With about 70 billion stars and as many as 100 million life forms (at least here on Earth), the universe is a stunningly complex place. Did all of this matter evolve independently, or was it guided by a larger force – as proponents of intelligent design believe? With the debate raging in living rooms, classrooms and courtrooms, the stakes are high when it comes to determining intelligent design’s merit.
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
--
. Similarly, as I’ve said, there is no evidence Jones understood the academic issues discussed in his courtroom. Those who have hailed Jones as some sort of philosopher-king have been badly misled.
--
This is particularly funny because it was Behe who seems to have not only failed to communicate the academic issues to the Judge, but also it was Behe who was extensively quoted in the judge's ruling as to why ID was scientifically without merit.
From reading the whole ruling, it become painfully clear that the judge was very aware of the scientific issues involved, he just happened to disagree with the spin provided by the defendants and their witnesses. I wonder if the Judge would have been able to make such an effective ruling without the contributions and testimonies of Michael Behe.
For instance
--
Stated another way, ID posits that animals did not evolve naturally through evolutionary means but were created abruptly by a non-natural, or supernatural, designer. Defendants' own expert witnesses acknowledged this point. (21:96-100 (Behe); P-718 at 696, 700 ("implausible that the designer is a natural entity"); 28:21-22 (Fuller) (". . . ID's rejection of naturalism and commitment to supernaturalism . . ."); 38:95-96 (Minnich) (ID does not exclude the possibility of a supernatural designer, including deities).
It is notable that defense experts' own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to "change the ground rules" of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).
--
A fascinating reading indeed which shows a well informed judge making a powerful ruling which ID proponents. As to the plagiarism claims, see http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/dis-plagiarism.html for a more in-depth analysis of the DI's "response" to this devastating ruling.
- PvM
September 10, 2008 9:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
"Forrest, who has written a history of ID, was an expert witness in the Dover case, and her piece recounts the various personal attacks and snide comments she had to endure during the trial. (See it here: http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwatch/kitzmiller.html .)"
She's got nothing on ID now: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/08/response_to_barbara_forrests_k.html
- F2XL October 27, 2008 10:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
He was a judge. Not a molecular biologist...
why is it we have to argue things that are completely unarguable? Of course he didn't understand the intricacies of the case for ID--- HE WAS A JUDGE. Anyone claiming that he DID understand the subject matter completely is being intellectually dishonest - since people in the field itself have varying levels of understanding when it comes to the subject matter -- and they actually do it for a living...
And to make statements about how Forrest had to deal with insults and snide remarks from the other side.... cry me a river - I'm sure you guys were nothing but saints right?
- lux113 July 21, 2009 10:13AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
--As explained on that page, some of the scientific journals and other prestigious academic sources that have published peer-reviewed scientific publications by ID proponents supporting core ID arguments include:--
And then the Discovery Institute continues to claim some journals, without providing much of any reference to the actual papers. And for good reason because there are trivially few if any, ID relevant scientific papers. While ID is known to quickly claim that papers support their viewpoint, the many authors of said papers have come forward, strongly disagreeing with said claims. ID has few if any ID relevant papers. It's as simple as that. Perhaps the poster would like to identify a single relevant article for us to address in more depth?
As to Judge Jones extensive use of the ACLU's "proposed ‘Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law’", the DI initially suggested strongly that something was fishy about this, of course, over time they may have toned down their rhetoric showing that the ACLU was well prepared in briefing the Judge about the case.
As to evidence, all that ID can do is use ill defined concepts to argue that our ignorance should indeed be seen as evidence of design, combine this with an equivocation on such terminologies as design and information and one quickly realizes that ID is all about Bait and Switch.
If ID has merit, then explain how ID explains the bacterial flagellum.
The silence will be deafening I predict.
- PvM September 10, 2008 9:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: No
" We focus only on the constitutional aspects to this issue. Americans United's main point is that the teaching of intelligent design in public schools is unconstitutional. It is religion, not science. Judge Jones agreed with us. The Kitzmiller case is over. "
Oh really? The 'unconstitutional' premise, which resulted in a legal 'conclusion' by Judge Jones, was based on his interpretation of (1) The Establishment Clause, (2) The Lemon Test, and (3) his definition of 'religion.' Without taking up space analyzing the first two, addressing the third negates the relevance of the first two.
In the Lemon v Kurtzman ruling, as in virtually all other Supreme Court cases, religion has not been defined, although in lower court cases, it has in some cases been defined in a narrow or broad sense, according to what the jurist(s) felt was needed to adjudicate a particular case.
One of the main problems then, in applying the Lemon Test, is a proper interpretation of the term 'religion'. Referring to excerpts from the Utah Law Review published by arn.org, this topic is addressed, with citations from relevant court cases.
pg. 47 "Though the courts have generally resisted formulating definitions of
religion, the Ninth Circuit test articulated in Peloza v. Capistrano Unified
School District226 and Alvarado v. City of San Jose227 stands as a clear
exception to that rule." Similar to the Lemon Test, it consists of (3) qualifications for a motive to be religious. I'll list those three, along with my interpretation.
"First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters."
My take: ID seeks empirical and statistical verifications/ falsifications, rather than to attempt to answer 'imponderable matters [questions].
"Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief-system as opposed to an isolated teaching."
There is no established "belief-system" presented as evidence of design.
"Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs."
Here is the clincher, quoting from pg. 46: "The third part of the test concerns the "'presence of certain formal and external signs.'" The court provided a list of such signs, including liturgy, clergy, and observance of holidays. Obviously, design theory has none of these - no sacred texts; no ordained ministers, priests, or religious teachers; no design theory liturgies; no design theory holidays; and no institutional structures like those of religious groups."
If these prongs properly define 'religion', then Judge Jones erred in his decision. "Implying" a God, does not a religion make. A designer, design team, or designers over vast time would not need to constitute the role of an overseer, or an entity that conforms to prevailing monotheistic religions.
An appellate court ruling can be cited as a basis for later rulings, and in this case, to more accurately define 'religion' as referenced in Lemon v. Kurtzman, but not properly defined in that decision. I eagerly await a subsequent court ruling based in-part on the above, as well as other relevant facts, to put this nonesense to rest. I feel that Tom Jefferson would agree.
http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/utah.pdf
- Lee Bowman September 12, 2008 1:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Let's just cut to the chase: ID does not perform any empirical and statistical verifications, at best they could perform statistical falsifications of a particular scientific hypothesis but even the simplest hypotheses are not easily captured in statistics and thus ID has found that most examples of supposedly 'designed' systems, cannot really be tested using ID methodology.
So let's be upfront here about what ID really is: It's the argument that when we do not fully understand how something arose, that our default position should be 'designed' not 'we don't know'. Once we agree on this simple fact, we can see if the Judge's ruling had a solid foundation.
First of all, the judge observed that the school board was strongly motivated by religious beliefs and the fact that they believed that ID presented a scientific hypothesis and thus a valid secular purpose, was their downfall when the Judge showed not only how ID is tightly linked to religious motivations (the Wedge) but also that as a science it lacked any content.
It is sufficient to point out that ID, which claims that design is that which remains when we cannot explain something using natural processes of regularity or chance, must be either the empty set or the supernatural. I doubt that many ID proponent would argue for the empty set and thus what logically remains, and what is supported by the evidence, ID's 'designer (wink, wink)' is just an evolved concept, just like 'creationist' became 'cdesign proponentist' to 'design proponent'.
- PvM September 12, 2008 1:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
PvM:
"First of all, the judge observed that the school board was strongly motivated by religious beliefs and the fact that they believed that ID presented a scientific hypothesis and thus a valid secular purpose, was their downfall ... "
Thanks for bringing that up Pv, since I forgot to. There is strong evidence that Buckingham had religious motives, and that he had a memory slip regarding funding for the books, etc. That alone could qualify for an interpretation of 'religious motives', although Lemon Test prong 1, while requiring a "secular purpose", does not summarily rule out tentatively having a religious motive as well. None-the-less, I don't disagree with his ruling regarding the school board.
That said, none of this relates to the ID ruling, since the board members were not ID advocates, except perhaps superficially.
PvM:
" ... when the Judge showed not only how ID is tightly linked to religious motivations (the Wedge) but also that as a science it lacked any content."
The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
More on the ACLU's rubber stamped ruling, by a practicing attorney:
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/why-we-should-not-try-to-fathom-the-hearts-of-policy-makers /
lacked any content."
- Lee Bowman September 12, 2008 2:22PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
--Bowman
More on the ACLU's rubber stamped ruling, by a practicing attorney
--
Nothing wrong with quoting from a well argued submission by the ACLU
--Bowman
That said, none of this relates to the ID ruling, since the board members were not ID advocates, except perhaps superficially.
--
On the contrary, and the DI realized this when arguing in their Amicus Curiae brief that ID does have 'valid secular purposes'. Since if ID did indeed have a valid secular purpose, as the board indeed believed (it was after all claimed to be 'scientific' by ID proponents) then the ruling would have had to take into consideration the valid secular purpose aspect. Peter Irons explains it quite well in his paper.
