Evolution and intelligent design Life is a cup of tea

Economist ^ | 10/6/05 | Economist

[shuckmaster]

How should evolution be taught in schools? This being America, judges will decide

HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page. Yet it is more complex than it appears.

In Harrisburg a trial began last week that many are comparing to the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when a Tennessee teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now the gag is on the other mouth. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public-school science classes was an unconstitutional blurring of church and state. But those who think Darwinism unGodly have fought back.

Last year, the school board in Dover, a small rural school district near Harrisburg, mandated a brief disclaimer before pupils are taught about evolution. They are to be told that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” And that if they wish to investigate the alternative theory of “intelligent design”, they should consult a book called “Of Pandas and People” in the school library.

Eleven parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, two lobby groups, are suing to have the disclaimer dropped. Intelligent design, they say, is merely a clever repackaging of creationism, and as such belongs in a sermon, not a science class.

The school board's defence is that intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory, which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by the accumulation of random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God. It also accepts that the earth is billions of years old and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism.

Almost all biologists, however, think it is bunk. Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular biology textbook and the plaintiffs' first witness, said that, to his knowledge, every major American scientific organisation with a view on the subject supported the theory of evolution and dismissed the notion of intelligent design. As for “Of Pandas and People”, he pronounced that the book was “inaccurate and downright false in every section”.

The plaintiffs have carefully called expert witnesses who believe not only in the separation of church and state but also in God. Mr Miller is a practising Roman Catholic. So is John Haught, a theology professor who testified on September 30th that life is like a cup of tea.

To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.

It makes no sense, argued the professor, to confuse the study of molecular movements by bringing in the “I want tea” explanation. That, he argued, is what the proponents of intelligent design are trying to do when they seek to air their theory—which he called “appalling theology”—in science classes.

Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Intelligent designers deny that this is why they attack it, but this week the court was told by one critic that the authors of “Of Pandas and People” had culled explicitly creationist language from early drafts after the Supreme Court barred creationism from science classes.

In the Dover case, intelligent design appears to have found unusually clueless champions. If the plaintiffs' testimony is accurate, members of the school board made no effort until recently to hide their religious agenda. For years, they expressed pious horror at the idea of apes evolving into men and tried to make science teachers teach old-fashioned creationism. (The board members in question deny, or claim not to remember, having made remarks along these lines at public meetings.)

Intelligent design's more sophisticated proponents, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are too polite to say they hate to see their ideas championed by such clods. They should not be surprised, however. America's schools are far more democratic than those in most other countries. School districts are tiny—there are 501 in Pennsylvania alone—and school boards are directly elected. In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree, and seize upon intelligent design as the closest approximation they think they can get away with. But they may not be able to get away with it for long. If the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, intelligent design could be labelled religious and barred from biology classes nationwide.

[dread78645]

Mine!

[PatrickHenry]

I didn't want that one anyway.

[From many - one.]

This is what you posted:

"...That is the reason that people who think rationally usually reject God because the thought of a God who could accomplish so much is just not rational and therefore unbelievable...."

Since practioners of science must think rationally, it is your view, not mine, that scientists reject God. They may reject your view of God, since it defines them out, but they do not reject God.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I don't consider rational thinking as a gift. It might be thought of as the Devil's play book."

I don't think you have to worry, God skipped you anyway.

[jennyp]

Just-when-I-thought-it-couldn't-get-any-more-bizarre PLACEMARKER

[PatrickHenry]

Not a unique position:

"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore."
Source: Martin Luther, 1483-1546.

[jennyp]

Niiiiiiiice.

Here are some more of Luther's (attributed) sayings regarding reason (from the same page):

• Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word.... [Said to be from Table Talk]
• Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God [Said to be from V, 1312]
• Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. [Said to be from V, 425]
• Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads...."
• "If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there."

[taxesareforever]

Thank you for the post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

[ThinkDifferent]

I don't consider rational thinking as a gift. It might be thought of as the Devil's play book.

Yeah, what have math, physics, engineering, and medicine ever done for us anyway? Please tell me you're a troll.

[RunningWolf]

The rational mind and rational thinking can operate from a place of evil or not. Math, physics, engineering, and medicine might be used to evil ends, but those things in themselves are not evil.

To link this statement from taxesareforever with math, physics, engineering, and medicine is a false and faulty linkage.

Wolf

[js1138]

No problem, since words mean whatever you wish them to mean, and morality is whatever those in power say it is.

[RunningWolf]

I reject that

[jennyp]

Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God

Thank you for the post. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Allahu Akbar!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" To link this statement from taxesareforever with math, physics, engineering, and medicine is a false and faulty linkage."

