The ID Ruling -- Any Positives?
By Stuart Orr
As most of you know, a federal judge has ruled that Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be mentioned in biology classes within the small Pennsylvania school district of Dover. On the surface this may appear to be a devastating defeat, yet taking a broader view of the ruling, and putting it in context of the on-going creation/evolution debate, it seems to me that the positives are far outweighing the negatives. Consider --
> Fifteen years ago I could hardly get anyone other than the most science-minded interested in the creation/evolution debate. Now even my Soccer Mom friends are talking about it.
> It was only ten years ago that Michael Behe published his ground-breaking work Darwin's Black Box, and only a few years before that Phillip Johnson started the whole Intelligent Design movement with his book Darwin on Trial.
> Ten years ago ID scientists Stephen Meyer, William Dembski and others were just young upcoming brilliant minds who were captivated with Johnson's and Behe's work. Today they are formidable frontline advocates of ID.
> Only since the Dover trial began several weeks ago have we seen in the media any differentiation and acknowledgement that there is an important difference between how science works and the basis on which its conclusions are considered valid (philosophy). It is crucial to continue to drive a wedge between these two constructs if we have any hopes of making intellectual progress in the debate. For example, in the AP report today, the new Dover school board president acknowledges the legitimacy of discussing Intelligent Design in other classrooms.
> Today's AP report separated, for the first time that I've seen, "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" into different categories of thought. Up until now, creationism was widely scorned as "biblical creationism" and ID was deviously conjoined into that category. Even in the Dover ruling, Judge Jones stated that intelligent design, "is a religious view; a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." The judge appears to be have been more influenced by ACLU categories than by trying to understand the scientific concepts contained in ID, e.g., the "information content" contained in DNA; the complexity of the cell as a miniature computerized manufacturing plant; the fine-tuning of the laws of the universe, etc.
> There are scientists today all over the country who are developing serious scientific research programs that will give an experimental basis to ID. These programs are just beginning to bear fruit. In the next ten years the scientific community will not be able to avoid the scientific truths coming from intelligent design theory.
> The tone and ridicule heaped upon those courageous, even if legally unsophisticated, former Dover school board members will only ignite fires of indignation around the country. Going way beyond legal reasoning, the judge pronounced moral judgments on those well-intentioned citizens. He said the board acted with "breathtaking inanity;" that members of the board "would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy;" that their actions resulted in an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources." He further directed that they pay the costs of the ACLU attorneys who prosecuted the case. This kind of vilification will only energize supporters of ID and creationism -- including me, and many others within the vast community of Americans who believe in creation.
> There were many "lessons learned" from this trial, and the next school board action and the next lawsuit will be handled with a lot more sophistication. For example, the nation's leading ID think tank -- the Discovery Institute out of Seattle WA to which Meyer and Dembski belong -- wasn't involved in the Dover case. They, along with the father of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, saw the legal flaw in the Dover schools board's approach, i.e., requiring the reading of a statement about ID by a biology teacher in the classroom -- this just politicized the debate. Discovery advised Dover accordingly, but their advice was rejected. Discovery knew the ACLU would try to convince the judge that ID is religion, even though there is not an element of religion anywhere in it. (Just because we can infer a creator from ID does not make it religion anymore than inferring a creator from big-bang theory (with its creation event) makes cosmology a religion.) Once that was accomplished, the ACLU would use their insufferable separation of church and state argument to lead to victory in today's judicial climate. As Christians our primary goal is to win minds and hearts with truth, more so than winning legal cases with sophisticated tactics. However, in being as innocent as doves we also need to be as shrewd as serpents and use the best tactical approaches available. In my mind that includes attracting the participation of the Discovery Institute, Johnson and others with their scientific and legal sophistication.
> We are getting much smarter with how to formulate public education science standards. Last month, the Kansas Board of Education established standards that will differentiate the philosophical presuppositions of evolution from its scientific methodology. This will serve to expose the reason why Darwinism holds such a juggernaut on the American biology classroom. The standards will give Kansas students a deeper understanding of the nature of science, and at the same time open the doors to showing the flaws of evolutionary theory.
> Debate about evolution as an academic freedom issue has begun on campuses across the country -- and we need to jump on that bandwagon. For years we been held hostage by the ACLU which wants to prevent even voluntary discussions of the flaws of evolution in the science classroom. The scientific community says that the history and diversity of life on earth are "best" explained by evolutionary theory. It doesn't say there cannot be competing theories. It cannot say there are no flaws in the theory. In fact, by its very nature of being a "theory" it admits it is tentative and subject to error. It is only through bullying by the ACLU and the scientific elite that evolution has not been subjected to cross-examination on the campuses and has not had to defend itself against competing views.
> The public debate will intensify and this will give us new opportunities to introduce non-believers and marginal believers to the Creator. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get a hearing of these matters on national television? I'm still praying that God will open up such a door, e.g., a C-SPAN debate on the subject of The Creator - Faith or Fact? Americans don't like censorship. Americans overwhelmingly do not endorse the anti-common-sense conclusions of evolution. And, Americans like a good debate. So, let's give them one and in the process glorify the Creator.
M E R R Y C H R I S T M A S,
Glory to our Creator
Stu
Read more!
