Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Intelligent Design Flunks in Pennsylvania

By Stan Cox, AlterNet. Posted December 21, 2005.


Judge Jones' ruling was a rare bolt of logic in a year when much of the nation seemed to be coming under the thrall of intelligent design.

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

More stories by Stan Cox

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Federal Judge John E. Jones III's ruling yesterday against a Pennsylvania school district's "intelligent design" policy could be a turning point in the current flareup of the evolution-vs-creationism debate.

Jones did not attempt to hide his disgust with the Dover, Pennsylvania school board and its so-called "ID policy." The policy required that reading material on intelligent design, including a book entitled Of Pandas and People, be recommended to high school biology students at the start of the section on evolution.

In his opinion he wrote,

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

The ruling was a rare bolt of logic in a year when much of the nation seemed to be coming under the thrall of intelligent design -- the idea that the diversity of biological species we see today could not have come about without supernatural intervention.

Last month, the Kansas State Board of Education handed down new science standards that attempt to poke holes in evolutionary theory -- holes into which discussion of intelligent design can be inserted. Ohio teachers continue to labor under similar standards. This month, a judge in Cobb County, Georgia upheld public schools' use of textbook stickers that repeat the old "evolution is only a theory" canard. Earlier in the year, President Bush himself recommended that intelligent design be taught in public schools.

Jack Krebs is president of Kansas Citizens for Science, a group that fought in vain to head off the state school board's creationist science standards. He told me that the Dover decision gives evolution's defenders in Kansas and across the nation a boost because Judge Jones declared that, "Intelligent design has no positive content, that it's just warmed-over creationist arguments against evolution and not accepted by mainstream science."

The ID policy's religious intent was made very clear, says Krebs: "The judge said the Dover school board's policy invoked supernatural causes outside the realm of science."

Because it so obviously violated the separation of church and state required by the U.S. Constitution, the Dover policy was an easy mark for Judge Jones. In contrast, intelligent design's most effective advocates so far have been academics who avoid any overt mention of religion.

But Jones made it clear that he regarded the entire field of intelligent design as faith-based -- that he wasn't fooled by the long days of scientific-sounding testimony he'd heard from university-based ID gurus.

At the Discovery Institute in Seattle, a high-profile research organization dedicated to giving intelligent design some intelligent substance, there was fury at Jones's identification of their mission with that of Dover's religious fundamentalists. John West, associate director of the institute's Center for Science and Culture said the ruling "makes it clear that [Jones] wants his place in history as the judge who issued a definitive decision about intelligent design. This is an activist judge who has delusions of grandeur."


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Stan Cox is a plant breeder and writer in Salina, Kansas.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Judicial "activism"
Posted by: Allison on Dec 21, 2005 4:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I could have predicted the use of the term "activist judge" somewhere in these proceedings. Seeing it used by a religious fundamentalist to attack a judge whose ruling upholds Separation of Church and State is distressing, to say the least. It just underscores that the term simply means "source of a judicial judgment that I strongly disagree with".

Anyway this is a reassuring sign, and a high profile slap down of the sneaky "wedge" strategy to put Christianity into public schools. But the battle is not over, these people will keep trying. They have the strength of their beliefs, if not the good judgment to see that those beliefs should not be forced on everyone else.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Judicial "activism" Posted by: tscox
» RE: Judicial "activism" Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
» RE: Judicial "activism" Posted by: ftorres
This is the way to go!!
Posted by: xyz2002 on Dec 21, 2005 5:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We need to attack the ID directly and not being drawn to ID supportors' fuzz argument. I really like the ruling especially its directness.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is the way to go!! Posted by: tesaje
» RE: Theories, Hypotheses, and Laws Posted by: liberalibrarian
darwin1859
Posted by: darwin1859 on Dec 21, 2005 9:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If nothing else creationist are evolving strategies in concealing their true agenda with "smoke and mirrors" (like so many politicians).

