A Fault Line for 'Intelligent Design'

http://www.law.harvard.edu/alumni/bulletin/20...

The Bulletin asked Professor William Stuntz, an evangelical Christian who has written widely about law and religion: Is this a debate that proponents of intelligent design can win?

"No, because the proponents are too invested in the bottom line. You don't win scientific debates by arguing like lawyers; you win them by arguing like scientists. But my friends in the evangelical Christian community tend to argue like lawyers: They start with the bottom line and look for reasons to support it, just as a lawyer starts with the conclusion that most benefits her client and looks for arguments to support that conclusion. The only way to win a scientific debate is to play by the scientists' rules--start with premises and reason forward to conclusions. And the only way to do that credibly is to make clear at the outset that you're not committed to any conclusion, that you haven't already embraced a bottom line. Religious believers have already failed that test, which is why this debate will end up looking to most people like the debate over evolution in the 1920s. Nonbelievers think that believers are strategic, that we will embrace any argument that works to our benefit. To a large degree, they're right. Unless and until that changes, religious believers won't have any credibility with the secular academic world. We don't deserve to have credibility if we're not honestly engaged in truth-seeking."

PCD, Great post. That guy clearly stated the big picture as well as anyone i have heard or read.

education advocate wrote:

<quoted text>
How dare you question or insult someone else's faith?!?
Are YOU God that you can see into this person's heart?

Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks.

I don't need to be God to know what's on another's heart. All I have to do is hear what they say, or see what they write.

Get it right wrote:
<quoted text>
The term "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere stated in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independance. The Term "Separation of Church and State" was never a phrase used by our Founding Fathers. Why? Because they didn't believe in the separation of church and state. They believed in preventing the state from forming a religion as England did with he Church of England. THIS is what they were running from, and attempting to prevent from reoccurring. Congress will not ESTABLISH a religion. What many overlook is the next phrase..Nor prevent the free exercise thereof (religion).

Nowhere does it say that congress has the right to make laws restricting my free exercise of my religion by separating my religion from my civic duties.

Like it, or not, this country was founded upon religious precepts. All one has to do is look at the life, the writings, and the beliefs of George Washington to see how separated his God was from his office.

Look at our present society. This is the fruit of our taking God out of our government. Gangs run rampant. Children kill children. Children grow up only knowing 1 parent. Millions of teenagers get pregnant out of wedlock. Unborn children are needlessly slaughtered, because of these pregnancies. Drug addiction is out of control. STDs are spread as easily as the common cold.

When you turn your back on God, God turns his back on you. You want God out of your government? Prepare to pay the cost!

Amen Brother!

The Bible says we will pay for our sins, individually and as a nation. I think we can see some of these punishments now, and have no doubt it will get much worse.

Get it right wrote:
"The term "Separation of Church and State" is nowhere stated in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, or the Declaration of Independance. The Term "Separation of Church and State" was never a phrase used by our Founding Fathers. Why? Because they didn't believe in the separation of church and state. They believed in preventing the state from forming a religion as England did with he Church of England."

It is nice to see that some understand this, many here would like to pervert the constitution so that it fits their ideology, our founders warned us of this and instructed us to overthrow any such perverts.

Bob the Unbeliever wrote:

<quoted text>
Really? You are SO sure that YOU have the "left-ear-of-God" that you are able to say SO definitively that all the Evil in our Society is the result of God's Abandonment?
What about YOU, God's Faithful Servant? Doesn't YOU life count for anything in God's Plan?
According to YOU: God is punishing EVERYONE pretty much the same, all because on a FEW folk who refuse to allow a Religious Theocracy to take place?
Pretty EVIL of God, if you ask me!
This is VERY like it was in the U.S.S.R: their "police" system was PROUD that no criminal EVER escaped. They may kill off an innocent or three, but by gum, NO criminal escaped "justice".
YOUR picture of God is the EXACT SAME! YOU State that we ALL are suffering (including YOU!) the fate because SOME of us have rejected God. So God is punishing the WHOLE "CLASS".
Evil. Pure and simple: Evil.
No other way to interpret God's "Actions" if YOU are at all correct.
...
Fortunately, YOU are far, far from correct.
Fortunately, there ARE rational People of Faith, who would very much DISAGREE with YOUR notions of what God Is and Is Not.