In what way? They are all products of rational thinking. Taxesareforever has called rational thinking the devil's work. He has said,

""I don't consider rational thinking as a gift. It might be thought of as the Devil's play book."

Here are some more of his gems(not sure how much of this thread you have followed):

"That is the reason that people who think rationally usually reject God because the thought of a God who could accomplish so much is just not rational and therefore unbelievable."
(in other words, rational thinking leads to atheism--CG)

"I do not think that I am capable of making rational decisions on my own."

"Why is it not wrong in other countries? If there laws allow it, that is what makes it right."
(speaking of things like honor killings, genital mutilation, stoning of adulterers; expressing his moral relativism--CG)

"By the way, answer my question. Is slavery a moral issue? If you say it is where do you derive what is moral and what isn't?"

"Of course I consider abortion wrong. If the our government sanctioned slavery I would say it was wrong because it would be against our Constitution."
(Whatever a government says is OK--CG)

"What is right or wrong for one country is not necessarily right or wrong for another country. Just ask the people living in other countries."

""Like I said, the Bible doesn't support it nor does it condemn it, so who am I to say it is immoral."
(speaking of slavery--CG)

"I did not say slavery was moral just because the government allows it."
(admitting he thinks slavery IS moral--CG)

Saving the best for last,

"My position on slavery? I don't consider it is wrong to have slaves."


I don't think you want to be defending this one Running Wolf. Just think of what you would be defending.

[Coyoteman]

I don't consider rational thinking as a gift. It might be thought of as the Devil's play book.

You certainly have a way with words! First the banned post #375, then your multiple defenses, then this.

[Coyoteman]

Here are some more of Luther's (attributed) sayings regarding reason (from the same page):

• Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word.... [Said to be from Table Talk]

• Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God [Said to be from V, 1312]

• Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. [Said to be from V, 425]

• Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads...."

• "If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there."

Yup, this is a one-of-a-kind thread. Another I can't believe it! placemarker.

And there are probably those around here who agree with this stuff.

[Coyoteman]

Here are some more of Luther's (attributed) sayings regarding reason (from the same page):

• Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spritual things, but--more frequently than not --struggles against the Divine Word.... [Said to be from Table Talk]

• Reason must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed. Faith must trample underfoot all reason, sense, and understanding, and whatever it sees must be put out of sight and ... know nothing but the word of God [Said to be from V, 1312]

• Whoever wants to be a Christian should tear the eyes out of his reason. [Said to be from V, 425]

• Idiots, the lame, the blind, the dumb, are men in whom the devils have established themselves: and all the physicians who heal these infirmities, as though they proceeded from natural causes, are ignorant blockheads...."

• "If [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth--that is why they are there."

Yup, this is a one-of-a-kind thread. Another I can't believe it! placemarker.

And there are probably those around here who agree with this stuff.

[Coyoteman]

Sorry about the double post. I waited a minute and a half before I figured I hadn't hit the right button and hit 'er again. Sigh!

[jennyp]

And there are probably those around here who agree with this stuff.

Well, at least one.

[RunningWolf]

Look you have just added a bunch of clipped text from perhaps 10 or more postings that had nothing to do with what I responded to.

And now you are suggesting I am defending something.

Well okay I went back and read the thread and your clipped out pieces, and your answers to them.

I disagree with your assessment of what taxesforever is saying. I understood it, and maybe you did too, or maybe you did not.

If you and the others on your side took it all in, you might give him a break. Of course that would be no fun in the gotcha ambush game that goes on in these threads. That BTW was one of the first things I noticed that passes for intelligent debate here, but Wolf can heist a leg too if he wants.

So I'll address this slavery issue. 1st of all its absurd, not recent, not practiced, has been decided, etc etc. But if you really want to make an issue of it, the subject of slavery should be at least split from the slavery in early civilization of agrarian warrior cultures (where the Bible talks about) as opposed to the slavery as practiced of say 1400 to 1900. I am surprised none of the educated evo guys ever made that distinction.

See why I would like to take your side more seriously but I cant? Thats just one place where my sarcasm comes from that I direct your way. You evo guys want to hold yourself out as some sort of intellectual superiors, and then I see all of this.. Whats up with that??

Like our debate. I said (in a nutshell) that evo cant stand on its own and as I see it it cant. There is evidence, but not for an evo conclusion. So then your response is to insist I am a creationist (even though I said I am not), and demand proof of the resurrection (which I never brought in you did). Whats up with that?

Wolf (looking askance) And then you think you have won some sort of victory?

Wolf