Battle over Intelligent Design in PA
Came across this by Laurie Goodstein in yesterday’s New York Times (I think registration is required) and wanted to comment on a few interesting elements. The article is about the upcoming court case in Dover, PA over whether intelligent design (I.D.) should be presented as an alternative to evolution in the public schools.
The first interesting tidbit I noticed right off was in the opening paragraph where Ms. Goodstein writes, “Sheree Hied…was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about ‘alternatives’ to evolution….”. Why the quote marks around “alternatives”? This by itself shows bias on the part of Ms. Goodstein (big surprise from the Times). The quotes imply that the “alternatives” are not really “alternatives”, they’re just being called “alternatives” to get in under the radar.
But the most interesting item highlighting the writer’s bias is the description given to the parties involved. First the town itself is described as “a rural, mostly blue-collar community” and the primary party interviewed on behalf of the plaintiffs was Mrs. Hied (mentioned above) who, we are told, is “a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company”. Contrast this with the citizen spoken to that is in favor of banning the teaching of I.D. This man is described in the following way: “at a desk flanked by his university diplomas, Steven Stough was on the internet…keeping track of every legal maneuver in the case.” This dichotomy is apparently drawn to show that those who support I.D. are ignorant and uneducated while those who oppose it are of much higher intelligence and learning. This is a complete affront to all who hold that evolution does not answer all the questions that arise when the subject of origins is broached. It also shows the elitist attitude held by those in support of evolution.
The key question in this whole debate can be summed up in the question, “Is there such a thing as the supernatural?” To the evolutionist the answer is “No”. And by giving this answer they have shut themselves off to many answers to questions they are asking. It’s like asking the question “What has wings, feathers, webbed feet, lays eggs and quacks?” and then limiting the answers by adding, “…and the answer can’t be ‘a duck’.” In the same way, one cannot ask the question, “How did this great universe of ours, with all the multiplied millions of complex organisms and mechanisms, come into being?” and then saying, “…and it can’t be anything that can’t be explained by the laws of nature.” By starting with this presupposition scientists have actually taken themselves out of the arena of science. The scientific method is described as a process that follows the steps of observation, question, hypothesis, prediction, testing and theory. At one point in the article Witold J. Walczak (legal director of the A.C.L.U.) is quoted as saying that “intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanations, is not testable.” By his own definition evolution does not pass Mr. Walczak’s test. It is not testable. When has anyone ever demonstrated a change from one species to another in a laboratory? Where are the fossils of transitional forms? All of this has been speculated on but never proven. Yet the children in the public schools are told to believe these myths as fact just because academic elites have suppressed any competing claims and changed the definition of science to allow only natural explanations (though they have not proven that the supernatural does not exist – nor can they).
All of this is to be expected of any group of unregenerate persons whose hearts and minds have not been made alive by the living God. Romans 1 tells us that:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23 – emphasis added)
And so it goes in the world of “scientific enlightenment.”
The first interesting tidbit I noticed right off was in the opening paragraph where Ms. Goodstein writes, “Sheree Hied…was grateful when her school board here voted last year to require high school biology classes to hear about ‘alternatives’ to evolution….”. Why the quote marks around “alternatives”? This by itself shows bias on the part of Ms. Goodstein (big surprise from the Times). The quotes imply that the “alternatives” are not really “alternatives”, they’re just being called “alternatives” to get in under the radar.
But the most interesting item highlighting the writer’s bias is the description given to the parties involved. First the town itself is described as “a rural, mostly blue-collar community” and the primary party interviewed on behalf of the plaintiffs was Mrs. Hied (mentioned above) who, we are told, is “a meter reader, and her husband, Michael, an office manager for a local bus and transport company”. Contrast this with the citizen spoken to that is in favor of banning the teaching of I.D. This man is described in the following way: “at a desk flanked by his university diplomas, Steven Stough was on the internet…keeping track of every legal maneuver in the case.” This dichotomy is apparently drawn to show that those who support I.D. are ignorant and uneducated while those who oppose it are of much higher intelligence and learning. This is a complete affront to all who hold that evolution does not answer all the questions that arise when the subject of origins is broached. It also shows the elitist attitude held by those in support of evolution.
The key question in this whole debate can be summed up in the question, “Is there such a thing as the supernatural?” To the evolutionist the answer is “No”. And by giving this answer they have shut themselves off to many answers to questions they are asking. It’s like asking the question “What has wings, feathers, webbed feet, lays eggs and quacks?” and then limiting the answers by adding, “…and the answer can’t be ‘a duck’.” In the same way, one cannot ask the question, “How did this great universe of ours, with all the multiplied millions of complex organisms and mechanisms, come into being?” and then saying, “…and it can’t be anything that can’t be explained by the laws of nature.” By starting with this presupposition scientists have actually taken themselves out of the arena of science. The scientific method is described as a process that follows the steps of observation, question, hypothesis, prediction, testing and theory. At one point in the article Witold J. Walczak (legal director of the A.C.L.U.) is quoted as saying that “intelligent design is not science because it does not meet the ground rules of science, is not based on natural explanations, is not testable.” By his own definition evolution does not pass Mr. Walczak’s test. It is not testable. When has anyone ever demonstrated a change from one species to another in a laboratory? Where are the fossils of transitional forms? All of this has been speculated on but never proven. Yet the children in the public schools are told to believe these myths as fact just because academic elites have suppressed any competing claims and changed the definition of science to allow only natural explanations (though they have not proven that the supernatural does not exist – nor can they).
All of this is to be expected of any group of unregenerate persons whose hearts and minds have not been made alive by the living God. Romans 1 tells us that:
The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. (Romans 1:18-23 – emphasis added)
And so it goes in the world of “scientific enlightenment.”
posted by Jim V. | 10:02 AM
3 Comments:
Nice observations on the bias in the reporting. This kind of thing is continuously done on TV and the movies to paint Christian conservatives in a particularly simplistic (or even evil) style. For the non-believer, it conveniently side-steps the rigors of debate.
Quote
[By his own definition evolution does not pass Mr. Walczak’s test. It is not testable. When has anyone ever demonstrated a change from one species to another in a laboratory?]
Dear Jim. Ofcourse a change of species has been observed. With microbes, where generations come and go quickly, it happens all the time.
Why do you think the world is so afraid of a bird flu epidemic now? Because a not yet existing strain of bird flu that can contaminate people and go between people could evoluate from the existing strain of bird flu, that cannot infect humans from humans.
New species of microbes, that are immune against our antibiotics, evoluate nearly daily from species that were not immune.
Evolution is there, in everyday life, and happens all the time with the microbes and bacteria in your own body.
Another Paul:
I recognize that such things do happen among microbes, but this is not a change from one species to another. I'm not against the idea of a different *strain* of bacteria popping up in a petri dish or on a slice of moldy bread. What I have a problem with is the idea of that bacteria turning into something other than a bacteria (such as from a bacteria to an insect). This is the kind of thing espoused by evolutionists when they speak of birds having evolved from reptiles. Until they can produce a feathered lizard in a laboratory they have no reasonable complaint against ID just because it cannot be proven by experimentation. They are in a glass house chucking stones and it isn't prudent.
Post a Comment
<< Home