Fred Reed On Creationism
Dean
I don't agree with Fred Reed on everything, but I do agree with him a lot, and on this one he's spot on so far as I'm concerned:
Why, oh why, are the curricula of the schools the business of the courts? If Pennsylvania wants to mention Creationism, or to require three years of French for graduation, it seems mightily to me that these things are the business of parents in Pennslyvania. Yes, I know: In practice, both freedom of expression and local government are regarded as ideals greatly to be avoided. The desire to centralize government, impose doctrine, and punish doubt is never far below the surface, anywhere. Thus our highly controlled media, our "hate-speech" laws, our political correctness and, now, Evolutionary Prohibition. The Catholic Church once burned heretics. The Church of Evolution savages them in obscure journals and denies them tenure and publication. As a heretic I believe that I would prefer the latter, but the intolerance is the same.
And:
Now, what grave consequences are thought to await if children hear briefly in school an argument that they have heard a dozen times in the course of ordinary life? Will the foundations of civilization crack? The birds of the air plunge, appalled, to earth? The planets shudder in their orbits and fall inward in dismay? Surely everyone short of the anencephalic knows of Creationism.
Or is it thought that kids attracted to the sciences will abruptly change their course through life and enter the clergy? That applications to graduate school in biochemistry will cease? Children learn (or did) of the Greek gods and goddesses, and that ancient people believed that the earth rode on the back of a giant turtle. I have not heard that they now sacrifice oxen to Athena.
And my favorite part:
Now (and I hope this doesn’t bore those who have read me before on the matter), an entertaining way to study the politics is to ask the Evolutionists questions that a scientist would answer (since scientists are not ashamed not to know things), but that an ideologue can’t afford to. They are simple. (1) Has the chance occurrence of life been demonstrated in the laboratory? Yes or no. (2) Do we really know, as distinct from guess, hope, or imagine, of what the primeval seas consisted? Yes or no. (3) Do we know, as distinct from guess, pray, wave our arms, and hold our breath and turn blue, what seas would be needed for the chance formation of life? Yes or no. (4) Can we show mathematically, without crafted and unsupportable assumptions, that the formation of life would be probable in any soup whatever? Yes or no.
I once posed these questions in a column on Fredoneverything.net and, in another place, to a group of committed evangelicals of Evolution. A tremendous influx of email resulted. Much of it was predictable. Many Christians congratulated me on having disproved Evolution, which I had not done. The intelligent and independent-minded wrote thoughtfully. Of the Knights Templar of Evolution, none—not one—answered the foregoing yes-or-no questions. They ducked. They dodged. They waxed wroth. They called names.
This is the behavior not of scientists but of true believers.
Although that last description is not true of anyone who currently has a working comment account here on Dean's World, it does adequately describe a couple who've been tossed out for boorish behavior, and what I've encountered in other forums. It also describes some bloggers I know to a "t".
Fred's column is a treasure from start to finish. You can read the whole thing here.
I'll finally add this: The courts did a tremendously stupid and destructive thing back in the 1980s when they banned so-called "creation science." The impression was made loud and clear to tens of millions of parents and students: scientists are intellectual bullies and cowards, and science teachers are liars who censor arguments that don't fit their prejudices.
You deny that was the intent? No matter. That was irrefutably the result.
There are people right now in Dover, Pennsylvania fighting to ban a completely harmless book called Of Pandas And People from public school science classes, against the express wishes of a majority of the parents. Tap-dance around it all you want, that is an attempt to ban a book from the classroom and censor ideas. You can put all the lipstick you want on this pig, with armwaving generalizations about "separation of church and state," but the pig won't get any prettier. It is censorship that is being advocated here, period. It will belong right on the ALA's Banned books list, alongside The Catcher in the Rye and Huckleberry Finn. If the Stalinist ACLU and the self-proclaimed "defenders of science" have their way, anyhow.
And if they do get their wish and manage to get the book banned, the message will be loud and clear once again: believers in evolution are intellectual tyrants, and science teachers are liars who hide ideas from their students.
And finally, just because this doesn't ever seem to penetrate: I am frequently asked why I don't advocate that creationism, Intelligent Design, or whatever else be discussed in religion or philosophy class. The answer is stunningly obvious: I can think of nothing worse than having a religion or philosophy teacher whip out a biology textbook to point out everything she thinks is wrong with it. Who really thinks that's a good idea? No, discussing these ideas is part of the philosophy and history of science, is as old as Darwin, and is part of the tale of Darwin. It does Darwin and science no service to censor and hide from debate.
