January 21, 2006
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
Dover intelligent design case: Judicial ignorance on display
By David N. Bass
I've come to realize that one of the greatest recipes for disaster in modern day America is when a federal judge is given cart blanche to rule on a case involving anything that even remotely smacks of religion. Inevitably, some precious freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution is eroded or even stripped away. That's exactly what happened when U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III handed down a ruling in late 2005 in a case involving not only religion, but science and the public schools as well.
Needless to say, the resulting decision was rather messy.
On December 20, Judge Jones determined that a Pennsylvania school board somehow established a state religion by offering Intelligent Design as an alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. The conflict originally began when the Dover Area School Board approved a policy that required ninth grade biology teachers to read a short statement to students briefly describing Intelligent Design and providing a resource textbook for those interested in learning more. The so-called controversial statement was in reality a tame paragraph that merely offered students an optional area of study to explore. The statement read:
The core of Judge Jones' rationale for striking down the paragraph centered around the school board's supposed efforts to establish a state religion via Intelligent Design. "The secular purposes claimed by the [School] 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," the federal judge wrote. The only difficulty with such judicial reasoning is that Intelligent Design is based strictly on scientific facts and makes absolutely no claim one way or another regarding religious belief. As many proponents of Intelligent Design have already pointed out, the theory is not based on the Biblical account of creation as recorded in the Book of Genesis, nor is it based on any other religion or philosophy. Rather, the theory is based on observable scientific realities, documented by bonafide scientists. Many proponents of evolutionary theory have even conceded the hard scientific realities behind Intelligent Design.
How, then, can offering such an alternative be construed as establishing a state religion?
If Judge Jones had spent more time studying what Intelligent Design actually entails as opposed to using his ruling as an editorial column, he might have realized the fallacy of automatically labeling science that dares challenge evolution as thinly veiled religion. Contrary to fabrications in the liberal media and elsewhere, Intelligent Design was not essentially "cooked up" in a seminary. Rather, it is built on the scientific reality that organic life and the universe as whole are far too complicated to have resulted from the evolutionary concept of chance. It makes no comment one way or the other about who or what that intelligent designer is. It does not endorse any religion or set of religious values. It merely presents the facts that are unexplained or ill-explained in evolutionary theory.
William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, illustrates this reality by stating that the theory "presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent Design is theologically minimalist. It detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence." Interestingly, Intelligent Design could easily be considered more objective than evolutionary theory itself, which is commonly used by humanists and social crusaders to justify their causes. All too often, the theory of evolution is not the tame, objective puppy that some portray. It is commonly used as an indoctrination and justification tool by the world's liberal elite.
In the interests of putting to bed the false view that Intelligent Design was somehow cooked up by evangelical Christians, it is important to note that many committed Christians, on religious grounds, do not support the teaching of the theory. While Intelligent Design may provide a glimpse into the marvels of creation, it only gives a limited picture. From my perspective as a follower of Jesus Christ, acknowledging the fact that creation is too complicated to have been the result of chance is a good first step, but failing to tell the rest of the story can have disastrous consequences. Biblically, creation is the starting point, but the doctrines of original sin and redemption are of the utmost importance. Intelligent Design makes no effort to explain these crucial and central doctrines of Christianity. If the theory were designed in the halls of evangelical seminaries, it would definitely make some mention of such core tenets. But it does not.
Unfortunately, Judge Jones did not stop with merely accusing the Dover school board of essentially establishing a theocratic indoctrination machine in the public schools. Instead, he felt compelled to launch a personal crusade against the character and integrity of the board members who approved the policy. "It is ironic," the federal judge wrote, "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 [Intelligent Design] policy."
In such a remark we see expressed a fault that is quickly becoming the status quo in modern jurisprudence — looking beyond the actual actions of individuals involved in the case and attempting to judge what they were thinking when they took those actions. Similar to the philosophy behind hate crimes legislation, this view portends that thoughts should be punished in addition to actions. A course in a public high school, for example, that examines the Bible from a historical perspective is acceptable, provided the administrators and teachers implementing the program do not have what might be construed as "religious" motives. If they have such motives, the class is unconstitutional; if they do not, the class passes constitutional muster.
Again, this view stipulates that thoughts are more important than actions. Perhaps Judge Jones would be wise to crack a copy of George Orwell's 1984 to see where this kind of thought-policing philosophy can lead.
More important than Judge Jones' scathing attack on Intelligent Design and those who promote its teaching in the public schools is the reality that the theory is quickly gaining steam, and this has social Darwinists quaking in their boots. Make no mistake — the primary issue here is not the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but a feeble attempt to bolster an antiquated 19th century theory on the origins of man that is looking less and less credible as the field of science progresses. Evolution by natural selection is quickly going down for the third time, and proponents of the theory know it.
Perhaps the most important lesson Judge Jones' decision can teach us is this — the theory of evolution is in trouble. As many are already predicting, 100 years from now scholars may very well look back on evolution as the greatest scientific fauxpas of the past two centuries.