The frame may be "evolution" but their attacks remain focused on undermining science along a broad front (biology, physics, biochemistry, geology, genetics, ...). The evocation of (all conceivable) supernatural entities is not acceptable as science and should never be accepted as science.

No, creationist and their ilk will not go away anytime soon for the programming of future creationist starts early as revealed when I remarked to a friend's young daughter (just turned 7 years old) with a cat in her lap that there are two animals in the chair. Without hesitation she shot back "I am not an animal".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This ruling...
Posted by: Rod in 83706 on Dec 21, 2005 9:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is good news, even though I expected it. Religion does not belong in science class. It belongs back in the dark ages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This ruling... Posted by: ftorres
By Means of Natural Selection
Posted by: gliddonc on Dec 21, 2005 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am from a state that is also in the throes of this debate, and it occurs to me that Darwin's theory of the origin of species needs to be distinguished from the fact of evolution. Darwin (or others having theories) did not invent evolution. The fossil record and observation, among other things, show that evolution can occur, it did occur, and it continues to occur. To deny this would be to deny, for example, that most rocks are older than the various estimates for the age of creation put forward by creationists. (There are those who deny the evidence of the fact of evolution, but there is no way to talk reasonably with them.)

What Darwin put forward in his writing was a theory about how evolution happens: by means of natural selection. There are other theories and addenda to Darwin's theory, and also a ton of research in various fields connected with the phenomenon of evolution, all of which contribute to the "solid body of evidence" behind the justification for teaching evolution and Darwin's theory of it in our schools.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

At last, a rational decision!
Posted by: tesaje on Dec 21, 2005 11:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is very good to see a Rebublican judge make such a rational decision. The attack on science from the fundamentalist right has been incredibly scary. This conervative judge managed to see thru the lies and their desire to force the rest of us to adhere to their wish for a theocracy and rule against them. It was wonderful he chose to address the whole issue and called them out for what they really are - the Christian Taliban.

The degradation of science teaching in schools is one of the most damaging trends in our society. True science means training your mind to think rationally and orderly. That kind of mind training also allows people to think independently. The fundamentalist religionists are as much against such independent thinking as the fundamentalist muslims are.

What is wrong with so many people who blindly follow a form of religion that insists you believe in what is patently and demonstrably false and reject so much that is demonstrably true? What hubris that they think their interpretation of God means that God does not follow the laws of physics and chemistry and that the whole of humanity must follow their ignorance. Lots of true scientists have no problem with believing God follows the laws and theories that science uncovers. This attempt by the Christian Taliban to force the teaching of ignorance is appalling.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Intelligent Design" can be used to get more viewers off the Faux News Network - Part I
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 21, 2005 12:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without letting it mix with religion, "Intelligent Design" can in fact be used to alter the rightwing minds out there. Note, Thomas Bico doesn't hate Darwin but he is obviously no fan of libertarianism which is what Darwin's theory opened the door to
We are all monkeys existing back hundreds of thousands of years ago.

All of the monkeys around us don’t really question things. They simply turn on NBC News or Fox News and think they are being informed well. They spend their time going to work, coming home, watching some TV. Some of them vote when an election comes up, some don’t bother. Those who do get somewhat active in considering their votes mainly fall in line with one of two parties. Those two parties rule our group of monkeys.

But amongst us there is you, a monkey who is not satisfied with NBC or Fox, for whom neither of the two parties everyone else accepts even begins to be adequate. You feel that us apes should think more, question more, get off our couches, get out, and get more experiences so we can learn more. You express these things to your fellow apes, they throw doody at you. They outcast you, call you names, make clear that there will be no changes occurring within the group.

At some point you decide you’ve had enough, decide you are going to abandon your stupid group of Fox/NBC watching couch potato apes. You announce to the group you are headed off to a new place, going to take an entirely different direction. Then you run off to avoid another doody barrage.

When you stop to rest after a mile or so, you hear footsteps. It is a few more like-minded people who want to try the new way you described.