Michael Balter has it exactly right: Let them have the debate. The kids will learn more from that than they ever will by simply regurgitating whatever's in their Court-Approved textbooks, textbooks that are Carefully Filtered By The Commissars Of Science To Remove All Dangerous Thoughts.
And maybe, just maybe, the kids will learn that rigorous discussion and debate of ideas, weighing evidence and counterevidence, and learning and exploring are among the most wonderful things about science.
There is no question that there are disagreements in science and arguments over issues, but evolution is not currently an issue that is being argued about by scientists. That does not mean that it is correct, it just means it is not controversial with scientists today. Maybe someday a better theory will be developed.
Scientists are not very good at public relations. That is not what they do for a living. The Intelligent Design people are very good at public relations or have hired people who are. They have succeeded in convincing people that there actually is some scientific controversy over this issue, when it is really a disagreement between science and religion.
So the question here, is why not let this argument between science and religion be presented in school?
Religion is about believing in something on faith. Science is about doing experiments to prove or disprove your theories. How can you have a debate?
We have seen literally hundreds of scientists expressing skepticism about orthodox Darwinism. To say there is no debate here is just a stalling tactic. The debate exists. Furthermore, consensus isn't science, it's just consensus.
There are questions about life's origins that are open to exploration and debate. There are problems in evolutionary theory, not least of which is that no one can adequately explain how mutation and natural selection all by themselves can result in adding or removing entire sets of chromosomes, or how the giant leap was made from a prebiotic soup to the first single-celled organism.
There are also questions from the creationists and the ID people which actually have been fairly convincingly answered. For example, the claim that life violates the laws of thermodynamics--that has an answer (actually, there are a few) but unless you allow the question to be asked in the first place you don't know about it.
This debate has dogged the biological sciences forever, and banning books from the classroom so you don't have to face it won't make it go away.
The really blatant 6-day type creationists should be allowed to speak, and then have their heads continually bashed until they retreat to church, and then be allowed to speak during religion class.
The more subtle intelleignet design types should be allowed to speak, and then have their heads bashed in until they retreat to philosophy class.
There are very deep, very important religious, philosphical, and moral questions at stake. They deserve to be addressed. There are very important principals of logic, reason, and argument at stake. They deserve to be explored in depth. Students would benefit by studying these issues.
Requiring that this learning take place in science class is ridiculous. The motivations range from rock solid religous faith at the expense of all else, to abandonment of objective evidence in favor of "all ideas deserve equal time".
You need only read a paragraph or two of Dembski type expostulation to recognize snake oil of extraordinarily ordinary variety. The current furor is fueled by the same type of people who are captivated by pet psychics; or rather by the people who take advantage of the people who are captivated by pet psychics. When the distinction between truth and fiction is blurred by political correctness, watch out. Consequences are likely to be dire.
John
I notice that you and Mike ignored every single one of the points that both Fred and I made about democratic values, local control of government, the horrible blow to science's reputation, the perversity of advocating censorship in the name of science and the first amendment, or the big questions that evolutionary biologists still can't honestly answer. You address none of that, and instead are content merely to throw out ad hominem attacks on anyone who dares to dissent from orthodox Darwinism.
If we want to know why the ID people have made substantial inroads in the public imagination (and among a few scientists, even if they are a minority), we need look no further.
Dean,
You should clearly distinguish whether or not you are debating the merits of creationsism, or debating the merits of debating about creationism(!), or debating about the mechanism and role of state government in setting public school curriculum.
Until you do, you are a chimera. Undeafeated, but yet having no substance.
John
It just isn’t, at least not if you go read scientific journals. The ID people do not want to debate their ideas in scientific journals. They want to debate them in public schools. If ID has valid contributions to make to science, why are they afraid to have a debate in scientific journals? Why not have the debate first in colleges and universities? Why have the debate in public high schools and middle schools?
I understand there are many people of faith who question evolution because it challenges their faith, but I have a daughter in a public high school right now, and I don’t want the ID or creationist coming to my daughter’s biology class to try to debate this.