- PvM September 12, 2008 2:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"Nothing wrong with quoting from a well argued submission by the ACLU."
OK, referring to it is of course permissable, but come on, copying 91% of it. How do we know the Judge really thought much about the issue himself? We don't with that kind of antic. This seems like a misuse of the privilege to refer to a brief to me. If the Judge had done the same thing, copied 91% of a well written brief submitted by an ID group, and ruled for the other side, what do you think you would have complained about? It goes both ways my friend. The only reason you don't think this is a problem is because he supports your view, isn't that right?....
- tj10
September 12, 2008 8:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
--Bowman argues
The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
--
It was relevant to the history of Intelligent Design, especially when the ID 'hypothesis' was found to be lacking scientific content.
Not surprisingly, the Judge disagreed with Bowman's position that the Wedge was not relevant
--Judge Jones
Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.
---
Hope this helps
- PvM September 12, 2008 2:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
--Bowman argues
The board members weren't even aware of the 'Wedge' document, a dated (ten years), internal document of DI, and neither relevant to Dover v Kitzmiller, nor to the ID hypothesis.
--
It was relevant to the history of Intelligent Design, especially when the ID 'hypothesis' was found to be lacking scientific content.
Not surprisingly, the Judge disagreed with Bowman's position that the Wedge was not relevant
--Judge Jones
Dramatic evidence of ID's religious nature and aspirations is found in what is referred to as the "Wedge Document." The Wedge Document, developed by the Discovery Institute's Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (hereinafter "CRSC"), represents from an institutional standpoint, the IDM's goals and objectives, much as writings from the Institute for Creation Research did for the earlier creation-science movement, as discussed in McLean. (11:26-28 (Forrest)); McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1255. The Wedge Document states in its "Five Year Strategic Plan Summary" that the IDM's goal is to replace science as currently practiced with "theistic and Christian science." (P-140 at 6). As posited in the Wedge Document, the IDM's "Governing Goals" are to "defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies" and "to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God." Id. at 4. The CSRC expressly announces, in the Wedge Document, a program of Christian apologetics to promote ID. A careful review of the Wedge Document's goals and language throughout the document reveals cultural and religious goals, as opposed to scientific ones. (11:26-48 (Forrest); P-140). ID aspires to change the ground rules of science to make room for religion, specifically, beliefs consonant with a particular version of Christianity.
---
Hope this helps
- PvM September 12, 2008 2:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"ID's 'designer (wink, wink)' is just an evolved concept, just like 'creationist' became 'cdesign proponentist' to 'design proponent'."
...have you found the paragraphs to support your premise here yet? Anything that showed god specifically was implicated by use of the word creator?
- F2XL January 29, 2009 8:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
--Judge Jones--
Although we have found that Defendants' conduct conveys a strong message of endorsement of the Board members' par ticular religious view, pursuant to the endorsement test, the better practice in this Circuit is for this Court to also evaluate the challenged conduct separately under the Lemon test.18 See Child Evangelism, 386 F.3d at 530-35; Modrovich, 385 F.3d at 406; Freethought, 334 F.3d at 261.
As articulated by the Supreme Court, under the Lemon test, a government-sponsored message violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment if: (1) it does not have a secular purpose; (2) its principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion; or (3) it creates an excessive entanglement of the government with religion. Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13. As the Lemon test is disjunctive, either an improper purpose or an improper effect renders the ID Policy invalid under the Establishment Clause.19
We will therefore consider whether (1) Defendants' primary purpose was to advance religion or (2) the ID Policy has the primary effect of promoting religion.
--
Timothy Sandefur discusses the response by Discovery Institute Fellows, pointing us to an essay by Peter Irons
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/montana-law-rev.html
http://www.umt.edu/mlr/Irons %20Response.pdf
- PvM September 12, 2008 1:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
From the above linked paper by Peter Irons, I quote the following
--Peter Irons
In an undoubtedly unintentional slip, which they may well regret, the DI authors have effectively given away the store with their concession that under the Lemon test, “all that was necessary [for Judge Jones] to determine that an Establishment Clause violation had occurred was to find that the Dover school board members had predominantly religious motivations for enacting their ID policy.” To repeat, those religious motivations would have been irrelevant if ID was in fact a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian evolution. Thus, in my view, Judge Jones was required to raise and answer this question, based on the voluminous record before him, which his opinion lays out in some five thousand words.
---
In other words, in accepting the Lemon clause, the DI basically accepted that ID serves no valid secular purpose.
- PvM September 12, 2008 2:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Peter Irons' article is only one part of the Montana Law Reviews take on this. The other side was submitted by David DeWolf, Casey Luskin and John West and can be read here: http://www.discovery.org/a/2125 .
If you want a thorough analysis of the Dover v. Kitzmiller ruling you should read "Traipsing Into Evolution" -- www.traipsingintoevolution.
Like modern evolutionary theory there is more than just one side to the debate.
- Robert Crowther September 12, 2008 2:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
--Robert Crowther
Like modern evolutionary theory there is more than just one side to the debate.
--
Any suggestions to what debates you may be referring?
As to DeWolf et al, where they not the ones who also wrote a publication that argued that it was constitutional to teach ID? One of the main causes of the Dover disaster in my opinion?
After all if ID has a valid secular purpose, then no matter what the motivations of the board may have been, such a purpose would have overruled any concerns.
Ah, yes the by now infamous
http://www.arn.org/docs/dewolf/guidebook.htm
--
Local school boards and state education officials are frequently pressured to avoid teaching the controversy regarding biological origins. Indeed, many groups, such as the National Academy of Sciences, go so far as to deny the existence of any genuine scientific controversy about the issue.160 Nevertheless, teachers should be reassured that they have the right to expose their students to the problems as well as the appeal of Darwinian theory. Moreover, as the previous discussion demonstrates, school boards have the authority to permit, and even encourage, teaching about design theory as an alternative to Darwinian evolution-and this includes the use of textbooks such as Of Pandas and People that present evidence for the theory of intelligent design.
--
Ironic isn't it "Of Pandas and People", of all books. Was that not the book which was at the center of stage in Dover?
- PvM September 12, 2008 2:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Here is the response to Irons, which was also published in the Montana Law Review.
REBUTTAL TO IRONS (footnotes left off)
By David K. DeWolf, John G. West, and Casey Luskin
We wrote a serious critique of the Kitzmiller ruling. Rather than deal with the substance of our arguments, Peter Irons responds primarily with red herrings, personal attacks, and erroneous statements. With merely 1,000 words to rebut, we highlight merely some of the problems.
1. Irons tries to refute intelligent design (ID) by smear and innuendo rather than substantive argument. Pro ID scholars have published more than a decade of scholarship in reputable academic books and journals about the empirical evidence supporting design. Instead of engaging this scholarship, Irons wildly misrepresents a few blog posts and an old fundraising proposal, and uses guilt-by-association to insinuate (falsely) that Discovery Institute (DI) is run by “biblical creationist[s]” and supports “Biblical Reconstructionis[m]” and theocracy. Irons devotes pages to caricaturing the backgrounds, beliefs, and political affiliations of ID proponents, rather obviously trying to present ID as part of a nefarious conspiracy of the “Religious Right.” This is an example of what historian Richard Hofstadter called “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.”7 Irons tries to avoid debating the real issues by poisoning the well.
2. Irons misrepresents our critique of Judge Jones. Given his article, it is surprising that Irons accuses us of making ad hominem attacks against Judge Jones.8 Ad hominem arguments attack a person rather than that person’s position.9 Our article assesses Judge Jones’s analysis in light of his judicial responsibilities, but Irons’s rebuttal starts with the alleged motives and personal failings of the authors. Irons’s claim that we resort to ad hominem attacks is the height of irony.
3. Irons misapplies the Lemon test. In a rare attempt to rebut our legal arguments, Irons claims Judge Jones properly determined whether ID is science because otherwise the Dover school board’s “religious motivations would have been irrelevant.” This is wrong: the Supreme Court requires the proffered secular purpose “be sincere and not a sham” and “[i]f the law was enacted for the purpose of endorsing religion, no consideration of [Lemon’s] second or third criteria is necessary.” Had Judge Jones found that ID is science, Dover’s policy would still be unconstitutional if adopted for predominately religious reasons. But Judge Jones found Dover’s proffered secular purpose was a sham, negating any need to address whether ID is science. As we noted, even anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler agrees Judge Jones was mistaken to rule on ID’s scientific status.
4. Rewriting the history of DI’s involvement with Dover. DI opposed Dover’s policy at every stage of the process, and Irons’s contrary suggestions are false. The DI’s position in Dover was consistent with its publicly stated science education policy, and with its recommendations in Ohio in 2002 and 2004, and in Wisconsin in 2004, where DI also opposed mandates of ID. Irons’s only source for rewriting history is a statement of a Dover board member whom Judge Jones said “testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath” and is therefore “not credible.”
