ACLU Sues Over Intelligent Design
Dean
Sadly, I see that the ACLU is once again suing a local school district, this time in Dover, PA, for wanting to have discussions and questioning of evolutionary theory in the classroom. Story here.
Apparently now the first amendment means that the Federal government should ban books that have any content that remotely smacks of religion.
These people have no idea the damage they're doing--how much they turn people against science every time they muck about with how a local school district decides to run its business, I mean. It's pretty sad. It's even sadder that some parents, rather than respecting diversity of opinion, or using their right to attend school board meetings to voice their concerns and then allow the elected majority of the board make their choices, instead runs to the court to try to "protect" their children from hearing ideas they don't like. This just ratchets up resentment of scientists, resentment of government, resentment of the courts, and resentment of science as a whole.
And make no mistake about it, that's what the ACLU is doing: using phony "separation of Church and State" logic to ban books from the classroom, and ban free thought and discussion from same.
The ACLU is now the nation's foremost advocate for classroom censorship. Who 40 years ago would have thought it would come to that? But that's what they are now: no better than book-burners.
Nothing good can come of this lawsuit. Nothing. Except to make the religio-phobes and the anti-religious bigots happy.
Interestingly, the Discovery Institute, leading advocates for the notion of "Intelligent Design Theory," says they find Dover's policies to be misguided. Although they don't endorse the ACLU lawsuit.
Well good for them. Apparently, some people understand the difference between reasoned debate and criticism, and running to the courts to impose your will on others because you're afraid of what will happen if your children hear ideas you don't agree with.
By the way, before someone accuses me of having a "hidden agenda" -- I'm an atheist and I don't believe in intelligent design or creationism. I'm just appalled at the illiberal spirit of people who want to dictate policy like this from on high, and effectively ban discussion, ban ideas, and ban books.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Intelligent Design Blog
- Further Thoughts On Intelligent Design
- FAQ on Intelligent Design
- ACLU Sues Over Intelligent Design
Here is an article in a similar vein I trackback pinged your article, "The Tyranny Of The Nonbelievers", about Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
Could you write that org. to me or post it. I know they were doing a lot of good and like you had said, you were no longer an ALCU card carrying member.
Thank you,
aka,-Janellesong.org
I have had it with Political Correctness. I'm mad as Hell. I am Politically Incorrect and proud of it. I support Divine creation and intelligent design, voluntary prayer in schools and everywhere else, Bible reading (both Old and New Testaments), "In God We Trust", the Pledge of Allegiance and "Under God", "God Bless America", the Ten Commandments, the Declaration of Independence, "The Passion of the Christ", crosses, creches, Christmas trees, Christmas carols, Christian patriotic Christmas cards, the free exercise of religion....
God (the Holy Trinity), the Christ, the Most Holy Virgin Mother of the Christ, and all Gods and Goddesses bless the United States of America and the Hellenic-Roman, Judaic-Christian, Celtic-Nordic-Gothic, Faustian, Catholic High Culture of the West! Merry Christ's Mass!!!! HAIL TO THE QUEEN OF ALL EVIL....!!!! AND HAIL TO THE KING!!!!
As I've said before, and will probably say until I've expired from this life, it's ALL about people wanting to control other people. And when you get a situation that people are forced to be in, like schools, you'll attract the controllers of all stripes. And you're right, it's illiberal and almost devoid of thought, and goes against all traditions of free thought.
I don't know if it's ever been recommended here, but Jonathon Rauch's book Kindly Inquisitors deals with the idea of shutting down discussion very well, and I think it lays out some good guidelines for analysis of topics and public discourse.
I don't think it is even close to having any scientific evidence supporting it, and therefore it can't really be taught as science.
I would agree with you there, but on the other hand evolution is also faith based, and has no science based proof either in spite of scientific consensus. Not that I am saying evolution didn't happen, it may be true, or not. Just like creation, it is a concensus of the faithful scientists that push it.
The scientific concensus is based on the cliche survival-of-the-fittest. The fittest may have a better chance to survive, but that doesn't necessarily mean they pass on better genes, and there is no scientific research to show that it does. The only study that I have heard of was with fruit flies. Fruit flies were used because many generations can be studied in a short time.
When manipulations were used to improve some generations, the improvements were not passed on. In fact they often produced inferior offspring. So even when trying to enhance the outcome (hardly science) to favor the desired results, it ended in a flop.