What is next? Are we going to allow the Flat Earth Society into public schools to debate if the earth is really round?
The flat earth question will be a serious question when you can get a substantial number of scientists willing to go on record as questioning the Round Earth Theory, and when you can get substantial interest in putting the Flat Earth Theory into textbooks. So far I am aware of no such movement, are you?
I notice that, just like John, you have opted to evade every single one of the points I made, and to change the subject instead. This is rather common, and it's why the ID people have had so much success in the public eye I'm afraid.
As to why don't I address Fred: it is the same reason that I don't address Dembski. There is an enormous quantitiy of smoke in which the few nuggets of pyrite are buried. It is a major undertaking to organize and disassemble such a large pile of tangents and distractions.
Here is an example. It is the very first line of your quote from Fred:
"Why, oh why, are the curricula of the schools the business of the courts?"
Answer: because they are funded by public money, ostensibly for the public good. Public school curriculum has always been a matter of public interest. WHAT THE HELL KIND OF A STUPID QUESTION IS THAT?
That is only my first impulse response to Fred's question. Can't you see that any serious discussion of Fred's first question would have to go much deeper that that? And this dead end side trail arises at the very first line of Fred's load of obfuscation. Line after line after line, and it becomes simply unanswerable.
Imagine Jack Nicholson: You want answers? I'll give you answers! Just ask me a God Damn Freaking question!!!!!
John
I feel like all I'm doing here is repeating myself, because I've made my points quite clearly. But I will try for you again.
Fred's point is the same as mine: Local public schools are not a national resource, they are a local resource controlled locally, and almost entirely funded locally. Local school boards are elected locally for the purpose of setting standards and setting curriculum. If they want to make firewalking, voodoo, and creationism part of their science curriculum in Dover, Pennsylvania, leave them alone and let them. Running to court to ban ideas by court fiat does far more damage in the long run to science and the reputation of scientists than letting something like ID be discussed as part of the science cirruculum. Banning it does more harm than good.
Got it? Is that simple enough for you?
A secondary point, which goes well with the first: The truth is there is value in debate with the ID proponents, because they often raise valid criticisms of Darwinism. Despite protestations to the contrary by some zealots, the truth of the matter is that there are very large questions that orthodox Darwinism has no answer for, and has never had an answer for. When you raise these questions (Fred enumerated them quite well I thought), real scientists admit they don't know, while zealots fulminate and call people names instead. No? You don't think so? Okay, then why have neither you nor Mike answered these questions, which Fred asked and which I so clearly highlighted?
I'll tell you how I would answer all four questions: 1) No, 2) No, 3) No, and 4) No.
How would you answer them?
Assuming you give the correct, rational responses--which is "no" on all four counts--what justification do you have for suppressing discussion of ideas about these things from the science classroom? And, even if you think it doesn't belong in the science classroom, do you think there is any danger at all of your being seen as a narrow-minded bully and a scientific coward who is afraid of a debate if you FORBID a local school board from the right to do it their way instead of your way?
These all seem clear enough to me.
The claim is that great harm will come from allowing these discussions in the science classroom. Based on what? What will happen? Kids will stop learning how to conduct an experiment? Enrollment will drop in biology departments? The kids will turn into snake handlers and start making sacrifices to Ba'al? What precisely is it that you believe will happen?
I see a ton of rhetoric about the screaming dangers of allowing these pernicious and subversive ideas into the classroomm, but precious little specificity to those predictions. (Or, dare I say it, any falsifiability to the predictions.) Can you give me some specifics of what you believe will happen if these debates are allowed? And can you explain why those consequences would be more negative than the consequences of banning them by court fiat?
There are hundreds of scientists who've been willing to go on record to say they question the idea that natural selection and random mutation can explain what we see of life on this planet. Does that have any significance for you whatsoever?
You deny that was the intent? No matter. That was irrefutably the result.
That is the impression you got, but that sure is not the impression I got.
The impression I got is that creationist tried to recast religion as a science so they could force schools to teach it, whether the teachers wanted to or not. And ID is just a newer, slicker version of the same scam. I don’t get the idea that scientist are bullies at all. The impression I get is that ID people are bullies trying to force public schools to teach my child religion under the ruse that it is science.
And by the way, evolution does not explain everything or answer all questions. That does not mean that it is right or wrong, it just means there is a lot more work to do. The ID people may have published a couple of papers, but that does not mean there is any real debate about this, at least not among scientists.