As most of you know, a federal judge has ruled that Intelligent Design (ID) cannot be mentioned in biology classes within the small Pennsylvania school district of Dover. On the surface this may appear to be a devastating defeat, yet taking a broader view of the ruling, and putting it in context of the on-going creation/evolution debate, it seems to me that the positives are far outweighing the negatives. Consider --
> Fifteen years ago I could hardly get anyone other than the most science-minded interested in the creation/evolution debate. Now even my Soccer Mom friends are talking about it.
> It was only ten years ago that Michael Behe published his ground-breaking work Darwin's Black Box, and only a few years before that Phillip Johnson started the whole Intelligent Design movement with his book Darwin on Trial.
> Ten years ago ID scientists Stephen Meyer, William Dembski and others were just young upcoming brilliant minds who were captivated with Johnson's and Behe's work. Today they are formidable frontline advocates of ID.
> Only since the Dover trial began several weeks ago have we seen in the media any differentiation and acknowledgement that there is an important difference between how science works and the basis on which its conclusions are considered valid (philosophy). It is crucial to continue to drive a wedge between these two constructs if we have any hopes of making intellectual progress in the debate. For example, in the AP report today, the new Dover school board president acknowledges the legitimacy of discussing Intelligent Design in other classrooms.
> Today's AP report separated, for the first time that I've seen, "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" into different categories of thought. Up until now, creationism was widely scorned as "biblical creationism" and ID was deviously conjoined into that category. Even in the Dover ruling, Judge Jones stated that intelligent design, "is a religious view; a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." The judge appears to be have been more influenced by ACLU categories than by trying to understand the scientific concepts contained in ID, e.g., the "information content" contained in DNA; the complexity of the cell as a miniature computerized manufacturing plant; the fine-tuning of the laws of the universe, etc.
> There are scientists today all over the country who are developing serious scientific research programs that will give an experimental basis to ID. These programs are just beginning to bear fruit. In the next ten years the scientific community will not be able to avoid the scientific truths coming from intelligent design theory.
> The tone and ridicule heaped upon those courageous, even if legally unsophisticated, former Dover school board members will only ignite fires of indignation around the country. Going way beyond legal reasoning, the judge pronounced moral judgments on those well-intentioned citizens. He said the board acted with "breathtaking inanity;" that members of the board "would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID policy;" that their actions resulted in an "utter waste of monetary and personal resources." He further directed that they pay the costs of the ACLU attorneys who prosecuted the case. This kind of vilification will only energize supporters of ID and creationism -- including me, and many others within the vast community of Americans who believe in creation.
> There were many "lessons learned" from this trial, and the next school board action and the next lawsuit will be handled with a lot more sophistication. For example, the nation's leading ID think tank -- the Discovery Institute out of Seattle WA to which Meyer and Dembski belong -- wasn't involved in the Dover case. They, along with the father of the ID movement, Phillip Johnson, saw the legal flaw in the Dover schools board's approach, i.e., requiring the reading of a statement about ID by a biology teacher in the classroom -- this just politicized the debate. Discovery advised Dover accordingly, but their advice was rejected. Discovery knew the ACLU would try to convince the judge that ID is religion, even though there is not an element of religion anywhere in it. (Just because we can infer a creator from ID does not make it religion anymore than inferring a creator from big-bang theory (with its creation event) makes cosmology a religion.) Once that was accomplished, the ACLU would use their insufferable separation of church and state argument to lead to victory in today's judicial climate. As Christians our primary goal is to win minds and hearts with truth, more so than winning legal cases with sophisticated tactics. However, in being as innocent as doves we also need to be as shrewd as serpents and use the best tactical approaches available. In my mind that includes attracting the participation of the Discovery Institute, Johnson and others with their scientific and legal sophistication.
> We are getting much smarter with how to formulate public education science standards. Last month, the Kansas Board of Education established standards that will differentiate the philosophical presuppositions of evolution from its scientific methodology. This will serve to expose the reason why Darwinism holds such a juggernaut on the American biology classroom. The standards will give Kansas students a deeper understanding of the nature of science, and at the same time open the doors to showing the flaws of evolutionary theory.
> Debate about evolution as an academic freedom issue has begun on campuses across the country -- and we need to jump on that bandwagon. For years we been held hostage by the ACLU which wants to prevent even voluntary discussions of the flaws of evolution in the science classroom. The scientific community says that the history and diversity of life on earth are "best" explained by evolutionary theory. It doesn't say there cannot be competing theories. It cannot say there are no flaws in the theory. In fact, by its very nature of being a "theory" it admits it is tentative and subject to error. It is only through bullying by the ACLU and the scientific elite that evolution has not been subjected to cross-examination on the campuses and has not had to defend itself against competing views.
> The public debate will intensify and this will give us new opportunities to introduce non-believers and marginal believers to the Creator. Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get a hearing of these matters on national television? I'm still praying that God will open up such a door, e.g., a C-SPAN debate on the subject of The Creator - Faith or Fact? Americans don't like censorship. Americans overwhelmingly do not endorse the anti-common-sense conclusions of evolution. And, Americans like a good debate. So, let's give them one and in the process glorify the Creator.
M E R R Y C H R I S T M A S,
Glory to our Creator
Stu
Read more!
posted by Publius @ 10:04 AM
0 comments