Michael Crichton's thoughts on "consensus science" is meaningful. In this case he was talking about global warming, but the standards apply.
I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.
Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.
[...]
Just as we have established a tradition of double-blinded research to determine drug efficacy, we must institute double-blinded research in other policy areas as well.
The fact is that the present structure of science is entrepeneurial, with individual investigative teams vying for funding from organizations which all too often have a clear stake in the outcome of the research-or appear to, which may be just as bad. This is not healthy for science.
I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Well, there's no reason to assume that, at least as I understand it.
I admit lots of Christians do seize upon the theory as a way of opening the door for the inclusion of God back into the debate; or, at the very least, no longer automatically excluding the possibility.
But it is extremely scientific to look at all the available data and say "it is unlikely that evolution could result in the diversification of plant and animal life without the intervention of some being with the attributes of prediction and choice, therefore we need to try a new theory that more capably explains what we see."
That theory is, for now, Intelligent Design. But we have scientists engaging in search for extra-terrestrial intelligence even as we blog. If other life and other intelligence does exist in the universe, then it is easy to postulate the possibility that one was enough more advanced than we are by ages or eons to have meddled with genetics or stimulated life? Call it the Jhereg theory.
That would still leave unanswered where they came from...but another world, another life, and another intelligence might contain or point to other evidences of the origin of all things.
...I'm pretty much an agnostic right now on the issue of life development. I'm not sure we can know. It's almost like 4-year-olds talking about where babies come from or if Santa Claus is real: we don't have the mental tools to investigate the partially-formed assumptions we have that may be deliberately inaccurate to begin with.
That thread was primarily discussing low-fat diets and global warming, and I pointed out that essentially the same forces are at play creation/evolution debate. I think that a much smaller percentage of liberal-thinking people recognize the "consensus" mechanisms in human origins debate. In other words, many individuals that may tend to be skeptical of the global warming consensus claims will consider the evolution matter settled. From what I can tell from my reading, Michael Crichton is one of those such individuals, although I may be jumping to conclusions there.
I would contend that both theories (evolution and global warming) are about at the same place with regard to the scientific evidence. Probably the biggest difference is that the evolution theory has been around far longer than the global warming theories.
Nobody seemed to pick up on the point in the other thread, so I'm curious, do others here accept or challenge that the "scientific/social" forces are similar in both of these debates?
The evidence for evolution is strong. The evidence for "Intelligent Design" is not, or is not possible to prove right now.
I think that issues of creation by God, for example, is not something that science can answer. If you inject an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-everything else being into the mix that doesn't have to follow the known laws of physics, etc.. well.. you just can't prove of disprove him. It's a religious, philisophical, and metaphysical issue that has no bearing on science and vice-versa. Personally, I'm agnostic because science cannot prove or disprove God, and I'm not really capable of taking Him on faith. Or disproving him on faith either. I figure if he exists, he knows that. ;)
Global warming, on the other hand, is based on bad mathematical models, and incorrect use of statistical methods. It hasn't got strong evidence at all, and I think it's pretty much bunk.
But evidence for evolution is, in fact, strong and gaining daily.
My argument here wasn't at all about the validity of creation. It was about the scientific evidence for evolution vs. the scientific evidence for global warming, and whether similar forces are at work in the scientific community in both debates.
Your argument simply states the the "evidence" for evolution is strong", as it is simply an established fact. That's my whole point. What evidence? What types of evolution are you talking about - micro, macro (speciation), the formation of complex genetic information from purely random processes, etc.) Evidence for microevolution is fairly conclusive, other types, well... reasonable people can look at the evidence and draw different conclusions.
Most of your argument for evolutionary-based life origins simply states the evidence as accepted fact, and then goes on to essentially state that to think otherwise would require a creator that can't be proven or disproven. That's all well and good, but I would contend that it tends to support my point.
Many people uncritically accept the claims of global warming because they're afraid of the consequences (less restraints on development) if the claims are successfully debunked. And that is analogous to much support of evolution. The evidence is less important than the concern over the consequences (religious fundamentalists on the rampage) if the claims are subject to a higher level of scrutiny, and potentially found wanting.
I'm not arguing right or wrong here (for purposes of this discussion). I'm still maintaining that the same sets of forces are at work in both cases.