Here are my answers to Fred’s questions 1) I have no idea. 2) I doubt that we do. 3) I have no idea. 4) I have no idea.
Of course I am not a scientist in this field. Now I have some questions:
Have you ever personally met the “intelligent designer” of ID? yes or no
If a tree falls in the forest, and there is no one to hear it, can you prove it makes a sound, as oppose to guess or assume that it does? Yes or No.
Do you actually think answering these questions sheds any light on the issue of whether ID should be taught or debated in schools? Yes or No.
By the way my answers to these additional questions are No, No, and No.
That's exactly what I got from it as well.
The biggest problem that I have with it is that it is seemingly the christian god that is the "creator". There are many differant religions out there that believe that many differant Gods created the universe. This is not science, but is myth.
You raised an interesting thought though, in that it is scientific history. Ok, I might be willing to buy that, but if they intend to get into all of the differant theories that were present in history about creation, then they are going to busy! We are talking about having -one- view point added.
Pythagoras was a great spritual leader in his time, and had many followers. The majority of his mathamatical equasions were done to give meening to life, and explain our existence here. But, do they teach that in math class?
Religious myth belongs in a religious myth class where all views can have time to be discussed, and how many christian people do you supose will suport that class? It would be Blasphemy!
I agree. I guess it sucks to be a Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, or just a plain pagan like me if only Christian creationism is going to be taught along with science. Heck, I believe that ultra-intelligent alien life brought the early humans here to this planet and engineered some of us. It's intelligent design but doesn't involve God. Does that count?
But I'm also against censorship. And once we start censoring on the regular, there's no stopping. The furry people with the big hammers will start mashing everything into we have one homogeneous brick of furry people opinions. Next we'll all have to dress the same. Khakis 24/7. I shudder at the thought.
Let the local folks decide what they want for their children. 'Nuff said.
The courts are saying "You have no right to set your own curriculum".
Do you have no problem with this?
At all?
mikeca, you talk about bullies. Do you have a problem with courts bullying school boards?
Dean has pointed this out time and again - this is something that is actually happening, you don't have to decide what peoples' motivations are for them in this, it's quite explicit: The courts are saying the school board has no right to set the local curriculum.
The court is not saying "It's bad science to discuss this idea", they're saying "You're not allowed to discuss this idea in a public school".
Wouldn't any of you ignoring Dean on this have a problem with that if it weren't about religion? (I'll refrain from directly accusing you all of only having a problem with it because it's about Christianity, but that's a reasonable assumption the way you word your arguments)
Clealy you've actually read nothing about ID. ID never attempts to tell use who or what the designer is. Just that science seems to support the idea of one. ID scientists are perfectly content leaving the fleshing out of the identity of the "designer" up to religion.
Science says "yes" while philosophy says "no." Unless you think flat earthers may have a point...
You seem quite confused as to where science ends and philosophy begins (and vice versa). Knowing that I can understand your complete lack of objective perspective about this entire topic.
Peggy and Tyrone,
ID scientists have never made that claim and that you feel ID seems to support a Christian woldview would indicate you both got some issues to iron out with God.
Intelligent Design is mute on the subject of who the "designer" is. It doesn't get any clearer than that. Knowing that, can you now please move past your fear of religion and actually listen to what intelligent design is actually stating?
Dean, you know what, after reading everything stated here it seems to me that people are more afraid of the possibility of a creator-God being real than the virtues of intelligent design. So much so they don't even bother to realize that intelligent design scientists have said time and time again that they cannot, nor have any desire to, speculate on the personality or identity of the "designer."
People, read some ID literature some time before you opine on a "problem" that has already been answered by the very people proposing the idea!
It isn’t us, it isn’t the federal govmt. It’s the parents! Hello? The parents of students in the classroom where the introduction of a nonscientific theory was mandated by the schoolboard in science class. Why do you distort that?
Nobody is ”banning” anything. Can you understand that? They are opposing a policy of introducing a theory into science class that is absolutely not accepted by the scientific community, is almost certainly not a legitimate scientific hypothesis, and is quite arguably a religious belief. There is no place for parents to go in such a situation except the courts.
Answers to Fred’s questions:
1) no
2) no
3) no
4) no
And a question for the two of you. Do any of those questions have anything to do with the theory of evolution?