One thing is clear here Boob. One is evil and the other good. You are obviously on the other side of God.

Darl wrote:

<quoted text>
There are none so blind as those who will not see. Our wonderful legal system requires valid evidence in order to render judgement. The supporters of intelligent design could not produce VALID evidence to suport their ASSUMPTIONS.

lol, as if evolution can. Yours is a religion, too. Your God is the magic wand of time.

Second Thoughts wrote:

<quoted text>lol, as if evolution can. Yours is a religion, too. Your God is the magic wand of time.

Well, put it this way: the National Center for Science Education, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of Sciences all describe evolution as both theory and fact. Hundreds of thousands of biologists around the world use the theory of evolution in their daily research. It is one of the most robust theories in all the sciences. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

No research paper supporting the claims of creationists has ever been published in the peer-reviewed literature ever. ONE research paper supporting ID was published without the customary peer edited review, and later retracted because of that. Thousands upon thousands of papers have been published that support the theory of evolution.

The practice of biology is a scientific process based on skepticism and tentavity; it is based on making observations, proposing mechanisms that explain these observations, and testing these mechanisms. Faith, particularly religious faith, has nothing to do with that process. When Michael Behe, a leading proponent of ID, was on the stand at Dover, he was forced to admit that in order to admit ID as a science, the definition of science would have to be altered such that it would also admit astrology. Biologists around the world snickered. I'm sure his words would strike the likes of you as so much common sense.

You LOL in a month when Tiktaalik, Najash rionegrina, and two key hominid fossils, including one connecting australopithecus with an earlier hominid species, have been discovered. A month in which molecular biologists published a paper in Science describing the evolutionary pathway of a supposedly "irreducibly complex" system. You can LOL all you like, but biology is simply going to roll over the top of you and leave your laughter behind.

Hunt wrote:

<quoted text>
One thing is clear here Boob. One is evil and the other good. You are obviously on the other side of God.

Hunnh?

What is this nonsense - the entire sentence has no meaning.

WHICH 'one' are you referring to? You say 'one' is evil - what do you mean, exactly?

And your last statement: "You are obviously on the other side of God." What, does this mean? Is God some sort of wall, that one may be on one side or another?

Meaningless. Devoid of any understandable content.

Doesn't it bother you Runt, to appear so foolish all the time?

Why can't evolution and creationalism exist side by side? Evolution uses science, creationalism uses faith. Both sides are equally important, and equally valid. The only difference is that you can't directly "prove" the faith argument, you either buy into it, or you do not. That is your choice in a free country. Many scientists who work with evolution on a daily basis are Christian, but they don't let their personal beliefs interere with their work principles.

To choose one side over the other is to introduce the classic "chicken and egg" problem (Which came first?). You can't solve it, all you can do is discuss your own ideas, and hope to convience others to see the world as you do.

ScannerFan wrote:

Why can't evolution and creationalism exist side by side? Evolution uses science, creationalism uses faith. Both sides are equally important, and equally valid. The only difference is that you can't directly "prove" the faith argument, you either buy into it, or you do not. That is your choice in a free country. Many scientists who work with evolution on a daily basis are Christian, but they don't let their personal beliefs interere with their work principles.
To choose one side over the other is to introduce the classic "chicken and egg" problem (Which came first?). You can't solve it, all you can do is discuss your own ideas, and hope to convience others to see the world as you do.

They can't stand side by side in a science classroom. Creationism is the supernatural and is not science - simple as that. Evolution is science period. It is illegal to introduce religion into a science classroom in public schools. Is that a hard concept to understand?