© David N. Bass
I've come to realize that one of the greatest recipes for disaster in modern day America is when a federal judge is given cart blanche to rule on a case involving anything that even remotely smacks of religion. Inevitably, some precious freedom vouchsafed by the Constitution is eroded or even stripped away. That's exactly what happened when U.S. District Court Judge John E. Jones III handed down a ruling in late 2005 in a case involving not only religion, but science and the public schools as well.
Needless to say, the resulting decision was rather messy.
On December 20, Judge Jones determined that a Pennsylvania school board somehow established a state religion by offering Intelligent Design as an alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection. The conflict originally began when the Dover Area School Board approved a policy that required ninth grade biology teachers to read a short statement to students briefly describing Intelligent Design and providing a resource textbook for those interested in learning more. The so-called controversial statement was in reality a tame paragraph that merely offered students an optional area of study to explore. The statement read:
-
Because Darwin's Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Drawin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families.
The core of Judge Jones' rationale for striking down the paragraph centered around the school board's supposed efforts to establish a state religion via Intelligent Design. "The secular purposes claimed by the [School] 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," the federal judge wrote. The only difficulty with such judicial reasoning is that Intelligent Design is based strictly on scientific facts and makes absolutely no claim one way or another regarding religious belief. As many proponents of Intelligent Design have already pointed out, the theory is not based on the Biblical account of creation as recorded in the Book of Genesis, nor is it based on any other religion or philosophy. Rather, the theory is based on observable scientific realities, documented by bonafide scientists. Many proponents of evolutionary theory have even conceded the hard scientific realities behind Intelligent Design.
How, then, can offering such an alternative be construed as establishing a state religion?
If Judge Jones had spent more time studying what Intelligent Design actually entails as opposed to using his ruling as an editorial column, he might have realized the fallacy of automatically labeling science that dares challenge evolution as thinly veiled religion. Contrary to fabrications in the liberal media and elsewhere, Intelligent Design was not essentially "cooked up" in a seminary. Rather, it is built on the scientific reality that organic life and the universe as whole are far too complicated to have resulted from the evolutionary concept of chance. It makes no comment one way or the other about who or what that intelligent designer is. It does not endorse any religion or set of religious values. It merely presents the facts that are unexplained or ill-explained in evolutionary theory.
William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of Intelligent Design, illustrates this reality by stating that the theory "presupposes neither a creator nor miracles. Intelligent Design is theologically minimalist. It detects intelligence without speculating about the nature of the intelligence." Interestingly, Intelligent Design could easily be considered more objective than evolutionary theory itself, which is commonly used by humanists and social crusaders to justify their causes. All too often, the theory of evolution is not the tame, objective puppy that some portray. It is commonly used as an indoctrination and justification tool by the world's liberal elite.
In the interests of putting to bed the false view that Intelligent Design was somehow cooked up by evangelical Christians, it is important to note that many committed Christians, on religious grounds, do not support the teaching of the theory. While Intelligent Design may provide a glimpse into the marvels of creation, it only gives a limited picture. From my perspective as a follower of Jesus Christ, acknowledging the fact that creation is too complicated to have been the result of chance is a good first step, but failing to tell the rest of the story can have disastrous consequences. Biblically, creation is the starting point, but the doctrines of original sin and redemption are of the utmost importance. Intelligent Design makes no effort to explain these crucial and central doctrines of Christianity. If the theory were designed in the halls of evangelical seminaries, it would definitely make some mention of such core tenets. But it does not.
Unfortunately, Judge Jones did not stop with merely accusing the Dover school board of essentially establishing a theocratic indoctrination machine in the public schools. Instead, he felt compelled to launch a personal crusade against the character and integrity of the board members who approved the policy. "It is ironic," the federal judge wrote, "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 [Intelligent Design] policy."
In such a remark we see expressed a fault that is quickly becoming the status quo in modern jurisprudence — looking beyond the actual actions of individuals involved in the case and attempting to judge what they were thinking when they took those actions. Similar to the philosophy behind hate crimes legislation, this view portends that thoughts should be punished in addition to actions. A course in a public high school, for example, that examines the Bible from a historical perspective is acceptable, provided the administrators and teachers implementing the program do not have what might be construed as "religious" motives. If they have such motives, the class is unconstitutional; if they do not, the class passes constitutional muster.
Again, this view stipulates that thoughts are more important than actions. Perhaps Judge Jones would be wise to crack a copy of George Orwell's 1984 to see where this kind of thought-policing philosophy can lead.
More important than Judge Jones' scathing attack on Intelligent Design and those who promote its teaching in the public schools is the reality that the theory is quickly gaining steam, and this has social Darwinists quaking in their boots. Make no mistake — the primary issue here is not the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, but a feeble attempt to bolster an antiquated 19th century theory on the origins of man that is looking less and less credible as the field of science progresses. Evolution by natural selection is quickly going down for the third time, and proponents of the theory know it.
Perhaps the most important lesson Judge Jones' decision can teach us is this — the theory of evolution is in trouble. As many are already predicting, 100 years from now scholars may very well look back on evolution as the greatest scientific fauxpas of the past two centuries.
© David N. Bass
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
