Posted on 10/19/2005 7:41:22 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
In the thinly disguised play based on the Scopes trial, Inherit the Wind, the Clarence Darrow character (Drummond) cross-examines the William Jennings Bryan character (Brady). To prove how intolerant Brady is in defending the law that forbade the teaching of evolution, Drummond asks Brady to suppose that Mr. Cates, the Scopes character, "had enough influence and lung power to railroad through the state legislature a law that only Darwin should be taught in the schools!" Brady responds by saying, "Ridiculous, ridiculous!"
Though fictional, Inherit the Wind is the lens through which much of the modern debate about evolution is seen. And though the ACLU lost the Scopes case, it won the culture war, and today it is seeking to achieve what was thought ridiculous 80 years ago. It seeks in the courts what Tennessee passed in the legislature: the exclusion of a competing theory.
The ACLU has a variety of clever arguments as to why it is a "civil liberty" to exclude any competing theory. It claims that anything other than Darwinism is not science and that the only alternative to Darwin's theory is a "supernatural creator" who can't be investigated scientifically. This is plainly false. The scientists who have questioned Darwinian evolutionary theory point to scientific evidence (the fossil record, the digital information content in DNA, the engineering structure in cells) and use scientific reasoning to explain that design is the most likely cause.
Even when it is pointed out that peer-reviewed scientific articles have presented the case for intelligent design, the ACLU retreats to the position that it is only a "minority" view, and that "mainstream scientific organizations" disagree. This, from the group that supposedly defends minority views.
The ACLU claims that intelligent design is inherently religious. Certainly some who have advocated intelligent design are religious. Others decidedly are not. Many agnostic scientists support intelligent design. The theory is driven by the science, not by a religious dogma, and the theory stops where the science stops. It doesn't purport to suggest what the intelligent cause was. Should anyone be afraid of the implications of science, even if one of the implications may be to consider that we did not evolve from lower life forms?
Fortunately, the Supreme Court has a more inclusive view about teaching alternatives. In 1987, the court struck down a Louisiana statute that prohibited teaching evolution unless biblical creation was taught. In doing so, the court affirmed the constitutionality of teaching "a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind."
It is because the law is so clear on this point that the ACLU has desperately fought to control the definition of "science" to exclude design. In doing so, it imperils not just the science curriculum in Dover, but also scientific thought in general. When the Nobel Prize in medicine was recently awarded to the scientists who proved that ulcers were caused by bacteria, it was duly noted that they faced enormous opposition from the scientific and medical establishment, which was convinced otherwise. Today, a number of scientific groups have enshrined neo-Darwinism as a "proven" theory, but it would be a sad day (and, again, tragic irony) if the ACLU succeeds in getting a court to rule that anything other than the current orthodoxy doesn't qualify as science.
More than 400 scientists have signed a statement declaring that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," and that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." The ACLU thinks that telling high school students that they should critically examine the theory of evolution should be illegal because it "disparages" the theory.
Questions exist as to why the Dover school board adopted its policy and whether it adopted the best policy it could have. We all suffer if the ACLU succeeds, however, in creating a scientific monopoly by labeling a scientific theory that explains our origins as mere religion because the theory explains various scientific facts in terms of design. When you step back and look at what the ACLU is actually asking for, you have to have the same reaction as the fictional character in Inherit the Wind: "Ridiculous!"
Much as it pains me to admit this, the "Inky" is being a Liberal in the noblest sense of the word, open to all ideas and beliefs even (gasp) to Judeo-Christian doctrine.
Now I better put on my hard hat to make sure the sky isn't falling.
When it comes to first causes, science = naturalism by definition. Science is defined in such a way as to automatically exclude intelligent design when speculating on the origin of the universe and life. The religion of naturalism requires probably more faith than any other religion out there.
That is why Athiests make such good converts to Christianity....they are already capable of great faith.
No, they're trying to discredit conservatism by making all of us look like pseudoscience-adhering biblical literalists.
Sometimes even the ACLU (gag) is right.
I see that even when taking a stance liberals dislike their liberal strategy of selective truth still holds:
"When the Nobel Prize in medicine was recently awarded to the scientists who proved that ulcers were caused by bacteria, it was duly noted that they faced enormous opposition from the scientific and medical establishment, which was convinced otherwise. Today, a number of scientific groups have enshrined neo-Darwinism as a "proven" theory, but it would be a sad day (and, again, tragic irony) if the ACLU succeeds in getting a court to rule that anything other than the current orthodoxy doesn't qualify as science.
More than 400 scientists have signed a statement declaring that they are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life," and that "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
1) Nice of them to mention the Nobel Prize, considering that virtually all of the winners consider evolution valid and none has ever even expressed a hint of belief that ID is valid.
2) "A number of scientific groups" means the most prestigious scientific organizations in America.
3) 400 scientists sounds like a lot until you find out that very few of them are actually biologists and none of them are biologists who are particularly noteworthy for their achievements. Also, that one could easily 100 times as many scientists who consider evolution valid - that list says, essentially, there are about 400 scientists in the United States who consider ID valid.
Way to stay liberal in methods Inquirer!
Government schools are unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels.They violate the 1st and 13th Amendments. Using the topic of evolution, I will explain why.