- Robert Crowther September 12, 2008 3:34PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
PT. 2
5. Irons defends Judge Jones’s double standard on motives. According to Irons, Judge Jones rightly scrutinized the religious beliefs of ID theorists while ignoring those of Darwinists, asserting that atheism naturally “follow[s]” from evolution, whereas religion motivates ID. This is empirically false,22 and stands the First Amendment on its head: can Irons seriously claim that the First Amendment requires discriminatory treatment toward scientists because of their religious beliefs? By arguing that Richard Dawkins’s atheism “followed” from evolution, Irons concedes that metaphysical implications of a scientific theory cannot render it unscientific.
6. Irons repeatedly misrepresents and misstates facts. Irons’s factual errors are too numerous to catalog, but we highlight some of the most egregious: Irons incorrectly conflates ID proponents with “biblical creationists.” He wrongly implies that ID must reject common ancestry. He accuses Michael Behe of failing to repair a purported “defect” in irreducible complexity, without revealing that Behe has responded to this objection. He claims the John Templeton Foundation (JTF) asked ID proponents for research proposals which “never came in,” but JTF’s vice president denies that such a request was ever made, calling the episode a “media narrative manufacture.” Irons alleges we “hijacked” Stephen Jay Gould, but Gould plainly agreed with Niles Eldridge that “the higher up the Linnaean hierarchy you look, the fewer transitional forms there seem to be.” Irons insinuates that “not one” of DI’s fellows in the Center for Science and Culture has expertise in paleontology, ignoring the various ID proponents who have studied (or published) in mainstream paleontology circles, including on hominid evolution. He claims “no ‘intelligent’ force can be observed or measured by any scientific process,” yet we explained that scientists study intelligence by observing humans and seek to detect intelligent action in SETI (“search for extraterrestrial intelligence”) programs. Irons uses poor sources for many of his claims, which may be why he is so inaccurate.
Irons repeatedly falsely insinuates that we misrepresent quotations through omissions, but he misrepresents through creative quoting himself. For example, Irons claims William Dembski takes the position that “I am a Christian, therefore I reject evolution,” but ignores Dembski’s actual position: “Intelligent design . . . has no prior religious commitments and interprets the data of science on generally accepted scientific principles.” It is Irons who has attempted to “swift-boat” the character of ID proponents through selective citations.
Rather than refuting our substantive arguments, Irons attempts to divert attention away from the Kitzmiller ruling and its weaknesses. We trust that fair-minded readers will see through such tactics. If this is the best defenders of Kitzmiller can muster, the shelf-life of the ruling may be short indeed.
- Robert Crowther September 12, 2008 3:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Instead this appears to be an abuse of copyright without an argument on Crowther's part.
Too bad.
--
This is wrong: the Supreme Court requires the proffered secular purpose “be sincere and not a sham” and “[i]f the law was enacted for the purpose of endorsing religion, no consideration of [Lemon’s] second or third criteria is necessary.
--
Showing a valid secular purpose would have invalidated the 'endorsing religion' part. Why else would the DI argue so strongly that ID has valid secular purpose?
Otherwise, given the religious motivations of ID, ID would never stand a chance in court.
- PvM September 12, 2008 4:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
--
The U.S. Supreme Court held a Kentucky law requiring posting a copy of the Ten
Commandments on the walls of public classrooms a violation of the Establishment
Clause, because it allegedly included a sham secular purpose in violation of the first
prong of the Lemon test.--
Seems that the sham secular purpose determination was in fact relevant after all.
--Lemon v Kurtzman--
The Court's decision in this case established the "Lemon test", which details the requirements for legislation concerning religion. It consists of three prongs:
1. The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.
--
Now I understand the article bombing on Crowther's part.
- PvM September 12, 2008 4:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Here is Irons' response to the so called 'rebuttal'
--
Reply to Rebuttal
By Peter Irons
The pages of a respected law review are rarely filled with such pejorative terms as "smear and innuendo," "poisoning the well," and "personal attacks." These are charges the DI authors have leveled at me in their Rebuttal to my article, in which I documented their ad hominem attacks on Judge Jones for his allegedly "sloppy" and "biased" Kitzmiller opinion. Although this reply to the Rebuttal is not part of the exchange in the Montana Law Review, it seems fair that readers of those articles might benefit from a brief rejoinder to the Rebuttal, which I will not burden with footnotes. I have numbered the points below simply for convenience.
1. The DI authors fault me for not "engaging th[e] scholarship" they cite as providing "empirical evidence supporting [intelligent] design." My article was not directed at a detailed critique of this alleged scholarship, which lies outside both my fields of expertise and those of the DI authors. I did, however, note in my article the concession of Michael Behe at the Kitzmiller trial that he could not cite any "pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." I thus had no ID scholarship to engage.
===
It only gets better
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2007/06/irons_responds_to_west_luskin.php
The most relevant to this discussion is
--Peter Irons--
7. Moving to the legal issues in the Kitzmiller opinion, which the DI authors accuse me of slighting in my article, let me comment on their claim that both Judge Jones and I have "misapplie[d] the Lemon test." First, they concede that the "proffered secular purpose" of the Dover school board's ID policy was a "sham" and that Judge Jones properly held it unconstitutional as an endorsement of religion. Second, they argue that this finding "negat[ed] any need to address whether ID is science." On this point, the DI authors note that "even anti-ID legal scholar Jay Wexler [a professor at Boston University Law School] agrees Judge Jones was mistaken to rule on ID's scientific status," citing Wexler's recent article in the First Amendment Law Review (Vol. 5, 2006). Without rehashing the discussion of this issue in my article, let me simply note that Professor Wexler and I disagree. Readers of this exchange are encouraged to consult the lengthy, and--in my view--persuasive reply to Wexler by Richard Katskee in that same issue of the First Amendment Law Review.
--
Richard Katskee, "Why It Mattered to Dover that Intelligent Design Isn't Science" First Amendment Law Review, Vol. 5, Winter 2006
- PvM September 12, 2008 4:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
"You lost the case -- get over it."
- So does this mean gay rights groups should just accept Proposition 8?
"So who is this "Designer"? (Don't say space aliens or time travelers -- you only make yourself look foolish with such claims.)"
- I think anti-IDists have done themselves a disservice by stating that God is a better explanation for design than aliens or time travelers. If ID is ever adopted by the majority of scientists, history will make anti-IDists eat their own feet. Further, Richard Dawkins stated that it is more probable that aliens created life on Earth than God. I guess the AUSCS thinks Dawkins is a fool.
- ufcarazy January 25, 2009 11:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The AUSC's claim that court cases settle all debates reminds me of how futile Roe v. Wade was in settling the abortion debate.
And yes, it's funny how Dawkin's has no problem with ID at all AS LONG AS the designer isn't god.
- F2XL January 29, 2009 8:43PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
5
11
15
13
11
6
10
8
6
6
9
7
6
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Intelligent Design Is Unconstitutional
- From AUSCS
By Americans United
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Secular purpose argument
The DI is quick to argue that Jones overstepped its bound by declaring ID not be scientific even though both the plaintiffs and the defendants insisted that the Judge address this because the existence of a valid secular purpose which is not a sham is an important aspect in determining if something is unconstitutional
--Judge Jones--
Defendants Presented No Convincing Evidence that They were Motived by Any Valid Secular Purpose
Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.
We initially note that the Supreme Court has instructed that while courts are "normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham." Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (citing Wallace, 472 U.S. at 64)(Powell, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment) . Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District's science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants' asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous.
---
Which is why the Judge concluded in his section on "Is Intelligent Design Science"
--Judge Jones--
To conclude and reiterate, we express no opinion on the ultimate veracity of ID as a supernatural explanation. However, we commend to the attention of those who are inclined to superficially consider ID to be a true "scientific" alternative to evolution without a true understanding of the concept the foregoing detailed analysis. It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science.
--
Of course ID proponents are quick to raise the demarcation argument while failing to recognize that while it may be hard to define strict rules as to what is and is not science in advance, it is quite possible to recognize that ID fails to be scientifically relevant a posteriori.
- PvM
September 9, 2008 1:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What a skewed opinion!
For goodness sakes guys, very few people are advocating the mandatory teaching of ID in schools.. This is simply scare rhetoric to get people worried. Even the Discovery Institute is against this. You know very well that what people want is simply the freedom to look at both sides of the issue. Open debate. You would think that learning institutions would look on this favorably. I think we all know the reason. Their arguments would not stack up against the arguments of the ID side. Fear is the main reason for trying to shut out ID ideas from even being discussed in the classroom.
And you know very well why ID scientists have a hard time getting their research published in peer journals. Censorship of ID. Please, how dumb do you think the public is? Give us a little more credit!! It is downright insulting the way the intelligentsia views the public at times. They want us to bow at their feet and take their opinions as absolute truth.
Look what happened to Richard Stenburg when he had the courage to allow an ID piece get published? Scientists and his peers jumped all over him. He lost his job and his reputation. An e-mail smear campaign was purposefully put in place. They wanted to make him suffer to scare others from doing the same thing. So much pressure was put on the magazine that they promised never to publish such a piece again. And you want ID scientists to publish their articles? They would if you would allow them to do it.