Now the important point to note is that, exactly the opposite of what Darwin suggests, there is no biological difference between you and Fox/NBC couch potato two partiers. Darwin suggests the mechanism for change that is a precedent biological shift. But if you look around at, say, our current reality for a moment, there is no biological difference between those of us who watch Fox News and those of us who see it as garbage and choose another direction. Snide comments aside, there is none. Some of our own flesh and blood – most of them, in many cases – watch either NBC or Fox.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Intelligent Design" can be used to get more viewers off the Faux News Network - Part II
Posted by: maxpayne on Dec 21, 2005 12:28 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At this point, there is no biological difference. The difference is a matter of mindset and intelligent choice. And just in case some of the Darwinian bias that has been fed into you starts to suggest that it may be some random biological leap that makes you different than those others, think about the many among us who at one point or another was happily partisan and fulfilled with either NBC or Fox. Then, someone of something spurred something in our minds.

So there we are, biological identical but making the intelligence guided choice to take another direction. According to Darwin’s theory, that choice will not shape our biology, it is our biology that shaped that choice.

And if you just examine things in the infantile time scale studies about the topic have used, it might seem so. If you check back in five years, ten years, you may not notice significant biological difference between the groups.

But now let’s work with evolution’s actual time scale. Evolution would not serve us well if our genes jumped to shift every time a new idea or trend presented itself. Heck, how many of us would still be stuck with tie-dye patterned skin at this point?

But consider now that we leave the NBC/Fox News group, go form our own tribe somewhere else, and for the next 100,000 years live lives in which we willfully educated ourselves and expand our intelligence, in which we choose to eat healthier and get exercise, in which we choose an entirely different emotional and psychological mindset.

When we return one day 100,000 years later and come across the group that chose the direction of mindless couch potatoing, after that much time, do you think we would still be biologically similar? Or might our biology be guided by our intelligent choices, might our brains have grown to be bigger, the rest of our biology seen similar shift GUIDED BY THE CHOICES WE MADE, not guided by natural selection of random biological mutations.

We all now know that psychology affects biological chemistry. The biggest hole in Darwin’s argument is the entire lack of useful study of the main mechanism of change, reproduction. It looks at the fact that we put out millions of sperm and says that shows a random process of natural selection.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

FYI
Posted by: daniel1982 on Dec 21, 2005 2:03 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This month, a judge in Cobb County, Georgia upheld public schools' use of textbook stickers that repeat the old "evolution is only a theory" canard.

WTF.. Evolution (via Natural Selection) to explain the origin of species is only a theory. I know the agenda of certain groups and why they would push for these stickers. But calling it what it is, hardly constitutes attempt at discredit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: FYI Posted by: pomes
» RE: FYI Posted by: daniel1982
» RE: FYI Posted by: tscox
» RE: FYI Posted by: MPJ
Waterman
Posted by: happybear on Dec 21, 2005 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems that "ID" is always interpreted as "Christian", although it may not be. But by labeling it Christian, it automatically becomes a fanatical view, and therefore detestable. I would not use the PC Term "Itelligent Design", but just call it "creationism", and introduce it as another "alternative" view of the Origins of Man.It is just as perposterous to think that an accident caused a becoming, from nothing, as it is to think that an all-powerful being of some sort created it.At least that theory provides a starting point. Something must be offered as an alternative to the guesses that "scientists" use, and "ID" is a guess.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Waterman Posted by: ftorres
» RE: Waterman Posted by: MPJ
ID is a possibility
Posted by: andy-wal on Dec 21, 2005 3:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm not sure what all the fuss is. ID is absolutely a valid possiblity, in my opinion. Of course, you would have to be mad to deny that evolution is happening all around us. We even have examples of certain species that have "evolved" in the last hundred years.