ScannerFan wrote:

Why can't evolution and creationalism exist side by side? Evolution uses science, creationalism uses faith. Both sides are equally important, and equally valid. The only difference is that you can't directly "prove" the faith argument, you either buy into it, or you do not. That is your choice in a free country. Many scientists who work with evolution on a daily basis are Christian, but they don't let their personal beliefs interere with their work principles.
To choose one side over the other is to introduce the classic "chicken and egg" problem (Which came first?). You can't solve it, all you can do is discuss your own ideas, and hope to convience others to see the world as you do.

What you mean is not "creationism", it is theistic evolution. In this thread, Hoosier Jarhead has often recommended a writer named, if I recall correctly, Kenneth D. Miller, who writes from a perspective that integrates Christian religious belief and evolutionary biology. You are right in the sense that there is no necessary contradiction between science, any science, and religion, any religion. But those who call themselves "creationists" believe their metaphysical claims are in fact physical claims, and that is the source of their confusion.

Creationism vs. Evolution is not an arguement that can be settled by logic. At its foundation, Creationism is based upon faith - not science. Intelligent Design is a recent effort to find evidence to support Creationism. The difference in approach are similar to what faced astronomers centuries ago when it was originally thouht that the Earth was the center of the Universe (otherwise where would heaven be?) It took lots of years, and the conviction of Galelio (spelling?) as a heretic to eventually get us to where we are now.

The real issue is the teaching of ostensibly a religious belief in a public school. Because public schools are funded with public dollars (may taxes and yours), it is important that the schools be neutral in their support of any religious beliefs , particularly if those teachings result in the exclusion of some students from the mainstream, or if they are offensive to a religious organization. Although Evolution may be contrary to some religious beliefs, it is not founded in religion. It is accepted as truth throughout the scientific community.

You know, I was about to continue with a resoned approach about what public schools should and shouldn't teach - and then talk to the need for parent involvement in teaching religion. But it is a waste of time. Evangelical Christians have as their mandate to spread the word - hence Evangelical. It is an anathama for them to think that other religions have some value, or that beliefs other than their own are just as valid. Many of us do not want to live in the world they are trying to create - it is too stifling, too filled with fear, and too obsesed with life after this one.
So - keep your religion out of my school. School should be areligious, and if some feel that results in a poor school they can send them to a religious bases school or home school them. As far as I am concerned, I do not want evangelicals in a classroom with my children. Then I won't have to explain to my sun that he won't go to hell just becasue the does not go to the same church as some of his school mates.

Bent Frederiksen wrote:

My name is Bent Frederiksen, a resident of Frazier Park, California and father of Christian Frederiksen, age 14 who is currently are taking the very controversial class at Frazier Mountain High School, called The Philosophy of Design.
I am going to voice my opinion about this law suit filled by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of 13 students who actually is not even attending the class.
First and foremost, this class is taken on a volentary basis by the students. IT IS NOT A Class that they are forced to take by the school.
From January 3 to February 3, 2006 the students at Frazier Mountain High School has Intercession, which means that students that made all their grades in the first 2 quarters, can take, on a volentary basis, other classes of their choice, while students who did not have passing grades have make up classes. The students was given a list of classes that was offered during intercession, classes like various sports, niedle point, etc, and one of the classes that was offered was “Philosophy of Design.”
The parents of the students were all given a letter outlining the class objective, what subject would be tought and what video and guest speakers would appear, all prior to January 3, 2006. All parents had to sign a letter of consent that their son/daughter could take the class, which I did and approved the class subjects.
My son truly enjoys the class, the teaching, the forums for discussion and the subjects that are presented to the students.
Let me again underline, that this is a class taken on a volentary basis by the students with parents permission during intercession. I feel as a concerned parent, that such law suit filled in the District Court in Fresno by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is a very dangerous signal of our right to choose and our personal freedom and belief, that we enjoy each day in this country and we have soldies dying for such freedom we enjoy every day.
We have seen in other countries over the years, that people does not have the freedom we have, that certain teaching and belief is forbidden by the government. We can not claim to be a free and democratic country, when a group like Americans United for Separation of Church and State can stop a small group of 15 students, that at their own free will, are volentary taking a class that they wanted and with their parents permission.
None of the students are forced against their own will to take the class. By denying them to continue the class, it is an attack against their personal freedom to choose and an attack against their right to be free individual.
As fare as I am concerned as a parent, my son will continue to take the class until it is either completed, or he choose to stop the class by his own choise. It would be a shame and an attack against my son’s personal rights, that the class is stopped my a court order.
Bent Frederiksen