The Dover verdict was a farce. The Judge simply copied large amounts of material word for word from the material he received from the ACLU. This was a shameful low blow? Why - if it is true?!!! His mind was made up before he even heard the case. Even the Discovery Institute was against what they were trying to do. Granted, the Dover school board had religious people on it, but that doesn't mean that their religious views mean that we can dismiss the scientific arguments that may lend support to those views. If so, let's dismiss all the evidence that lends support to the religious views of the Darwinists as well.
What worldview a person holds should not be the issue. It is the scientific evidence that is important. If the evidence points to an "unscientific" worldview, then maybe, just maybe, the worldview of naturalism could be wrong? That is a distinct possibility you know. Scientists take it as a given when it is not a given. So if it is wrong, there should be evidence, scientific evidence that does not fit with that worldview. Disallowing a presentation of this evidence because the worldview allows for the existence of "unscientific" beings is not rational. You can't censor out all opposing ideas and then say "Look, all the evidence points to naturalism!" Again, we are not as dumb as you think.
Besides, if naturalism is the correct worldview, how do we know that we can even trust our own reasoning abilities? Why would randomness produce laws of logic, information with specified complexity, consciousness, morality, spirituality, etc.
Again I agree that mandating the teaching of ID is wrong, but not because it is religious. It does not deal with the religious side of the issue. It simply says that there is scientific evidence for design. Can't we agree that this is indeed a possibility???!!!
- tj10
September 11, 2008 6:07PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
So much ignorance
--tj10
Look what happened to Richard Stenburg when he had the courage to allow an ID piece get published? Scientists and his peers jumped all over him. He lost his job and his reputation.
---
First of all his name is Sternberg or von Sternber, second of all, contrary to popular myth he did not lose his job.
It helps to get at least these facts right and I understand that you may have gotten these flawed impressions from ID reports so let's look at the facts.
As Schloss describes the portrayal of the Sternberg 'affair; in the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" (ironic title...)
---
After the article was published, rumors circulated that Sternberg was a young earth creationist. He’s not. Rumors circulated that Sternberg, contrary to standard policy for scientific publications, did not send the paper out for peer review. He definitely did. It was also claimed that Sternberg did not conform to the journal’s typical standards for seeking input from an associate editor. This is contested. Finally, it has been documented that communication between those associated with the journal and the Smithsonian Institution (involved in the journal’s publication) and/or the National Center for Science Education (a leading anti-creationist organization) inquired about Sternberg’s religious beliefs, political affiliations, and even discussed whether he should be terminated, formally disciplined, or made to resign.21 And it was decided none of these things should occur.
So what actually did happen? Sternberg stepped down from his post as editor, but everybody agrees this has nothing to do with the article, and his term was set to expire before it appeared anyway. He was not fired or asked to resign at the Smithsonian. In fact, he didn’t even have a job at the Smithsonian to begin with (he is an employee of the National Institutes of Health). His was a courtesy appointment as a researcher, which was not rescinded. But after the term ran out, it was commuted to a lower prestige designation. From here the claims seem to get considerably more modest and also a bit more difficult to adjudicate. Sternberg claims his name was taken off his door, he had to move to worse work space, had to trade in his master key for another key, had to endure bureaucratic demands that others did not, and had his access to collections restricted. The
Smithsonian claims some of this happened and some didn’t, but much of what did happen also happened to others for reasons of general policy, some even before the article came out. The worst case scenario – which does not seem altogether unlikely – is that Sternberg indeed experienced a hostile work environment. It seems clear that colleagues viewed him as having betrayed the standards and reputation (but not the policies) of the organization, they were ticked with him, and as is not uncommon in such situations, he was subjected to gossip and the diminution of discretionary professional courtesies.
---
Source: Jeffrey P. Schloss "The Expelled Controversy: Overcoming or Raising Walls of Division?",
Center for Faith, Ethics, and Life Sciences Westmont College
I will address the other ill informed statements by TJ10 in a later posting.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 6:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for your corrections.
Yes, you are right. My bad. His name is Sternberg, not Stenberg.
The government report on the issue validates the charges against the Smithsonian Institute.
Paper victory: A congressional committee found evidence for harassment and discrimination by the Smithsonian against Dr. Richard Sternberg, who had allowed publication of a pro-ID paper in a Smithsonian journal (see Evolution News). The report listed numerous examples of spying, plotting, lying, scheming and creating a hostile environment against Dr. Sternberg by Smithsonian staff with the NCSE’s help. Few regular citizens even know that this report exists though and no action or fine was put on the Institution or the NCSE for their role in this harrassment. If you want to look at the report for yourself, here is a link to it: http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php But it seems like you have already read this.
You may be right about him not losing his job. I'll back off what I said until I can verify it with Sternberg himself.
The point is, they made his life miserable, started a smear campaign, tried to ruin his reputation, and tried to make life so miserable for him that he would resign. They succeeded and they were not punished for this at all. Apparently all is fair in the evolution/ID war. They wanted to make it clear that this kind of an article is never to be published by any kind of reputable science magazine. Then they claim that ID scientists haven't published any articles to prove their point that it is not good science. Go figure.
Now, we all know that some articles have been published, but very few and the Sternberg controversy shows why the numbers of articles that have been published is so few.
Thanks for pointing out my errors!
tj
- tj10
September 13, 2008 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Again wrong
--TJ10
The government report on the issue validates the charges against the Smithsonian Institute.
--
In fact, the report shows exactly what Schloss reported. Seems that few people have actually read the report which includes the actual emails on which the report relied.
TJ10, lacking in accuracy in his previous posting, is not holding back
--TJ10
The point is, they made his life miserable, started a smear campaign, tried to ruin his reputation, and tried to make life so miserable for him that he would resign.
--
Again not supported by the facts.
Why is it that ID proponents tend to be so sloppy with facts? I can understand that if one relies on ID sources for one's story, one may indeed be led to believe these 'facts' but with all the primary sources so readily available, there is no excuse for relying on 'hearsay'. Especially when some ID proponents have such a poor record in presenting the full story.
- PvM
September 13, 2008 10:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh really. Well, let's look at the evidence and see for ourselves.
** Let’s see, would these titles copied from the table of contents of the House of Representatives report entitled "Intolerance and the Politicization of Science at the Smithsonian" back up you or me? **
1. EVIDENCE OF HARASSMENT AND A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT………10
2. EVIDENCE OF AN INTENT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SCIENTISTS BASED ON THEIR
OUTSIDE ACTIVITIES REGARDING EVOLUTION……………...18
3. EVIDENCE OF HOSTILITY BASED ON ANTI-RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL MOTIVATIONS …21
3. EVIDENCE OF A CAMPAIGN TO SMEAR DR. STERNBERG BY GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS…….22
** Would this summary back up what you are saying or what I am saying? **
The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. Moreover, the agency’s top officials—Secretary Lawrence Small and Deputy Secretary Sheila Burke—have shown themselves completely unwilling to rectify the wrongs that were done or even to genuinely investigate the wrongdoing. Most recently, Burke and Small have allowed NMNH officials to demote Dr. Sternberg to the position of Research Collaborator, despite past assurances from Burke that Dr. Sternberg was a “Research Associate in good standing” and would be given “full and fair consideration” for his request to renew his Research Associateship. 2 The failure of Small and Burke to take any action against such discrimination raises serious questions about the Smithsonian’s willingness to protect the free speech and civil rights of scientists who may hold dissenting views on topics such as biological evolution.
** Would these major findings back up what you are saying or what I am saying? **
Major findings of this staff investigation include:
・Officials at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History created a hostile work environment intended to force Dr. Sternberg to resign his position as a Research Associate in violation of his free speech and civil rights. There is substantial, credible evidence of efforts to abuse and harass Dr. Sternberg, including punitively targeting him for investigation in order to supply a pretext for dismissing him, and applying to him regulations and restrictions not imposed on other researchers. Given the factual record, the Smithsonian’s pro-forma denials of discrimination are unbelievable
・In emails exchanged during August and September 2004, NMNH officials revealed their intent to use their government jobs to discriminate against scientists based on their outside activities regarding evolution.
・The hostility toward Dr. Sternberg at the NMNH was reinforced by anti-religious and political motivations. Dr. Sternberg’s OSC complaint describes efforts to discover or disparage his supposed religious and political beliefs, and the OSC investigation concluded that there was “a strong religious and political component to the actions taken after the publication of the Meyer article.”
・NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him. In cooperation with the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Museum officials attempted to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information.
・ Secretary Small and Deputy Secretary Burke have exhibited a head-in-the-sand attitude toward wrongdoing at their agency; they have engaged in stonewalling and spin rather than dealing forthrightly with the discrimination that has occurred.
http://www.souder.house.gov/_files/IntoleranceandthePoliticizationofScienceattheSmithsonian.pdf
tj
- tj10
September 14, 2008 6:16AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Sigh
Have you read the original emails based on which the conclusions were made?
You do understand the meaning of "a congressional report by the majority party", don't you. So let's compare any of the accusations with what was established from the emails, and you will notice a very different picture arising.
I told you, rely on the original sources
- PvM
September 14, 2008 9:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Politics as usual?
The congressional report comes from the similar sources that have denied the existence or problems of global warming as well. Seems that one has to dive a bit deeper before pointing to a politically motivated report as evidence.