However, I think that the real argument about ID, or God, or whatever you want to call it, is why four base nucleotides (that form DNA), with no chemical affiliation for each other, would join along a double strand of sugar in the A-G T-C formation, in the millions of precise combinations to make up amino acids, the basis for proteins and carbon life. Even for the original basic lifeforms in the primordial soup, it seems to be a bit a narky gap that four chemicals with physical attraction should find themselves in a cell membrane and "decide" to replicate by copying themselves.

Its a fascinating question. On the face of it, DNA sequences in the current Earth lifeforms look absolutely like they are designed, but we mustnt discount time. It could well be a random chance event, although Steven Hawking suggests that our solar system hasnt been around nearly long enough for the statistics to seem even vaguely likely for this to happen.

Furthermore, it is worth remembering that there is still the mystery of why a particular sequence of chemical nucleotide switches should generate skin cells, and others fat cells etc.

To discount ID is as stupid is discounting chance. Its still an open debate, but it should be done sensibly, and not in the context of the Bible, or the Koran or any other archaic load of old cobblers.

Again, it might turn out there is no ID, and its all chaos and statistics and chance, but until its proven, it shouldnt be discounted.

I'll leave you with a snippet from one of Steven Hawkings latest lectures.

"Thus DNA molecules can reproduce the genetic information, coded in their sequences of nucleic acids. Sections of the sequence can also be used to make proteins and other chemicals, which can carry out the instructions, coded in the sequence, and assemble the raw material for DNA to reproduce itself. We do not know how DNA molecules first appeared. The chances against a DNA molecule arising by random fluctuations are very small"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ID is a possibility Posted by: lamar
» RE: ID is a possibility Posted by: Ruperic
» RE: ID is a possibility Posted by: liberalibrarian
» RE: ID is a possibility Posted by: phowell
What are Americans thinking?
Posted by: pkeane on Dec 21, 2005 5:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am not American but European. I have been watching this issue for sometime and i am please that the Judge has decided to try and stop this rediculous form of Christian "Extremism." Has American gone mad? Are some Americans really so deluded into thinking that a book written 2000 years ago will give them the answers to life, the universe and everything? A book - mind you (the bible) - that is so full of holes and contradictions that no one in their right mind could ever take it seriously. But to force these radical views in the classroom and remove fact and research based science is beyond me. America will turn back to to 14th century Europe when education and science was band by the catholic church. Move forward, get out of the dark ages and embrace science. The rest of the western world is looking on in disgust - and again some radical Americans are letting the rest down by proving to the world what idiots they really are.

Thank you Judge for you decision - lets hope it is not overturned by that stupid president.

Paul

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What are Americans thinking? Posted by: billfaster
» RE: What are Americans thinking? Posted by: billfaster
» RE: What are Americans thinking? Posted by: liberalibrarian
False reading of the Constitution
Posted by: LuisNolan on Dec 21, 2005 7:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Stab Cox writes: "Because it so obviously violated the separation of church and state required by the U.S. Constitution, the Dover policy was an easy mark for Judge Jones." This is a commonly believed falsehood. The Constitution clearly does not mandate a "separation between church and state".

The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
source:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/
about.aspx?item=about_firstamd

The First Amendment is explicitly limited to the actions of Congress, not school districts. This is absolutely crystal clear.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah .. Americans are stupid
Posted by: may261989 on Dec 21, 2005 8:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
mate I agree with you... Nothing surprises me in America these days, bored suburbanites clutching their bibles to their chests with glazed eyes and gun toting hicks braying about "big government"... These are the people after all who did vote the most stupid frat boy fool in the history of the universe in for a second term.
As the Yanks say...go figure.