Evolution is only one example of many government school topics that have religious,cultural, and political consequences. These consequences are not neutral.
The government school has only three choices. No matter which it chooses the political, cultural, and religious or nonreligious world-view of some of the students will be undermined or supported ( established) by the government.
1) The government school can teach only evolution. If it does this then the religious values and closely held religious traditions of some will be undermined while the traditions of the nonreligious will be established and supported by the government.
2) The government schools can teach only I.D. with the same consequences except entirely in reverse. In this case the religious world-view will be established and supported by the government and the nonreligious undermined.
3) The government school can teach both. In this case the religious or nonreligious values of both can be offended or those of only the nonreligious student.
Therefore,,,,,Government schools violate the First Amendment because they WILL establish the religious world-view of some and trample that of others. Evolution is only one among many such curriculum issues.
Then there are the freedom of speech, press, and free expression, and free assembly issues regarding the government schools.
Those students who do not have an alternative are required by law to be in their assigned government school. While in his compulsory school the student can not escape the other students of the school even if he were to "opt-out" of evolution or intelligent design. The other students have been fully indoctrinated in one, or the other, or both theories and will influence the religious or nonreligious belief system of the student.
If the student attends the evolution or intelligent design class, the student's right to speak freely is violated because the student can not disrupt the class with his free speech. If the student is suffiencently obstanant and defiant, armed police will be called. We know that even 5 year olds have been handcuffed and hauled off to jail.
But,,,,let's say the student does manage to speak freely. If he speaks freely he may be violating the First Amendment establishment clause because his speech may be the cause of indoctrinating another captive student whose religious worldview differs from his.
Do you see? The government school had three problems.
One is with the establishment of a religious or non-religious belief system. There are hundreds of curriculum and policy issues that will never have neutral consequences.
The second is that government schools inherently violate the free speech, free press, free expression of religion, and free assembly of those students who are compelled by law to be there.
The third is compulsion. The government schools compel student attendance. If the student is sufficiently resistant, the government school can and does use armed police force. This is essentially incarceration of a citizen who has committed no crime. This is a violation of the 13th Amendment.
Government schools are unconstitutional on both the state and federal levels.They violate the 1st and 13th Amendments. Using the topic of evolution, I will explain why.
Evolution is only one example of many government school topics that have religious,cultural, and political consequences. These consequences are not neutral.
The government school has only three choices. No matter which it chooses the political, cultural, and religious or nonreligious world-view of some of the students will be undermined or supported ( established) by the government.
1) The government school can teach only evolution. If it does this then the religious values and closely held religious traditions of some will be undermined while the traditions of the nonreligious will be established and supported by the government.
2) The government schools can teach only I.D. with the same consequences except entirely in reverse. In this case the religious world-view will be established and supported by the government and the nonreligious undermined.
3) The government school can teach both. In this case the religious or nonreligious values of both can be offended or those of only the nonreligious student.
Therefore,,,,,Government schools violate the First Amendment because they WILL establish the religious world-view of some and trample that of others. Evolution is only one among many such curriculum issues.
Then there are the freedom of speech, press, and free expression, and free assembly issues regarding the government schools.
Those students who do not have an alternative are required by law to be in their assigned government school. While in his compulsory school the student can not escape the other students of the school even if he were to "opt-out" of evolution or intelligent design. The other students have been fully indoctrinated in one, or the other, or both theories and will influence the religious or nonreligious belief system of the student.
If the student attends the evolution or intelligent design class, the student's right to speak freely is violated because the student can not disrupt the class with his free speech. If the student is suffiencently obstanant and defiant, armed police will be called. We know that even 5 year olds have been handcuffed and hauled off to jail.
But,,,,let's say the student does manage to speak freely. If he speaks freely he may be violating the First Amendment establishment clause because his speech may be the cause of indoctrinating another captive student whose religious worldview differs from his.
Do you see? The government school had three problems.
One is with the establishment of a religious or non-religious belief system. There are hundreds of curriculum and policy issues that will never have neutral consequences.
The second is that government schools inherently violate the free speech, free press, free expression of religion, and free assembly of those students who are compelled by law to be there.
The third is compulsion. The government schools compel student attendance. If the student is sufficiently resistant, the government school can and does use armed police force. This is essentially incarceration of a citizen who has committed no crime. This is a violation of the 13th Amendment.
No, that's just an op-ed by the Discovery Institute. (The DI is a high-output press-release machine.)
David DeWolf is a Senior Fellow at the DI.
Ridiculous!
That was said a bit tongue and cheek, however, the best Christian apologists that I have read, GK Chesterton (Orthodoxy) and C.S. Lewis (Mere Christianity), were former Athiests. That is why they were so compelling in their dismissal of atheism. And, of course, both of them argued with great aplomb that Atheism took great faith.
The hoax is circling the drain. As it becomes less of a risk, more scientists with "degree credentials"
will become whistleblowers. Gould knew the toe was at risk. That's why he concocted the ridiculous p.e. "explanation" for the utter lack of transitional fossils...
If certain religionists want to change the definition of science to include the supernatural, they at least need to be honest about it. Let's just relax the standards to make phrenology a pure science as well. Why learn biology when you can learn ID, Phrenology, palm reading all under the guise of a scientific education?
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.