Look at the emails that were provided and which led to the conclusions and see if you are willing to defend any one of them?
See for instance
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/12/creating_a_martyr_the_sternber.php
In particular
--
4. The accusations, in particular, against the National Center for Science Education - that they conspired with Smithsonian officials to "publicly smear and discredit" Sternberg - are not only not supported by the evidence in the appendix, they are completely disproven by the emails contained therein.
--
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/the-office-of-s.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/04/now-in-the-do-a.html
- PvM
September 14, 2008 9:34AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
From the OSC report
--
Eventually, they [the Smithsonian higher-ups] determined that they could not terminate you [Sternberg] for cause and they were not going to make you a “martyr” by firing you for publishing a paper on ID. They came to the conclusion that you had not violated SI directives and that you could not be denied access for off-duty conduct. This was actually a part of the strategy advocated by the NCSE. (OSC opinion, p. 5)
--
So how does this compare with
--
NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternberg’s outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him. In cooperation with the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Museum officials attempted to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information.
--
So the NCSE advocated a strategy which opposed dismissing him, contrary to the claims in the report TJ10 quotes from.
Should that not set off some warning lights?
Ed Brayton did an even more in depth analysis
--
Now let's look at another set of false accusations in the report, those made against the National Center for Science Education. The report claims:
NMNH officials conspired with a special interest group on government time and using government emails to publicly smear Dr. Sternberg; the group was also enlisted to monitor Sternbergs outside activities in order to find a way to dismiss him. In cooperation with the pro-evolution National Center for Science Education (NCSE), Museum officials attempted to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information.
Not only is this claim not supported by the emails in the appendix, it is flatly contradicted by them. The emails that Genie Scott exchanged were full of admonitions to Smithsonian personnel not to do the things they are now accused of conspiring to do. She urged them not to attack his religious views so as not to make him a martyr. Genie repeatedly tells them to focus solely on the questions of impropriety and see whether they can be proven. She also tells them that Sternberg should not be judged on the basis of his religious views or his creationist views, but solely on the basis of his work as a scientist. She says (p. 32):
-- On the other hand, his creationist views should not be the main focus of the criticism. First, if he can do good standard science, that's all we care about. Newton did pretty good science, and had some pretty nutty additional ideas about reality, too. So if he keeps the nut stuff out of his basically descriptive work, that's fine. His science should stand or fall on its own.
And in a follow up email she wrote:
-- I guess the big question is whether he is a good enough scientist to remain there. If his non-creationist work is good, then I think he deserves the job. If not, and if others are let go under the same circumstances, then let the chips fall where they may. But none of us are after this guy's job. That isn't the point of this exercise, in my opinion.
In addition, she urged them to focus not on his views but on the real questions of impropriety surrounding the publishing of the Meyer article and his poor judgment:
-- If there are repercussions for von Sternberg from the article, they should be because of his poor judgement in publishing it (your comments about editorial "fairness" are well taken). Therefore, this incident should be handled carefully, I believe.
Clearly, she is urging great caution and arguing that they should not consider his views at all, but only his professional behavior, in handling the situation. The section of the report dealing with the NCSE, beginning on page 22, in fact contains not a shred of evidence, indeed not even an accusation, in support of the claim that the NCSE had, along with Smithsonian officials, "attempted to publicly smear and discredit Dr. Sternberg with false and defamatory information."
--
Source: Ed Brayton, "Creating a Martyr: The Sternberg Saga Continues", Talk Reason website
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/martyr.cfm
- PvM
September 14, 2008 9:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Confusing methodological and philosophical naturalism
--TJ10--
It is the scientific evidence that is important. If the evidence points to an "unscientific" worldview, then maybe, just maybe, the worldview of naturalism could be wrong? That is a distinct possibility you know. Scientists take it as a given when it is not a given.
--
In fact, scientists do not take the worldview of naturalism as a given, but rather use a _method_ of methodological naturalism to guide them in their scientific research and hypothesis forming.
Now, ID proponents have systematically represented the issue erroneously as naturalism when it is methodological naturalism, a confusion started with Philip Johnson. Even though Denis Lamoureux attempted to educate Phil, it seems that the damage was done.
In the recent movie, "Expelled" the claim is made by Stein that it "“appears Darwinism does lead to atheism.”
As Schloss explains in his 33 page review, this is an important claim and it is wrong
--
This is a hugely important claim, which is undoubtedly the core issue in the cultural debate over ID. It is the reason the ID movement musters such passionate commitment and why it is, in fact, a “movement” at all. In the movie, ID proponent Jeffrey Schwartz concludes, “The conflict over the principles of evolution has become a religious war; it is no longer a conflict over science.” Whether or not the debate was ever primarily over science, the film is correct in identifying it as being a world-view conflict that is largely religious in character. The question we desperately need to address is whether this is a conflict that must be fought, and what is the evidence presented in the movie for going to battle? Does Darwinism “lead to atheism”?
--
Concluding
--
And even if Expelled wanted to take a very strong stand on an extreme answer to the questions, that would have been stimulating. But the stand seems to have been taken, without letting in the questions. At least on this question – “does evolution lead to atheism?” - the movie seems to have forgotten the Proverb. I don’t happen to think all ID theorists are intellectual terrorists. But ironically, in failing to distinguish genuine enemies of religion from passionate advocates of evolutionary theory – by pitting itself against the evil empire of Darwinism – this part of the film seems to confirm the very stereotype it seeks to debunk.
--
PS the proverb referenced is "When the banner unfurls, all reason is in the trumpet.” - Ukrainian Proverb
- PvM
September 11, 2008 7:00PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
methodological materialism
OK, you are right on this point as well. There is a difference between methodological naturalism and naturalism. I am still learning here. However, whether a scientist is a methodological naturalist or a true naturalist really doesn't matter. When they do their work, they do it assuming naturalism to be true. In other words, they allow no possibility for supernatural explanations or causes. This is even more difficult to understand if the person is not a true naturalist.
Who says that scientists need to approach science from the perspective of naturalism? Who made that rule? Is it valid? No. Of course not. Because they are dismissing the possibility of a Designer, or any and all supernatural causes for the effects they study from the beginning. There is no rational reason why this should be.
I mean think about it. Why would someone who is not a naturalist assume that worldview only when he does science? Unless it is possible to prove that God does not exist (which it isn’t), to simply assume that He does not even if it is only in methodology, would be irrational.
How the world came to be and the natural forces at work in the universe right now are not necessarily connected. For instance the forces that make a car and the principles that enable it to work are different. Just because the forces that enable the car to work are natural does not automatically mean that the forces that created it to begin with are natural as well. This is an arbitrary and illogical conclusion. To block out all other answers is not rational.
I agree with you though that Darwinism does not automatically lead a person to atheism. There are a lot of inconsistent Christians around. There are a lot of inconsistent evolutionists around as well. However, if naturalism is true, then it does lead to that conclusion. Since Darwinism is based on naturalism, even if only methodological naturalism, it is a very simple step to atheism from there. Many have taken that step when they started to believe in Darwinism and understood the implications of that view on the Bible and religion. God is no longer "necessary" in their eyes. As Oxford evolutionist and antitheist Richard Dawkins claimed, it was impossible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist before Darwin. The implication is that now it has become possible. Stein should have said that Darwin made it much easier to become an atheist rather than Darwin leads to atheism. It does not in every case. He simply overstated the problem.
tj
tj
In the recent movie, "Expelled" the claim is made by Stein that it "“appears Darwinism does lead to atheism.”
As Schloss explains in his 33 page review, this is an important claim and it is wrong
--
This is a hugely important claim, which is undoubtedly the core issue in the cultural debate over ID. It is the reason the ID movement musters such passionate commitment and why it is, in fact, a “movement” at all. In the movie, ID proponent Jeffrey Schwartz concludes, “The conflict over the principles of evolution has become a religious war; it is no longer a conflict over science.” Whether or not the debate was ever primarily over science, the film is correct in identifying it as being a world-view conflict that is largely religious in character. The question we desperately need to address is whether this is a conflict that must be fought, and what is the evidence presented in the movie for going to battle? Does Darwinism “lead to atheism”?
--
Concluding
--
And even if Expelled wanted to take a very strong stand on an extreme answer to the questions, that would have been stimulating. But the stand seems to have been taken, without letting in the questions. At least on this question – “does evolution lead to atheism?” - the movie seems to have forgotten the Proverb. I don’t happen to think all ID theorists are intellectual terrorists. But ironically, in failing to distinguish genuine enemies of religion from passionate advocates of evolutionary theory – by pitting itself against the evil empire of Darwinism – this part of the film seems to confirm the very stereotype it seeks to debunk.
--
PS the proverb referenced is "When the banner unfurls, all reason is in the trumpet.” - Ukrainian Proverb
- tj10
September 13, 2008 5:52AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
MN and PN
--TJ10
OK, you are right on this point as well. There is a difference between methodological naturalism and naturalism. I am still learning here. However, whether a scientist is a methodological naturalist or a true naturalist really doesn't matter. When they do their work, they do it assuming naturalism to be true. In other words, they allow no possibility for supernatural explanations or causes. This is even more difficult to understand if the person is not a true naturalist.