p.s. Mind you at least the Yanks dont have an arse licking scumbag like John Howard as their leader ( at least he has a brain in his head though )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yeah .. Americans are stupid Posted by: billfaster
Isn't not to believe in God taking a religious point of view?
Posted by: David Troughton on Dec 21, 2005 8:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Underlying much of the support of evolution and Darwinism is a faith position, that there is no God. Didn't Darwin himself express this? Many other writers certainly have. How are you, as Americans going to handle this, as it seems to an outsider that this is expressing a religious point of view as much as believing there is a God . The Judge in the ID/evolution judgment evaded, or seems oblivious of, this issue. Surely in the interests of justice there should be a level playing field in debates such as this, even if they seem to be highly charged emotionally.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the subject has room to grow!
Posted by: vespasian01 on Dec 21, 2005 10:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It ain't just the Falwell fruitbreads vs pencil-necked Christhaters anymore. There are a thousand approaches to sourcing the coming-about of organized existence. Why limit the argument to tightly knotted thinking? Don't forget, today's science establishment teaches the "big bang" to school kids as if it were tested theory. It ain't. The same rationalists, whom I admire greatly, offer us the spirit-infested world of quantum physics, with its eleven magical components. Personally, I like all this stuff. But here's the kicker: in 600 years our arguments will be laughed at by the reigning metal beings; with a portentous, confident, non-Christly laugh.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: background radiation Posted by: vespasian01
Well finally someone stands up and says back off
Posted by: popsicle67 on Dec 21, 2005 10:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I hope that this ruling will bolster the push to end this fallacy
everywhere it rears it's ugly illiterate head. Why aren't the people who spout this crap thrown in a hole with all of the man
is killing the earth crowd and just fill it over and walk away.
Many say that we are ruining the future with cars and the rest of our modern living but I say the bigger evil we are forcing on the future is this lie called religion. Until we stamp out every last vestige of the belief in a god we will be held prisoner. If it were not for this abomination(tied like a noose around our necks) diverting our attentions from what is truly important, namely expanding our base in this solar system and traveling beyond, we would not have to worry about our dwindling room on this planet. We would be living on other planets and have all the room we needed. and we would not need to war against each other to prove one god was righter than another. Imagine the snicker we would have to stifle if two children were beating on each other over who had the best imaginary friend. That is all that this whole argument comes down to. They have an imaginery friend that they want
to give credit for making whole world and we have the wrong imaginary friend or none at all so we all are working for their other imaginary friend, you know the one they really don't like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

intelligent design
Posted by: tomcat on Dec 22, 2005 8:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Actually, ID recognizes that there is unmistakable intelligence in the cell DNA. Ergo there must be a source of intelligence. The SETI project makes the same assumption. If intelligence is detected, it must have a source-hence the Search for Extra-Terrestial Intelligence. You may remember the movie, Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The assumption was that reception of a string of prime numbers implied an intelligent agent. And, lo and behold, an encounter with an intelligent agent did occur. It's not really new or strange. On the contrary, you make that sort of assumption all the time. I even make that assumption about your post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: intelligent design Posted by: ftorres
» RE: intelligent design Posted by: tomcat
» RE: intelligent design Posted by: tomcat
» RE: intelligent design Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: intelligent design Posted by: b7j0c
» windbags... Posted by: decembrist
» RE: windbags... Posted by: tomcat
» RE: windbags... Posted by: decembrist
» RE: intelligent design Posted by: MPJ
» RE: intelligent design Posted by: tomcat
» RE: intelligent design Posted by: tomcat
Intelligent Design...
Posted by: bluestatehorses on Dec 24, 2005 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...is a thinly veiled disguise to move this country toward the larger goal of a theocracy governed by right wing republicans!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Intelligent Design... Posted by: tomcat
» RE: Intelligent Design... Posted by: decembrist
» RE: Intelligent Design... Posted by: tomcat
» RE: Intelligent Design... Posted by: timotoole
And by the way...
Posted by: bluestatehorses on Dec 24, 2005 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What sort of intelligent designer leaves such large design flaws in his creation? What do the proponents of ID have to say about the crippling and ravaging diseases killing millions of people everyday around the world? AIDS in Africa or consider the wonder of a disease such a Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, better known as Lou Gherig's disease, that slowly wastes away muscle mass and function, killing its victim is an excruciatingly slow and humiliating manner. Those are two examples of the wonderful "design."
Sorry, I'm with Darwin.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: And by the way... Posted by: tomcat
» Your Truth Resembles Dogma Posted by: decembrist
Don't get too comfy just yet
Posted by: b7j0c on Dec 24, 2005 4:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The plaintiffs are not going to appeal, because they know if a higher court upheld, it would create a precedent in a larger jurisdiction.