The answer is NO. They have to do with the origin of life. Darwin didn’t answer that question, there is no widely accepted theory that answers it but there is much research and a tremendous amount of debate within science about that subject. There is no science curriculum (that I have heard of) that says we know the answers to those questions and I don’t know any scientist who says we absolutely do. Does that mean that life did not arise naturally?
Those four questions are irrelevant to the fact that species arise through evolution. Your, and Fred’s, and Dembski’s, and many others inability to recognize this suggests that our educational system has bigger problems than teaching nonsense theories in lieu of established science.
NOONE is suppressing the discussion of the fact that the first origins of life are not entirely explained in science classrooms. Your disingenuousness or lack of understanding what the discussion is about is troubling to say the least.
Does that mean education makes us narrow minded or that ignorance makes us stupid?
Dale
I have heard of no serious advocacy of ID from any religious person of a faith not Christian. Many of the proponents have typical creationist 'problems' with evolution, involving such things as the age of the earth and the origin of life. Oh, they'll grant you micro-evolution takes place, or else look stupid next time they need another flu vaccine, but thats about it.
The problem is that almost every ID/creationist 'problem' has been debunked in some way. They have a very simplistic view of evolutionary science. Take the chromosome problem mentioned above, and go look it up here and you see that even in the same species you can have additional chromosomes. And almost everybody knows about human chimera's and XXY's thanks to shows like CSI. The 'debate' mentioned is almost always based around childish viewpoints that have already been covered in detail by scientists.
The REAL debate is NOT high school level, which is where ID proponents are trying to shove it. Everything a high school student can be taught firmly supports evolution when it comes to the development of life in all its forms on this planet. The two scientests mentioned above, and discused in this article are talking about ideas that are collegic level.
John Doe has a point that I believe you should answer. The plaintiffs of the case are local parents suing the local school board to stop the board mandating the teaching of ID in the schools. The parents are arguing this violates the separation of church/state. Fox News link here.
Personally I believe that local schools should be under the control of local boards who are comprised of locals. However the parents are alleging that the local board is violating federal law.
These are not outsiders forcing evolution down the throats of the locals, but locals who feel that outsiders (Discovery Institute) are forcing their schools to break federal law.
It's an important distinction and one that haven't made in your argument here.
Well, sure... to people who believed those things anyway. I can't think that anyone will view this court case other than through their existing beliefs.
Having now read more from _Of Pandas And People_ I now totally disagree that it's harmless (well, unless you think that textbooks full of incorrect information are harmless). I'm willing to go over this in detail if you want.
I'd say no to all of Fred's questions. No, we don't know how life began, although we have some interesting speculation. I don't think this is an evolutionary question per se, as evolution would be as compatible with panspermia, or the initial dropping of of seed organisms by little green Designers, as it would be with abiogenesis. I'm happy with teaching this in the schools. How is this relevant to the worth of ID?
I really don't know of anyone who's opposing asking questions, even big questions, even questions which poke holes in 'orthodox' Darwinism. There are many things to debate in talking about how evolution works.
What I'm opposed to is using the existence of those questions to propose answers which are unfalsifiable. I don't think the debate with ID or creationism is worthwhile because we're not using the same standards of evidence.
There's always going to be a few cranks willing to allege anything,and take it to court, especially when outsiders pay the court bills, and take them to dinner, and they get interviewed by sympathetic MSM reporters. But the first question is, do the local schoolboards have the right to submit something to a majority vote despite the objections of a minority, and have it stick? The second question is, do the schoolboards have that right even when obviously fallacious arguements support an appeal to a higher authority.
This is not a First Amendment issue. Indeed, if the courts act as if it was is a violation of the First Amendment.
The courts are to neither establish a religion (not happening here...ID proponents openly say it could be aliens), nor restrict the free exercise thereof (saying someone can't propose a scientific theory if it agrees with their religious thought is definitely a restriction of the free exercise.)
Indeed DSmith, I remember arguing with a pro-evolutionist masters in biology, and she quite openly critiqued people on her side for joining the religion of Scientism, and she laughed with me when I pointed out people who talk about "Life wanting to exist" when you might as well say "God created". Of course, other than that, we didn't agree. But it does point out that there are genuine scientists on the evolutionary side, despite the evidence against this.
uhhh..it's the business of the courts because the parents brought it to the courts. so, yes, it is the business of parents in pennsylvania, and they've asked the court to rule on it. it wasn't like some judge decided he'd have a lark and start deciding school policy.