---
Such is the nature of science. And yes it does matter since a scientist can believe in a God and still use methodological naturalism as a method.
Also, they do not exclude the possibility of the supernatural a priori, but rather a posteriori since the supernatural fails to explain anything since it can explain everything.
Imagine a scientists looking at how a particular system works. Hmm, too hard to understand, poof must have been designed. Next part, hmmm looks intricate, let's invoke the 'poof explanation' again, this is taking too long.
The reason scientists have come to accept MN as a valid tool is because it works so well.
- PvM
September 13, 2008 10:48AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Methodological materialism works well he says...
Well, isn't that what the whole debate here is about. There are a growing number of scientists who do not believe that methodological naturalism can answer or solve all the difficult problems of the origin of life and evolution. Methodological naturalism works well in the here and now, but when we go back to origins, the past, when we cannot see what actually happened, a lot of interpretation is necessary. It cannot be repeated so is in some senses, not true science. Your opinion is that it works so well. Fine. A growing number of scientists are standing up and saying "Hey, wait a minute, when it comes to origins, methodological materialism is lacking." ID is about showing evidence to support this idea.
Again, you may have faith that methodological materialism will solve all of these problems in the distant future. Great. That is your belief. However, it is nothing more than that - a belief, a stand of faith. There is no guarantee.
ID scientists are saying "I don't think that will happen and here is why." Why can't we give them a voice since no one really knows?
tj
- tj10
September 14, 2008 7:36AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Exactly
--TJ10
Again, you may have faith that methodological materialism will solve all of these problems in the distant future. Great. That is your belief. However, it is nothing more than that - a belief, a stand of faith. There is no guarantee.
---
Sure, we may have come to realize that MN is insufficient to address all problems, however why should we conclude 'design' based on just our ignorance. Just because there are some 'scientists' who believe something more is needed, this is neither sufficient justification and worse, they have failed to provide ANY method to extend the MN framework.
The supernatural without constraints is no explanation since it explains anything.
Hope you realize that ID scientists are given a voice to speak. But they somehow failed to speak, or perhaps they just whispered ?
Why should we give credence to just anyone who makes ill supported claims? Do we still believe in a flat earth? What about cold fusion. At least these were falsifiable claims but ID is not in the business of presenting any scientific hypotheses relevant to ID, other than negative hypotheses about Darwinian theory.
I do not believe that global warming is happening should not be an excuse for ignoring the facts. If ID proponents believe MN is insufficient then let them make their case: how does one reliably detect the design of God?
And why should we expect that God was somehow forced to get involved in His original design? What explanatory power does it have to say that God designed 'x'? What if we replace God with 'magic pink unicorn'? What if science discovers a way to explain it ? Does this somehow disprove 'design'? What is meant by 'design'
ID's contribution is not to show that MN is lacking but rather that our scientific explanations are lacking and even there, they fail to do much relevant work.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 9:12AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The power of the atheist
--TJ10
I agree with you though that Darwinism does not automatically lead a person to atheism. There are a lot of inconsistent Christians around. There are a lot of inconsistent evolutionists around as well. However, if naturalism is true, then it does lead to that conclusion. Since Darwinism is based on naturalism, even if only methodological naturalism, it is a very simple step to atheism from there. Many have taken that step when they started to believe in Darwinism and understood the implications of that view on the Bible and religion. God is no longer "necessary" in their eyes.
---
I agree, there are Christians who believe that the earth must be young, something contradicted by fact. There are Christians who believe other foolishness, but they are still Christians. The more coherent Christians have found to reconcile their faith with what God is showing them. That this means that God does become unnecessary, is what makes Christian faith so powerful. We can all believe in something we consider necessary, but what faith it is when we accept something that is not necessary and yet adds so much to our worldview?
Insisting that God reveals Himself in His Creation to scientific scrutiny seems to me as lacking faith. YMMV of course.
As to atheism being so compatible with science, which includes evolutionary science, such is the power of atheism that it is not compelled to reject science in favor of their philosophical viewpoints.
- PvM
September 13, 2008 10:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The power of the atheist
--TJ10
I agree with you though that Darwinism does not automatically lead a person to atheism. There are a lot of inconsistent Christians around. There are a lot of inconsistent evolutionists around as well. However, if naturalism is true, then it does lead to that conclusion. Since Darwinism is based on naturalism, even if only methodological naturalism, it is a very simple step to atheism from there. Many have taken that step when they started to believe in Darwinism and understood the implications of that view on the Bible and religion. God is no longer "necessary" in their eyes.
---
I agree, there are Christians who believe that the earth must be young, something contradicted by fact. There are Christians who believe other foolishness, but they are still Christians. The more coherent Christians have found to reconcile their faith with what God is showing them. That this means that God does become unnecessary, is what makes Christian faith so powerful. We can all believe in something we consider necessary, but what faith it is when we accept something that is not necessary and yet adds so much to our worldview?
Insisting that God reveals Himself in His Creation to scientific scrutiny seems to me as lacking faith. YMMV of course.
As to atheism being so compatible with science, which includes evolutionary science, such is the power of atheism that it is not compelled to reject science in favor of their philosophical viewpoints.
- PvM
September 13, 2008 10:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
More revisionism
==TJ10==
The Dover verdict was a farce.
==
Of course, ID lost because of a lack of evidence that ID had scientific content.
==TJ10==
The Judge simply copied large amounts of material word for word from the material he received from the ACLU. This was a shameful low blow? Why - if it is true?!!! His mind was made up before he even heard the case.
==
Nope, the ACLU submitted the findings after the trial. Sorry but your ignorance of legal procedures has caused you to make foolish arguments.
==TJ10==
Even the Discovery Institute was against what they were trying to do. Granted, the Dover school board had religious people on it, but that doesn't mean that their religious views mean that we can dismiss the scientific arguments that may lend support to those views.
===
Hence the important findings that there were no scientific arguments
==TJ10
If so, let's dismiss all the evidence that lends support to the religious views of the Darwinists as well.
==
Sure, let's reject God. After all many a Christian has no problem accepting the science we have come to know as evolutionary theory with a foundation laid by Charles Darwin.
So TJ10, you seem to have made quite a few 'foolish arguments', how familiar are you with Augustine?
--Augustine==
Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he hold to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.
==
Augustine (A.D. 354-430) "The Literal Meaning of Genesis (De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim)" translated by J. H. Taylor in Ancient Christian Writers, Newman Press, 1982, volume 41.
Wise words, we Christian should remember.
- PvM
September 11, 2008 9:04PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
After the trial? Wow, you are a man of faith!
==TJ10==
The Dover verdict was a farce.
==
Of course, ID lost because of a lack of evidence that ID had scientific content.
TJ: Well, that would be your take on it. My take would be different. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. At least Judge Jones, if he is a trustworthy person to make such a conclusion, seemed to agree with you. I doubt scientists would have been ready to accept the verdict of a non-scientist if it had gone against them though.
==TJ10==
The Judge simply copied large amounts of material word for word from the material he received from the ACLU. This was a shameful low blow? Why - if it is true?!!! His mind was made up before he even heard the case.
==
Nope, the ACLU submitted the findings after the trial. Sorry but your ignorance of legal procedures has caused you to make foolish arguments.
TJ: Now that is very hard for me to believe given that 91% of his analysis of whether intelligent design is science was almost verbatim with the report that he had yet to receive. Hmm. Well, if you believe that you were created by chance, then I guess you would have no problem believing this either. Must have been a simple coincidence I guess.
==TJ10==
Even the Discovery Institute was against what they were trying to do. Granted, the Dover school board had religious people on it, but that doesn't mean that their religious views mean that we can dismiss the scientific arguments that may lend support to those views.
===
Hence the important findings that there were no scientific arguments
TJ: Again, only valid if you trust Judge Jones, and Judge Jones is really only the ACLU in disguise because of how much he copied from them. The ACLU is anti-religion for the most part, although, to their credit, once in a great while, they will take up the cause of a religious person.
==TJ10
If so, let's dismiss all the evidence that lends support to the religious views of the Darwinists as well.
==
Sure, let's reject God. After all many a Christian has no problem accepting the science we have come to know as evolutionary theory with a foundation laid by Charles Darwin.
tj:I think you misunderstood my point. Darwinism is as much a religion for many people as is Christianity. Just because their worldview doesn't normally include the supernatural, does that mean their science is more valid than others with a supernatural worldview? It shouldn't. Basically what I'm saying is that Darwinists also have bias. They look at everything through their faith in evolution. Evolution is a given. What is debatable is how it took place. But if we don't know how it took place, how do we really know it did take place? We don't. They assume their theory to prove their theory. Much of the evidence they claim supports it, is based on this kind of circular reasoning. The evidence is really a lot less convincing that you seem to think. The whole rise of ID and continual flourishing of creationism even among respected PhDs, would seem to validate that there is controversy - that it is not yet a closed subject, even though many Darwinists would like to have us believe otherwise.
