearly of a century of relativity. But it happens; relativity is not intuitive - elegant, yes - intuitive, no.
And that may contribute to the misunderstanding here as well - geometric physics is generally not intuitive. Therefore, a steady state universe or infinite past may be intuitive to some even today although both have been banished to the dustbin for decades.
But it is true that emergence can be the "nature did it!" catch-phrase for that which defies explanation:
There is no consensus amongst scientists as to how much emergence should be relied upon as an explanation. It does not appear possible to unambiguously decide whether a phenomenon should be classified as emergent, and even in the cases where classification is agreed upon it rarely helps to explain the phenomena in any deep way. In fact, calling a phenomenon emergent is sometimes used in lieu of any better explanation.
That is an unequivocal statement. There exists a guide "in" every physical system by definition (whether chaotic or not) - and there must exist a guide pre-existing physical causality for there to be a beginning of geometry and therefore, physical causality itself.
O.K. I understand you now. The problem is your statement is far too obvious, and therefore trivial. It amounts to saying, "the universe exists". This we already knew.
"Why in the world would you post this trash here and why should anybody take ANYTHING this moonbat says, seriously?"
I agree. The article is a vile rant, reminiscent of Hitler addressing a Nazi rally. Since were not dealing with fact or logic here, the only thing to discuss is the mental pathology of the author.
The Intelligent Design debate itself, which is an interesting one, has to be conducted elsewhere.
"What is considered "legitimate science" these days -- that is, methodological naturalism (the term which I continue to interpret as "scientific materialism") -- manifests fundamental philosophical presuppositions at its very base."
Thyis presumption is made for one reason only, without it there can be no science. This is not an issue for you and I to solve. Science solved this centuries ago. We use methodological naturalism because it works. Period. To call it a philosophical assumtion that makes science philosophy, is to misunderstand at every level the concepts at play.
Methodological naturalsim makes science not philosophy. To say it the other way is simply wrong.
"You know I've noticed that those that accuse of lying easily are probably liars themselves.. One thing you get over and over from "Evos" is accusation of Lying.. not being ignorant or misinformed but lying.. Why is that?.."
Repeatedly posting things that are easily fact checked, and completely wrong, is lying in my book. Being called on it, and attacking the accuser, is equally dishonest.
" Your logic is unintelligible to me. My statement does not aver that chaos is non-existent, rather that you cannot get from chaos to order in a physical system without guides which are, by definition, minimally part of a chaotic system. Therefore the statement that ”order cannot rise out of chaos in an unguided physical system” should be obvious and unequivocal to any physicist"
And yet, all reputable physicists believe the opposite. Perhaps it is you who misunderstand. My logic is very clear, and the fact that you are conflating two sperate, and imcompatable sets of ideas is the real stumbling block.
Also, since you dropped your canard about the ID hypothesis, I'll assume you do agree with me that ID is not science.
Alas, I am sorry you do not wish to talk with me further, and sorry my actions have pushed you to that. In any case, I am going to return to lurking.
Thanks to all who participated in the debate. Sorry if I stepped on any toes.
Good luck at overturning the foundation of post enlightenment thought. I'm sure you'll find a lot of Islamo-fascists and flat earthers eager to run to your aid. Just don't be upset if your elected officials don't want to have their photo's taken with you guys.
To the contrary, I assert that Truth is always hidden in plain view.
Thus when we examine the guides deeply looking at the structure of space/time, we are drawn to the void of cosmology and affirm Jastrow's observation about beginnings.
The subtle point is that the guide at the beginning opens the gates for additional non-corporeal guides to physical systems across the geometry of space/time - or, in the jargon of the intelligent design hypothesis, "intelligent cause" by agent (God, in this case) - as well as by phenomenon.
IMHO, this is what the "universe and life" phrase achieves in the intelligent design hypothesis. The origin of "intelligent cause" doesn't matter - that is, whether it is a phenomenon (emergent or fractal) or agent (God, collective consciousness, aliens, Gaia).
On the other hand, calling someone a liar for not agreeing with you is just ignorant.
In fact if all these things are "guides," then nothing in the universe can be "unguided". Which makes it trivial and useless to talk about things being "guided," since it's only the same as saying that they exist in this universe. Yet you do talk about some things (within the universe) being "unguided," which is contradictory and confusing.
What you call "wishy-washy relativism," I call local control of schools. I don't favor some gang of atheist "philosopher kings" dictating an educational curriculum from on high that everyone is forced to go along with.
Joe,
There it is. Education must be a grass roots democratic process. The same is true of science. When either become captive by elitist cadres of gaurdians of education or of science all is lost. Education and science are the business of people, not experts.
I understand the phrase "natural selection" in the intelligent design hypothesis to mean failures or more specifically failures with respect to apparently random processes, i.e. mutations.
Failures destroy order rising from chaos in a physical system; they are not guides to the order or complexification of that which they destroyed. The mechanism of failure might itself, however, be ordered by other guides in a physical system, including a chaotic system.
For instance, an otherwise successful complex species may become extinct from a tornado destroying its habitat. The natural catastrophe was not a guide to the complexity of the species it destroyed. The tornado itself however was the result of other guides in a chaotic system.
The failure itself will reduce and thus change the potential for order to rise from possibily different combinations of guides. (autonomous biological self-organizing complexity)
All of this of course applies to "certain features" not "all features" - thus the apparently random mechanism of mutation also remains a source of variation which may be reduced by natural selection (failure).
You can not simply deny the legitimacy of your opponent's statements. You must enter into their logic and establish a Socratic dialog. To do this you should at least act as if the person with whom you disagree is your intellectual equal. Using derogatory language does not achieve dialogue.
No one here is interested in assaulting you or belittling you. Your insistence upon using such devices only limits your ability to communicate.
Try persuasion instead of assaultive accusations. Or are you simply trying to show off to your fellow belligerents?
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.