I have heard of no serious advocacy of evolution from person not of the secular humanist faith. Does that mean I can question their motives as well? Does their faith undermine their persuit of science? The arguement goes both ways my friend.
As is plain for anyone to see: Darwinian evolution enforces a secularist worldview. Intelligent design enforces a religious worldview. Therefore, I'd expect Christians and other deistic belief systems to gravitate toward ID just as I expect secularists to gravitate toward evolution. Each is looking for hard proof for their worldview and will inerpret that data in accordance to that worldview 99.99% of that time. Such is the human condition. It is a rare animal that looks at the evidence alone then forms an opinion. But once that opinion is formed, and they gravitate toward religion (in the traditional sense) or seculaism, what then? Are they forever tainted in the view of the opposing party? If that's the case then we're wasting our time.
Or, rather, can we look at the evidence put forth by the other side by itself and stop coloring it by questioning the presenters motives?
Can any evidence be presented to you that will convince you of the existance of a creator-God? If not then stop acting like you put science above your philosophical worldview.
As for me? While I respect and admire science I fully admit that my faith comes first. And I've yet to see a strong case that would make me waiver in that belief.
So all of these Christian clergy are really secular humanists? Shocking.
Clergy Letter Project
And is Kenneth Miller lying when he says he's a Christian?
Are they, in fact, ideological relatives to that moron in Califorinia who (successfully) sued to remove a "Christian symbol" from a seventy-year-old war memorial, in the face of the people of San Diego who voted overwhelmingly to retain the memorial, cross and all?
Scott Kirwin: I follwed the Fox link, and found absolutely no data on who filed the lawsuit, nor to what degree do the local parents oppose (or support) the proposed curriculum.
I ask you the same questions which I posed to the pullisanimous Doe above.
A follow-up question: we both seem to agree that control of schools should be as local as possible. What if the majority approves of the proposed curriculum? Doesn't that put the plaintiffs in the position of using state power to impose their own (minority) views on the majority? Doesn't that negate the very concept of local control?
That's the bitch of local autonomy, and Federalism in general. Other people have a nasty habit of liking ideas you (for any given value of you) can't stand.
What zach seems to not grasp is that Dean's position is that local boards should have the call. zach, would it make you feel better if Dean had said "the local school board" instead of "the state of Pennsylvania?"
Please see the questions I posted above. What facts in your possession indicate that the majority of a given district are being forced to teach ID? Note that the Fox link provided by Kirwin (above) mentions that the Penn state rule in question allows (not requires) the teaching of ID. In other words, the local board gets to make the decision.
Their argument is that it is a violation of the first amendment just as the "Creation Science" case in the 80's was.
Please read the complaint. It is quite easy to see that this can be considered a violation of the first amendment based on the things alleged. There is nowhere to resolve such a dispute except in court.
It is not, as Dean keeps portraying it, the "commissars of science" squashing dissent.
http://www.aclupa.org/downloads/ItelligentDesignPDF.pdf
Gotta love that consistency. I suppose Behe and Dembski aren't "pushing" ID?
Or, y'know, they aren't real scientists, just those fake ones who spread ideas we don't agree with...
You know. Just like that guy who allowed an ID paper to be published in a scientific journal. Thank Humanity we got to him and taught him good for that little screwup. Why, any more papers like that and we'd get people starting to think there was something to this ID stuff!
Kevin D, that is perhaps the first time I've heard someone call the previous pope an athiestic naturalist (according to the definition in your handy link).
And me as well, I consider myself Christian, though I don't call myself such publicly anymore. And when it comes to my faith, my interpretation of the bible must always, always, come second to creation itself.
And thats true of most of Christianity. Intelligent Design is nothing more than a modern day geocentric model of the solar system.
ID scientists have never made that claim and that you feel ID seems to support a Christian woldview would indicate you both got some issues to iron out with God.
Well, I have no problem standing corrected on that point. BUT as far as me having some issues to iron out with the Almighty, I say:
HARDY HAR HAR!
The Almighty and I have a perfect relationship; I stay out of his way and he looks at me with amused look on his face. Lovely!