I'll respond to your thoughts on Augustine in another reply.
tj
- tj10
September 13, 2008 6:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Propaganda works
--TJ: Again, only valid if you trust Judge Jones, and Judge Jones is really only the ACLU in disguise because of how much he copied from them. The ACLU is anti-religion for the most part, although, to their credit, once in a great while, they will take up the cause of a religious person.--
You seem to be ill informed but worse, you seem to have fallen victim of the DI propaganda.
That's to bad.
- PvM
September 13, 2008 11:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ill-informed and deceived to boot is the claim. Really?
--TJ: Again, only valid if you trust Judge Jones, and Judge Jones is really only the ACLU in disguise because of how much he copied from them. The ACLU is anti-religion for the most part, although, to their credit, once in a great while, they will take up the cause of a religious person.--
You seem to be ill informed but worse, you seem to have fallen victim of the DI propaganda.
That's to bad.
TJ: I'm not sure how I am ill-informed. Come on, let me hear you say it straight out. Write it out for all of us to see. I dare you.
"I believe that Judge Jones did not copy his analysis from the ACLU even though it was almost 91% verbatim. I believe this happened just by accident like evolution."
If this is what you really want us to believe, then I want to hear it straight from your mouth. I'll tell you up front, that I don't have the faith to believe in a chance occurrence like that. I'm deceived because I don't believe the 91% similarity in the ACLU's submission and the Judge's analysis was a lucky or freak coincidence?!! I'm ill-informed because I think he copied it? RIGHT!
Again, it is amazing how gullible evolutionists think people are! Absolutely amazing!
tj
- tj10
September 14, 2008 7:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Judge Jones and 91%
--TJ10
I don't believe the 91% similarity in the ACLU's submission and the Judge's analysis was a lucky or freak coincidence?!! I'm ill-informed because I think he copied it? RIGHT!
---
You seem to be ill informed about both the extent as well as the relevance of this so called 'copying'.
Hint, judges regularly copy from the "proposed findings of fact" that's what these submissions are for.
See http://austringer.net/wp/index.php /2007/01/31/jones-luskin-and-text/ for why the actual number is likely much smaller than the oft claimed 91%
Surprised? I bet..
As to your other ill informed statements about the ACLU, I will let them pass as they have little relevance to ID. Needless to say, the Judge's ruling which contained part of the 'proposed findings of fact' submitted was instrumental in a ruling which was quickly denounced by ID proponents based on much ad hominems and far less an appeal to the facts of the ruling.
Seems that some of the mud slinging has stuck after all.
- PvM
September 14, 2008 9:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You must be joking
This is one of the things Wesley cites to bolster his case:
http://vangogh.fdisk.net /~welsberr/kvd/dp-full-cmp-r10k4.html
Sure looks a lot like 91% to me.
- F2XL
February 11, 2009 10:01PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
About Augustine
So TJ10, you seem to have made quite a few 'foolish arguments', how familiar are you with Augustine?
TJ: Well I know that he believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old. I disagree with this view. He was a bit allegorical in his interpretation of Scripture. Here is what he said:
Augustine: ‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.’ Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), 12(10).
Wise words we Christians should remember.
He did reject a literal interpretation of 6 days, but he didn't except thousands of years as is clear from that quote right there. His uncertainty about the length of the creation days was not a rejection of a young earth at all. He simply couldn't fathom why God would take 6 whole days to create the world when He could have done it instantaneously.
Your quote:
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. ... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
I understand what he is saying, but for this to be valid, the unbeliever has to accurate in what he believes. Just because neo-darwinism is the currently accepted theory by most scientists does not meant that it is right. They are not the determiners of truth as I'm sure you would agree. They could be wrong and in fact, that is what so many scientists are beginning to realize. Their views just don't fit the facts. You wouldn't want us to go against the Word of God just to try and win over these guys to Christianity would you? If you give way to the very foundations of the faith, they have won the battle in the long run. There is no reason for them ever to even consider Christianity if their theory is right. I think it is better to show them a different interpretation of the same evidence that they interpret through their Darwinian glasses. Once they take off their glasses and look at things a bit more objectively, they may see the light. Many have. If evolution is really as certain and proven as they claim, then if they played their hand properly, ID could provide them with a great opportunity to show their stuff to the public and settle the issue once and for all. The reason they do not do this is what I wonder....
tj
- tj10
September 13, 2008 6:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The fact of evolution explored
After some diversions to point out that Augustine himself held some inconsistent positions, TJ finally comes to the quote I provided
--TJ10
I understand what he is saying, but for this to be valid, the unbeliever has to accurate in what he believes. Just because neo-darwinism is the currently accepted theory by most scientists does not meant that it is right.
--
The fact of evolution is so strong that denying it is foolish. Neo-Darwinism is the best explanation and there are no scientifically viable alternatives, even though the DI claims that ID should be considered one. This is like saying that the fact of gravity and the theory by Laplace caused us to reject God's necessity in the orbits of planets.
If you are interested in discussing evolution, give it your best shot. ID has done little in this area and we could benefit from some real discussions.
Give us your best explanation of the fact of common descent as outlined in
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc /
- PvM
September 13, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
About Augustine
So TJ10, you seem to have made quite a few 'foolish arguments', how familiar are you with Augustine?
TJ: Well I know that he believed the earth was created instantaneously, not progressively, and was, according to Scripture, less than 6,000 years old. I disagree with the instant creation view. He was a bit allegorical in his interpretation of Scripture. Here is what he said:
Augustine: ‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000 years have yet passed.’ Augustine, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, De Civitate Dei (The City of God), 12(10).
Wise words we Christians should remember.
He may not have held to a literal interpretation of 6 days, but he certainly didn't except the idea of the earth being "thousands of years old" as is clear from that quote right there. His uncertainty about the length of the creation days was not an acceptance of evolutionary ideas at all or even the time frame of evolution. He simply couldn't fathom why God would take 6 whole days to create the world when He could have done it instantaneously.
Your quote:
"Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. ... If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods and on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason?"
I understand what he is saying, but for this to be valid, the unbeliever has to accurate in the things he claims to know. and be an expert in. Just because neo-darwinism is the currently accepted theory by most scientists and many so-called experts believe it, does not make it true. They are not the determiners of truth as I'm sure you would agree. They could be wrong and in fact, that is what so many scientists are beginning to realize. Their views just don't fit the facts. You wouldn't want us to go against the Word of God just to try and win over these guys to Christianity would you? If you give way to the very foundations of the faith, they have won the battle in the long run. There is no reason for them ever to even consider Christianity if their theory is right. I think it is better to show them a different interpretation of the same evidence that they interpret through their Darwinian glasses. Once they take off their glasses and look at things a bit more objectively, they may see the light. Many have. If evolution is as certain as they would have us think, then I think this whole ID issue is a great opportunity for them. If they play their had properly, they could show their stuff to the public and settle the issue once and for all. The reason they do not do this is what I wonder....
tj
- tj10
September 13, 2008 6:56AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scientific Measures for Constitutionality? (Part I)
I will address the post by Americans United for Separation of Church and State here and then address the question of constitutionality in another post.
Let me begin by saying that this very topic is curious--"Intelligent Design is Unconstitutional." As a student of constitutional law, I failed to realize that concepts like those we are discussing here have constitutional merit. Is gravity constitutional and astrology unconstitutional? The fact that this title suggests we argue over whether or not intelligent design is constitutional is laughable.
For the sake of argument, however, I'll accept that the Americans United for Separation of Church and State probably meant to say that the teaching of intelligent design is unconstitutional. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the AUSCS would go so far as to say any presentation of or allusion to intelligent design in the science classroom is unconstitutional. But is this the case?
Let's start with the last sentence in the AUSCS's argument--that the Discovery Institute's response to Judge Jones was that he plagiarized his opinion and such a response is a low blow and "not a scientific argument."
For beginners, that was not the Discovery Institute's argument. The DI presented a number of objections--both scientific and legal--against Judge Jones' brief. But the portion of the brief in question was not plagiarized, nor was the accusation leveled by the DI. They claimed that a majority--a shocking majority--of this portion of the opinion was copied verbatim from the legal brief submitted by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). This is not plagiarism. In fact, judges do occasionally copy small portions of either the plaintiff or defendant's legal brief. The complaint was that so much of the brief was copied--some 90+ percent--that it seemed that Judge Jones merely copied the ACLU's report without doing further research on the issue. THAT is the argument put forth by the DI.
Another argument that the AUSCS got wrong is the notion that intelligent design has never appeared in a single peer-reviewed journal. This notion is blatantly false. ID has indeed been peer-reviewed and, in fact, many pro-ID scientists have served as referees for other peer-reviewed journals. But this, like the previous argument, has nothing on the question of constitutionality.
But now the real problem with this argument that AUSCS makes. First, did they seriously just call this argument a "low blow?" I disagree, but let's say they're right and this is a low blow. Does being low suddenly make the argument wrong or false? Remember, truth claims have nothing to do with how they are presented and neither does constitutionality.