I don't know what you're son is learning, but you are seriously in need of a remedial English composition class and a few spelling lessons.

Mary wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't know what you're son is learning, but you are seriously in need of a remedial English composition class and a few spelling lessons.

Mary, Mary, give the kid a break! He is only 14...and I think he expressed his view quite well...not to say that I agree with him though. I'll just bet that at age 14 your writings weren't even of this caliber.

An Open Letter to all Intelligent Design[ers]*cough * creationists *cough* who feel that without God, our society is going to become a terrible, horrible place filled with random bouts of violence and mass orgies:
Dear YOU:
Oh yes. The good old days of government/religion, where the world was pious and holy, and all was good. Would you like to speak of the Revolutionary War days? Yes? Good! How about...slaves! Hundreds of thousands to millions of people, stolen from their homelands and rushed off to a life of misery, all because of the color of their skin, lives where they were beaten, brutalized, killed, and raped, for no other reason than their white, Christian slave owners could. Not good enough for you? A period where death rates were through the roof because of things like sickness, disease, local bar fights, and duels. You'd have just as good of a chance of growing up in a single-parent family back then that children do now--the only difference is that nowadays your dad is lying next door with your next door neighbors mom instead of six feet under. Personally, I'd rather have the fathers of the world alive and immoral than dead and immoral. And what about those CRAZY modern drug addictions? Are they as modern as we all think? Nope! Little Johnny Walker could smoke at eight back in those days, if he felt like it. Hell, he was old enough to be in the Army, he could die for his country. A little nicotine can't possibly be that bad! And, who can compare it to the peace pipe he's puffing on with his Injun friends? So is this good enough for you? No? Alright, we'll go a little further back in time.
How about the days when the good ol' Mayflower first landed and we settled that first colony in Jamestown (Now...I'd like you to be aware, before you try to argue this...this really did happen. It is not a theory, it is not a hypothesis, it is a fact). We floated over in our dinky little boats, landed over here, and proclaimed the land to be ours, in a very righteous, Christian sense. What about those Native Americans? We ripped them off, raped, killed, enslaved, and beat their heritage right out of them. We didn't steal a car from them, we didn't take all their marijuana--heavens no, those types of modern crimes were just too petty for them back then. We went and stole two CONTINENTS from them--North & South America. I've never heard of a crime that big in todays corrupted society. It seems to me we've advanced pretty far. Do you really want to go back to those days? Are you going to try to go over to the Middle East and Asia, and tell them, "Hey! We're some pretty baddass Christians! And, as such, this land is all now ours. Go take a dunk in the ocean, because you're not welcome here anymore." Try it and let me know how it goes...I'll be expecting several FedEx packages with your severed body parts in them. But, I wouldn't think too badly of them--I'd be likely to do the same thing to you if you tried it on me.