The only real contest left involves the whos and hows of controlling public shcool curriculum. On the one hand this is the only battle that really matters, because it is the only part of the battle that has real and immediate effect on people's lives. On the other hand, what a tiny, tawdry place to take refuge for those who began with grand designs to sweep the evolutionary paradigm into the wastebin and replace it with the glory of ID.
We've now left science, philosphy, religion, all behind and instead moved into political science class and law class and maybe sociolgy class. Yuck. What a poor substitue for the clash between Plato's Ideal and Darwin's messy Hash.
There is a funny angle though. If this were an argument of sight reading versus phonetic reading, or new math conceptualization versus old math result grinding, or Ebonics versus Shakespeare, then you could leave it to be hashed out between educators, parents, pragmatists, dreamers, etc.
But it's not easy like that; and here's why. The argument was intially started by Bible thumpers who wanted the science they learned from the Bible to be given equal time in science class with the science they learned from Darwin (please don't deny or quibble over that). Politicians and lawyers then immediately drag in the constitutional separation of church and state. Well that argument can't be resolved without returning to the original grand question. ID proponents say ID is science. Darwinists say ID is anything from relgion to philosophy to sloppy thinking; but certinly not science.
It seems we're right back where we started from--a vicious, or delicious, circle. But we're not, quite. The lesson to be learned from this circle is to leave politics and courts out of the philosophical/scientific discussion. If you are really smart, you can also recognize that the philosophy and faith arguments should be left out of the scientific ones.
You can (should be able to?) resolve scientific arguments without reference to faith or philosophy or politics.
Facts and scientific theories can influence philosphies and faiths, or not, depending on the the faith, the philosphy, and the holder.
Everything from hard facts such as hailstones bouncing off your head, to murky possibilites encountered in voodoo induced dreams can influence politics.
Let's try not argue apples with oranges.
John
My point here is: what is the will of the community? I've seen too many whiney bitches who can't deal with the fact that they've been out-voted.
I repeat: all the Penn rule proposes is allowing local boards to introduce ID, if they so desire.
BTW, do you have a link with more details? The Fox link originally posted a while back really didn't include much detail.
As for violation the First Amendment, there is no "separation of church and state" clause in the Constitution. Nope. Sorry. It doesn't exist. It is a Chimera foisted upon American citizens by (bad) lawyers. And, no, (sorry) Jefferson's private letter to a correspondent doesn't count as part of the Constitution.
If you recall, the First Amendment specifically protects the "free exercise" of religion. Anyone who has even half a clue about history and the evolution of American political thought understands the prohibition against "establishing" a religion: a)only refers to Federal action, and b)only refers to establishing an official religion for the country, in the way that the Anglican Church is the state religion of Great Britain.
Since ID only refers to an intelligent designer, and in no way makes mention of even a Christian God, much less the God of a specific domination, even much less than that the inference that said discussion de facto represents an establishment of a specific sect as a Federally-approved religion, that would be a tremendous stretch. Remember: states are legally allowed to do establish an official religion.
Let's get even further back to basics: do the majority of the parents in the district in question favor allowing ID into their classrooms, or not? If they say yes, it's none of our business. Ditto for no.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that's the price of liberty, and truly local government. There will be -without a doubt- cities in this country who makes choices your head ache. Other cities will amaze you with their wisdom. It just depends on whether you agree with them.
JFC spends a lot of breath demonstrating that he really hasn't been paying attention to the issue, when he grandly dismisses the "bible-thumpers" agenda. Apparently JFC already has the answers to life's mysteries.
I ask again: what do the parents in that district want to do? Is that so hard to understand?
Tyrone: love it! I think that -in my case- He is irked as He is amused. Heh.
"I repeat: all the Penn rule proposes is allowing local boards to introduce ID, if they so desire."
You're wrong. I repeat: The Dover school board policy makes introduction of the concept of intelligent design mandatory in 9th grade science class.
"BTW, do you have a link with more details?"?
Yes, the URL in my last comment goes to the plaintiffs complaint. If you use google to search for the thomas moore law center you can probably find the defenses side of the story.