Now, I think we see why the AUSCS is wrong here--they call DI's argument "not scientific." Well, while the debate between intelligent design and evolution should be scientific, the question of constitutionality is NOT a scientific one. Never once in any of my many constitutional law classes, not in any of my law presentations or assignments, not once when I worked in the US Congress, was something ruled unconstitutional or illegal because of a scientific standard. Let's remember what the question is--is the teaching/presentation of intelligent design in schools constitutional. This question is not a scientific one--it is a legal one.
Another point to remember is that Judge Jones' decision pertains to the case "Kitzmiller v. Dover" which was decided in 2005. The case was not "Intelligent Design v. US Constitution" decided for all time. In fact, on this issue, constitutional law scholars refer to other cases before the Dover trial--Epperson, Edwards, and so forth--and even those cases are not conclusive. The US Constitution is a changing document--each case brings a new reading and interpretation to it.
So is the teaching or discussing of intelligent design in public school science classes constitutional or not? To find out, read my next post.
- SChen24 September 11, 2008 9:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Scientific Measures for Constitutionality? (Part II)
In my previous post, I discussed by the AUSCS's arguments were flawed--both factually and logically. Here, I want to discuss the matter of teaching and discussing intelligent design and whether this is constitutional or not.
So what about intelligent design and the US Constitution? Is it too religious? Is it scientific? Well, I hate to break it to the scientists here, but lawyers, judges, and constitutional law scholars don't care if something is scientific. What they do use to judge whether a statute (claimed to be religious) is constitutional or not is the Lemon Test, a test that was born out of the 1971 case Lemon v. Kurtzman. The Lemon Test brings a three-prong test to the debate. They are:
1. The statute must have a secular purpose.
2. The statute must not have the primary purpose of advancing or inhibiting any religion.
3. The statute must not result in the "excessive entanglement" between government and religion.
If the statute fails any one of the three prongs, it fails the test. Let's see how teaching/discussing intelligent design in public schools stacks up.
1. Secular Purpose. Note that this calls for the statute to have a secular purpose. It does not ban the statute from having a religious purpose, it merely requires a secular one. Does teaching/discussing ID have a secular purpose? It has many. For example, discussing ID can help students expand horizons. It teaches students to think critically. There are many others. I remember in the eighth grade, when we had to learn about the Moon Hoax as a part of science class. Whether it was right or wrong, whether it was wise to teach it, is all up for debate. But it IS constitutional to discuss it in science class.
2. Advancing and Inhibiting Any Religion. It's hard to argue that teaching or discussing intelligent design advances any one religion. After all, every religion (except for secular humanism, which the Supreme Court ruled as a religion in Torcaso v. Watkins) subscribes to the idea that life on earth was designed. As for inhibiting religion--to make this case, you would have to argue that teaching or discussing intelligent design resulted in a ban on teaching or discussion evolution. I don't see that happening. In fact, the Discovery Institute has opposed measures to remove evolution from science curricula. ID-proponents believe that evolution needs to be taught. In fact, ID-proponents believe that all of evolution should be taught--both strengths AND weaknesses. That is critical analysis--which, contrary to what evolutionists may say, is quite different that teaching creationism. (How they confuses thinking critically with teaching creationism, I don't know.)
3. Excessive Entanglement. This is a tricky matter because it is difficult to pinpoint which circumstances would dictate excessive entanglement. However, the ACLU mentioned one possible scenario in their brief submitted to Judge Jones. They claim that if ID was presented in class and a student asked "who was the designer?" there is nothing that prevents the teacher from saying "God." There are a few problems with this.
First, as it stands now, there is nothing that prevents the teacher from saying "God created all of you." Of course, he or she could be fired, but you could also fire them after answer "God" to the question of who is the designer. Second, the teacher could just as well say "we won't discuss that in class" instead of answering "God." Again, as things stand now, there's nothing to stop a student from raising his or her hand and saying "I don't believe in evolution, I believe God made us." If this happens, we are in the same boat. Finally, the ACLU claims that the teachers in Dover (and across America) don't want ID in their classroom. They claim that these teachers are evolutionists. If this is the case--then someone please explain to me why they would answer "God" to the question "who was the designer?" It doesn't make any sense.
So in sum, no, a statute on teaching or discussing intelligent design leads to excessive entanglement between government and religion. It engages religion less than a discussion on the reformation does in a history class.
All in all, teaching or discussing intelligent design in a public school science class is not unconstitutional. It passes all constitutional tests. Again, it is important to remember that the question at hand is one dealing with the US Constitution. It is a matter of law, NOT science. The AUSCS began and ended their piece talking about ID on shaky scientific grounds. It is no wonder they believe ID to be unconstitutional--they are using scientific methods to measure the constitution.
- SChen24 September 11, 2008 9:52PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Mistaken
--SChen24--
1. Secular Purpose. Note that this calls for the statute to have a secular purpose. It does not ban the statute from having a religious purpose, it merely requires a secular one. Does teaching/discussing ID have a secular purpose? It has many. For example, discussing ID can help students expand horizons. It teaches students to think critically. There are many others. I remember in the eighth grade, when we had to learn about the Moon Hoax as a part of science class. Whether it was right or wrong, whether it was wise to teach it, is all up for debate. But it IS constitutional to discuss it in science class.
--
That is exactly what the DI tried to argue, that ID has some secular purpose. But SChen forgot an important part 'that is not a sham', and thus while talking about ID as a bad example of science is hardly unconstitutional or enforcable, ID itself is not to be discussed as part of the curriculum in a science class.
ID has NO secular purposes that are not shams, the judge realized this and ruled appropriately.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 9:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Quite a Claim
First, thanks for the reply. I appreciate a good discussion like the one we're having thus far.
Second, I'm not sure I follow your argument. To say that the Discovery Institute argues this as well doesn't tell me anything about whether the argument is right or wrong, good or bad, based upon it's merits. In addition, we're not discussing whether ID should or ought to be discussed in science classes. We're discussing whether doing so is constitional. There is a world of difference between what should be done/is a good idea and what is constitionally permissible.
Finally, to claim that ID has no secular purposes that are not shams is quite a claim to make. You have, by making his claim, accepted the responsibility to find every possibly secular purpose of ID and demostrate with little doubt why it is a sham. Remember--because you claimed that no such secular purposes exist whatsoever--you must negate each and every possible and potential secular purpose to prove your point. Good luck.
- SChen24 September 12, 2008 10:17AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Not a sham?
--SChen--
Finally, to claim that ID has no secular purposes that are not shams is quite a claim to make. You have, by making his claim, accepted the responsibility to find every possibly secular purpose of ID and demostrate with little doubt why it is a sham.
---
Not really, one has but to look at what ID claims the so called secular purposes of ID are, they all center around the fallacious belief that ID is a scientifically relevant concept. Sure, DI can dream up yet another purpose, and they have "academic freedom" and when such purposes surface they can be quickly put to rest. Remember that the law is not interested in what ID could possibly be, but rather what it is argued to be.
Sure, ID could have a yet to be uncovered valid secular purpose, but so far the ones proposed where all shown to be without merit.
--Judge Jones
Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective. McCreary, 125 S. Ct. at 2735; accord, e.g., Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308 (“it is . . . the duty of the courts to ‘distinguish a sham secular purpose from a sincere one.’” (citation omitted)); Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (“While the Court is normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham.”). Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.
Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
---
And the judge put to rest any hope that ID may have some scientific relevance that is not a sham
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/kitzmiller_v_dover_decision2.html #p121
The Discovery Institute proposed, in their amicus filings, several reasons why ID has a valid secular purpose, none withstood the scrutiny of law.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 10:29AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Unreasonable position
When the Supreme Court formulated 'valid secular purpose which is not a sham', the court unlikely believed that any future, unstated secular purpose would be sufficient for something to pass this requirement. That would make the rule unenforceable. Instead, one has to go from what the arguments presented are.
Now if the DI believes that some valid secular purpose may exist, then it is up to them to present said claims. I understand that "academic freedom" is their latest variant to avoid dealing with the fact that ID is without scientific content.
- PvM
September 12, 2008 11:14AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Examples for the Amicus brief
--Discovery Institute Amicus Curiae bried:
Valid secular purposes for teaching students about the theory of intelligent
design include:
* informing students about competing theories of biological origins as they exist within the scientific community,
--
There are no competing theories of biological origins, certainly ID provides none
--
* helping students to better understand neo-Darwinism by understanding a theory with which it competes,
--
Again, there is no competing theory of ID.
--
* enhancing critical thinking skills by exposing students to alternative explanations for the origin of life,
--
There are no alternative explanation provided by ID.
--
* helping students to understand the value of dissenting viewpoints in the advancement of scientific knowledge,
--
Students need to know about any and all 'dissenting opinion or viewpoint', especially when lacking traction as a scientifically relevant contribution.
--
*increasing student interest in science by exposing them to current debates within the scientific community,10 and
--
The debate within the scientific community over ID is over.
--
• advancing cultural literacy by helping students understand a current controversy about science and science education policy.1
--
There are no controversies related to ID.
Sham on you....
- PvM
September 12, 2008 10:35AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Leap in Logic?
I fail to see how the possible unconstitutionality of intelligent design relates to how true or false it could be.
- QuinceyQuick
January 25, 2009 7:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.