BTW, I work in the solar power industry and I pretty much have to keep my mouth shut about both of these topics there, if I want to express skepticism. There's so many better reasons to argue for non-fossil based energy sources than global warming, but it is the current "dog in the hunt", so challenges are not appreciated, to say the least. It certainly is an article of faith in that group.
What about all the scientists who have taken a gazillion of biology classes who think macro-evolution is a crock? There are more than just a few.
Also,
The problem with that statement is which laws of physics? Newtonian Laws of Physics have been strongly demonstrated to be inaccurate. Black holes don't follow the Newtonian Laws of Physics. In fact, they specifically cannot be applied to the very massive, the very tiny, or the very energetic...when you get beyond a certain point, quantum principles take over. If there were a being who was both omnipresent (very massive) and omnipotent (very energetic), it would only be subject to quantum physics, and many of its abilities would seem miraculous and impossible.
Then add in being apart from time:
Scientists can postulate the existence of more dimensions than the 4 we exist in (the 3 spacial + time). Can a point be compared to a line? Can a line be compared to a plane? Can a plane be compared to a solid? What is the relationship between these as you advance in dimensions? Specifically: contained within a point, you have no motion. Contained within a line, you have the freedom to move in two directions, and consider how that would be totally beyond the ken of a viewpoint contained only within a single point. A viewpoint with freedom of movement within a solid would be even more perplexing.
We humans are trapped within a timestream. We can go only one direction, but can also imagine the future and remember the past. But what about the viewpoint of a personality who has the freedom to move both directions in the flow of time? To whom "cause and effect" are now clearly seen as illusions? Would that personality not also be a God?
Right now, such a person is beyond proof or demonstration. But not beyond imagination. And where the human mind can imagine, it can also eventually understand. Maybe.
But that's all philosphy. Even without all that, Intelligent Design isn't as wedded to the idea of a Divine Individual being behind it as you seem to assume. That's one of the possibilities, yes. It's the one many Christians seem to glom onto. But you shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, and the ID theory does what a good theory should do: it addresses most of the problems of the previous theory.
On January 10,1963 Congressman Herlong of Florida read into the Congressional Record a list of 45 Communist Goals.
No.16 on that list is:"Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights."
No.17 was:"Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in textbooks."
The ACLU was founded by, among others, Socialists Roger Baldwin and John Dewey, and Communists William Z. Foster and Elizabeth Gurley Flynn. They are doing exactly what Communist Goal No.16 calls for. They DO know what they are doing! Undermining American religious institutions.
For that matter, where do you think the National Education Association is coming from? Sounds like iten 17 to me. Did you ever wonder where political correctness comes from? Do you suppose that is, in fact, "the party line"?
Perhaps Communism is not dead. Perhaps it has only gone underground.
Nevertheless there is a good bit more evidence for it than Sandi suggests. It is a more successful and complete theory, in scientific terms, than anything else we've seen. And I've read a lot of creationist and related literature.
I merely think that by banning analysis of intelligent design and related theories in the classroom, far more harm than good is done.
Global warming is a much weaker theory in general. But I would agree that those scientists who express skepticism of it do face negative career implications in many cases, and I have problems with that.
It is a more successful and complete theory, in scientific terms, than anything else we've seen. [evolution]
Now there is a good example of science by concensus, rather than by results.
The gaps called holes are extremely large compared to the filled gaps. Not to mention there is no provable ways to connect the huge gaps other than conjecture and faith. Maybe it's true or maybe it isn't. I have no idea.
When there is some evidence, or a lot more tenable missing pieces I will glady join your theory.
For my opinion on teaching opposing theories, they can teach either/or, or neither.
I hold a special spot of contempt for the ACLU. The idea that they are actively pursuing a program to reverse the rights they are sworn to protect is simply staggering in my mind.
I have no problem with evolution, creationism or creationism in the guise of intelligent design theory being taught in the school system. I have a problem with the schools, funded with my tax dollars, settling on one theory only in the curriculum at the expense of the other. Just as I have a problem with an individual teacher being allowed to advocate creationism and ignore evolution openly in the classroom. Discussion of the issue should be encouraged.
Until we finally invent a time machine, we'll be arguing this one.
Put religious conservatives on the defensive before they can think of injecting real religion in the schools.
Not legitimate, IMHO.