I don't want to get into constitutional interpretation here, I have no expertise or qualifications in that regard. I figure the supreme court does and they have already ruled on the compulsory teaching of religion in science class. If you'll take another look at the First Amendment there are two clauses, the Establishment clause is the part being violated when a public school forces students to learn about a religion. It is the first step towards de facto establishment of a state religion as in England.
"Remember: states are legally allowed to do establish an official religion."
Let's just say that that is an arguable assertion and is certainly not true when establishing an official religion is a violation of the state constitution as it is in PA:
"And that no man ought or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any ministry, contrary to, or against, his own free will and consent:..."
"Let's get even further back to basics: do the majority of the parents in the district in question favor allowing ID into their classrooms, or not? If they say yes, it's none of our business. Ditto for no."
Let's get very basic. Can majority rule strip you of your Constitutional Rights? Specifically the very first right explicitly written into the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution? Or even the Second Amendment of the State Constitution?
"I've said it before, and I'll say it again: that's the price of liberty, and truly local government. There will be -without a doubt- cities in this country who makes choices your head ache. Other cities will amaze you with their wisdom. It just depends on whether you agree with them."
And I'll tell you a little secret. There are certain rights, let's call them "inalienable", protected by the US Constitution and the various State Constitutions that cannot be stripped from you regardless of what sort of bigotry your fellow citizens prefer to practice.
"I ask again: what do the parents in that district want to do? Is that so hard to understand?"
And I answer again: Majority rule cannot strip you of your rights, particularly those right explicitly described in the Bill of Rights. Would you be so sanguine about oh I don't know, rounding up all the Buddhists in the district and forcing them to attend
Religious indoctrination"intelligent design" class?"Kevin D,
So all of these Christian clergy are really secular humanists? Shocking.
Clergy Letter Project"
Are these clergy by any chance affiliated with the National Council or the World Council of Churches?
"And is Kenneth Miller lying when he says he's a Christian?"
When Kenneth Miller wrote a paper arguing that the physical laws of the universe were designed by God, his fellow evolutionists called him a creationist. If evolution is not atheism, then why do not the evolutionists promote Kenneth Miller as their chief spokeman instead of the avowed God-hater Richard Dawkins?
By the way, every Pope, including Pope John Paul II, has always upheld the dogma that, whatever else in the evolution theory might or might not be true, man's soul was specially created by God to be distinct from that of the lower animals. That is flatly contrary to the basic premise of the whole evolution theory, i.e., that there is no God, that man has no soul and is merely a monkey with delusions of grandeur.
The inalienable rights of the individual are endowed by our Creator. If we were merely monkeys, as the evolutionists say, then we would have no rights, no rights at all. The first right, most sacred right of all is the free exercise of the worship of our Creator, which is denied by atheists who want to suppress all mention of a Creator.
and for the record i support teaching ID in public schools, i have no problem with it whatsoever. just put it in a philosophy class.
Whoever endowed us with our rights, the only reason we can maintain them is because of our Constitution. Based on history our Creator is more than happy to let others deny those rights to us.
You make a bold statement about atheists.
"...atheists who want to suppress all mention of a Creator."
Care to produce a poll that supports that contention?
Or perhaps just a show of hands among any atheists present?
By the way, the very existence of the United States Constitution disproves the theory of evolution. If evolution were true, then the Constitution would be the product of a hundred monkeys typing randomly for billions of years and they would still be typing right now and a billion years from now before anything resembling the Constitution came into being. And, by the way, where did the typewriters come from? Instead, as the historical records show, the Founding Fathers (men created in the image of their God) deliberately and intelligently designed the Constitution.
Brilliant, Steven
In lieu of a green border award, you are hereby granted the blue background of freedom award.
Because I am an armed monkey. And a sardonic one at that.
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Arnold Harris
Mount Horeb WI
Casey,
I did not dismiss the Bible thumper's arguments, so much as state that they are arguments of interest to Bible thumpers. While they may be important social and moral and political arguments, they are not science arguments. Furthermore, they are not the subject of the current debate. Dembski and Behe bend over backward trying to dissociate themsevles from such type of argument. The extant argument revolves around whether the subject is science or not; not whether the argument is important or not. If you don't see that, then I guess I have wasted my breath.
Worse than the dichotomy between science and faith, is the dichotomy between politics and everything else. I still maintain that if the argument is one of US constitutional principles or political control of curriculum, then this argument is crucial on a practical basis, but paltry on an intellectual one.