[continued in next post]

[continued from previous post]

Maybe you're exceptionally thick skulled. I don't know. Maybe you're not so good with American history. I don't know! Maybe an example from another part of the world will help you out a little bit?
Switch to India, one of the most conservative places in the world-a land where its socially acceptable to live with your parents at the age of 30, where arranged marriages still rage on, where telling your parents you want to be a music major will get you disowned, and where Bill Gates has more adoring fans than Jessica Simpson. Obviously, such a place is a cesspool of lethargy and sin. And those Hindu priests--well, we all know how dangerous and corrupting they are, sitting and meditating on top of mountains clad in their orange robes.
Apparently, the Catholic Church thought so. They initiated a program in the 30's to boost their numbers of new converts. Their strategy? They went into hospitals, and solicited a special little deal to every person dying of a curable disease, but unable to afford the treatment for it. What they said went something like:
"Oh! Sure! We'll pay for your heart surgery for you! But you gotta do a little something for us too, okay? We need you and ten of your best friends to convert, and we'll take care of this little medical bill right here."
I don't know about you, but I find this type of behavior morally reprehensible. I would be extremely uncomfortable to find these types of people running my schools, police stations, hospitals, and government in general. Is this an indication of a better time? A better course of action? A better type of society? I hope to God you don't.
The truth is, our world hasn't become more immoral, violent, or drug-centered--in fact, the occurrence of such events has decreased dramatically. I dare you to find a book of statistics which says otherwise (Remember, there was a long time when LSD, cocaine, morphine, et cetra were all legally available without a prescription. You need to include that too!). The difference is that we now have a media which cares and notices such things, and has become excellent at bringing it to our attention. Do you really think that in 1776 a man murdering half his town someplace in rural Kentucky would receive any press attention in New York? Of course not. Now, of course, we know how that'd go.
>>Sagard

Do you not yearn for the days of yore when life was so simple? When dragons roamed, freely frolicing in the plush green fields. When elves, pixies and sultry wood nymphs always said "good morning" in a cheerful, lilting, voice as they passed you by? Remember the days of burning heretics at the stake without the fear of politically correct retribution? Oh the joys. Where have all the good times gone?

Bent Frederiksen wrote:

My name is Bent Frederiksen, a resident of Frazier Park, California and father of Christian Frederiksen, age 14 who is currently are taking the very controversial class at Frazier Mountain High School, called The Philosophy of Design.
I am going to voice my opinion about this law suit filled by Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of 13 students who actually is not even attending the class.
First and foremost, this class is taken on a volentary basis by the students. IT IS NOT A Class that they are forced to take by the school.
From January 3 to February 3, 2006 the students at Frazier Mountain High School has Intercession, which means that students that made all their grades in the first 2 quarters, can take, on a volentary basis, other classes of their choice, while students who did not have passing grades have make up classes. The students was given a list of classes that was offered during intercession, classes like various sports, niedle point, etc, and one of the classes that was offered was “Philosophy of Design.”
The parents of the students were all given a letter outlining the class objective, what subject would be tought and what video and guest speakers would appear, all prior to January 3, 2006. All parents had to sign a letter of consent that their son/daughter could take the class, which I did and approved the class subjects.
My son truly enjoys the class, the teaching, the forums for discussion and the subjects that are presented to the students.
Let me again underline, that this is a class taken on a volentary basis by the students with parents permission during intercession. I feel as a concerned parent, that such law suit filled in the District Court in Fresno by Americans United for Separation of Church and State, is a very dangerous signal of our right to choose and our personal freedom and belief, that we enjoy each day in this country and we have soldies dying for such freedom we enjoy every day.
We have seen in other countries over the years, that people does not have the freedom we have, that certain teaching and belief is forbidden by the government. We can not claim to be a free and democratic country, when a group like Americans United for Separation of Church and State can stop a small group of 15 students, that at their own free will, are volentary taking a class that they wanted and with their parents permission.
None of the students are forced against their own will to take the class. By denying them to continue the class, it is an attack against their personal freedom to choose and an attack against their right to be free individual.
As fare as I am concerned as a parent, my son will continue to take the class until it is either completed, or he choose to stop the class by his own choise. It would be a shame and an attack against my son’s personal rights, that the class is stopped my a court order.
Bent Frederiksen

very true

lupids wrote:

<quoted text>
very true

Really? Would you be willing to allow a class in Holocaust denial at this same school? There is about as much evidence against the reality of the Holocaust as there is against the reality of evolution.