We will be replaying this case again and again and again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Mind of Man
Posted by: dlf on Dec 25, 2005 8:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well I find it frightening that there are many people who claim Christianity who believe in the Immaculate Conception, based on nothing more than faith, but who don't believe in recorded history, such as the holocaust. Many of the people who are behind the ID movement appear to be saying that the theory of ID makes more sense than the science of the theory of evolution.

I'm a Christian and I realize that part of my faith is my belief in the story of Christ. The problem as I see it is far too many feel that faith and belief equals universal truth. If that were so we would not practice faith differently.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A few items of information
Posted by: StoneRiley on Dec 26, 2005 7:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few pertinent items:

1) The separation of church and state IS in the U.S. Constitution. It is true that the original text only prevents the Congress from endorsing a religion (or interfering with religious freedom). Indeed, at the time that was written Massachusetts and some other states still had official tax-supported churches and the writers of the federal Constitution did not choose to approach that aspect of the issue. But the original wording has been expanded to a real separation of church and state by later Constitutional amendments that restrict state government encroachments into civil rights.

2) I have never heard a scientist say that "life arose from nothing". This is nonsense. What they say, instead, is that the difference between living and non-living matter is extremely fuzzy. Indeed, they are now saying that the difference between currently existing matter and potentially existing matter is extremely fuzzy. Particles and energy fields act in lifelike ways and potential is not "nothing". This may be hard to wrap your head around but you can do it if you try.

3) Evolution studies (and geology and quantum physics and all the rest) do not conflict with religion in general. Buddhism and Hinduism and Catholic Church doctrine have no problem with this stuff. Indeed, even the Protestant movement in America mainly took it all in stride until the current bunch of fanatics took over that movement in recent years.

4) It can be argued that the U.S. was, to some extent, "founded as a Christian country". This ignores such avowed freethinkers as Ben Franklin but the majority of the founders were professing Christians. On the other hand, however, it certainly cannot be said that the U.S. was founded as a Fundamentalist Christian country. That claim ignores the large majority who more or less subscribed to the pervasive Enlightenment "watchmaker god" ideas of Deism. (The general idea was that God originally set natural processes like evolution into motion but does not interfere with them.) It would also ignore the towering figure of Lincoln, the best philosopher we ever had as President. He did not arrive at a vision of Christ at all, but rather at a Shakespearean kind of vision of "Divine Providence".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

has it occurred to any of the ID proponents that evolution could actually BE intelligent design?
Posted by: codingguy on Dec 26, 2005 2:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To accept evolution is not to say there is no god. If a higher being created the universe, or life on this planet, it would be most presumptuous of we mere mortals to decide how he/she/it did it. The ID proponents are ultimately wrong because they are trying to fit the creator's work into the straightjacket of the Bible. It's entirely possible that the Creator chose evolution as the means for creating and sustaining life. That belief doesn't conflict with science, whereas ID and its evil twin, creationism, clearly do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hilarious
Posted by: timotoole on Dec 26, 2005 7:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is hilarious, Americans “debating” creationism…. Wow, 2005?

Soon you will go back to arguing over gay rights and abortion.

Your culture is rotten to the core and will undo you slowly and painfully causing much happiness to those you have walked over.

Happy NY, I look forward to the day when you question the need for gender/racial equality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hilarious Posted by: ftorres
» RE: Hilarious Posted by: tomcat
» RE: Hilarious Posted by: ftorres
» RE: Hilarious Posted by: tomcat
» RE: Hilarious Posted by: ftorres