Darwin Watch – Evolution, Religion and the Courts
October 11, 2006
This article in the magazine The Lutheran covers an interview with Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled last year in Dover, PA that intelligent design is creationism repackaged – not science.
Jones said critics should “read the court transcript†rather than making an “abstract†critique. “[Critics] want to put an overlay of politics on it,†he said. “They make much of my being a Republican judge who didn’t rule the way they would like. They perceive me and the decision as being anti-religion and anti-God.â€
“The decision had nothing to do with politics and polls,†he said. “It is entirely appropriate for the executive and legislative branches of government to respond to the will of the people. But as a federal judge, I’m charged with focusing on legal precedents, the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution. My work has everything to do with reviewing the evidence as presented in the courtroom and legal precedents, such as Supreme Court tests used in previous establishment clause cases.
“If I had disregarded the facts and invented a new test, other than those tests offered by the Supreme Court, that would have made me an activist judge. These values are not Republican or Democratic. They are American values.â€
For anyone interested here is the full text of Judge Jones’ ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
Posted in Darwin watch, Silke
![[Valid RSS]](valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
content rss
October 11th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
And Darwinism is pure science? A whole cult based on poor observation and sampling. Lost samples. One small area of the earth studied during a short time. No link species discovered in all these years.
Reading the ruling, looks like the judge was imposing his own personal beliefs.
October 11th, 2006 at 6:26 pm
William said: “Reading the ruling, looks like the judge was imposing his own personal beliefs.”
Which part of the ruling are you referring to?
October 11th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Hey Silke,
It seems like we’ve had this discussion before, humm…. where was that,.. oh yeah, Amy’s blog this post: http://amyproctor.squarespace.com/blog/2006/8/24/americans-not-buying-evolution.html
we made a nice long string of comments there, I hate to say I’m going to be out of pocket for a couple of days, I’ve got a bit to say about it. (I know that surprises you, huh?) but some folks might get a kick out of our previous comments at the above link
October 11th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
I have to agree with Blackbeard, this Judge decided anything taught differing from darwinism was “government establishing religion”, that’s simply an asinine position on it’s face, for one, and as an after the fact bit, Ken Miller has come under a lot of criticism for both mis-representing Mike Behe’s work, and also denying things he had written in the past, quite enough mis-statements that he could have been impeached as a witness if the school board had real lawyers there.
October 11th, 2006 at 11:08 pm
http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Expert_Rebuttal_Dembski.pdf
Here is a rebuttal by Bill Dembski against his opposing expert witnesses, and i encourage anyone to examine the facts on just who is making every attempt to squash debate on this issue, and also examine whitch position rests on the most “just-so” stories, darwinists have to rely on just as much metaphysical “evidence” as everyone else.
October 11th, 2006 at 11:35 pm
oh,
those who think this ID thing is from a bunch of trailer trash? here’s a list of a few scientists who think Darwin was full of __it.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=660
October 12th, 2006 at 7:53 am
Mark said: “this Judge decided anything taught differing from darwinism was “government establishing religionâ€, that’s simply an asinine position on it’s face,â€
It would be if that were actually his position, but of course it’s not. Here’s what he actually said:
“The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case make it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause. In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether ID is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that ID cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.â€
He also had this to say about evolution:
“To be sure, Darwin’s theory of evolution is imperfect. However, the fact that a scientific theory cannot yet render an explanation on every point should not be used as a pretext to thrust an untestable alternative hypothesis grounded in religion into the science classroom or to misrepresent well-established scientific poropostions.â€
Mark said: “Here is a rebuttal by Bill Dembski against his opposing expert witnesses,â€
William Dembski did not testify in the trial. In fact he was fired by the Thomas More Law Center which represented the Dover School Board.
Mark said: “here’s a list of a few scientists who think Darwin was full of __it.â€
Here’s a list of over 700 scientists who think that evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences:
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3697_the_list_2_16_2003.asp
And by the way, they’ve intentionally limited themselves to scientists named Steve.
October 12th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Perhaps it should be left up to the school to decide what they want to teach, based on the people who live there, rather then enforcing the skewed viewpoint of one unelected Judge.
October 12th, 2006 at 9:19 am
William,
I agree,unless the school board decides to teach a religious viewpoint – which was the case in Dover, PA.
Which part of the ruling where you referring to when you stated earlier the judge was imposing his own personal beliefs?
October 12th, 2006 at 10:20 am
Darwinists and other Secular Humanists are entitled to their religious beliefs, they just should not force them on our school children.
School children should be taught how to read, write, do mathematics, and think for themselves. If they then wish to worship Darwin, let them, it is their souls that are at risk.
October 12th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Don, I totally agree! Science (not religion) should be taught in our schools.
October 12th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Just as long as you can be the one classifying what’s science and what’s religion right?
O.K, 600 scientists vs. 700 scientists, I guess you’ve got me beat, you’re position must be the right one. what’s good for Cornell to teach just doesn’t meet the standards of PA public schools. haha!
October 12th, 2006 at 9:44 pm
Mark said: “Just as long as you can be the one classifying what’s science and what’s religion right?â€
No, I’ll leave that to the scientists, and the courts when necessary.
Mark said: “what’s good for Cornell to teach just doesn’t meet the standards of PA public schools. haha!â€
Actually it sounds like a class I would like to take. During the course the instructor, Allen MacNeill, shows both sides of the issue but I think it’s interesting to note that as an evolutionary biologist he is very firmly on the side of evolution. In fact he disagrees very strongly with Michael Behe and William Dembski.
“I’m not going to be bashing (intelligent design), but I’m also not going to be advocating it,” said lecturer Allen MacNeill, an evolutionary biologist who will teach the course. “I’m going to be using it — and evolutionary biology too — to think about these very complicated ideas.”
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2006/04/evolution-and-design-what-will-course.html
October 13th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Don, I totally agree! Science (not religion) should be taught in our schools.
Do you really TOTALLY agree? Note that in the previous paragraph I said Darwinists and other Secular Humanists are entitled to their religious beliefs, they just should not force them on our school children. Are you really opposed to teaching any relgion, even the secular humanist one, or are you just opposed to teaching a positioin that would be consistent with the beliefs of Christians, Jews, and Muslims?
October 13th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Yes Don, I totally agree with you. I am opposed to teaching any religion in a science class.
October 14th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Then why do you favor teaching the parts of Darwin that cannot be proved using the scientific method; the parts of the Theory of Evolution that must be accepted on Faith. One can prove that a species can make minor changes to adapt to changes in its environment, but one cannot prove that the same techniques can lead to the creation of new species. That must be accepted on Faith. It is a precept of the religion of Secular Humanism.
October 14th, 2006 at 10:19 am
Don, if a species can make minor changes over a short period of time, what prevents those minor changes from accumulating over very long periods of time such that the end result is a different species entirely?
There are many theories in science which we cannot prove by direct observation. You are asking to observe something which if it did happen would actually disprove the theory of evolution.
October 15th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Nothing prevents it, but if the new species was created by a number of minor changes over a very long period of time, you would expect to see fossil evidence of at least some of the intermediate steps.
An unproven theory is just that, and it should not be taught as established fact.
The Scientific Method has four steps
1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.
3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.
4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.
If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature… If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified.
October 15th, 2006 at 10:40 pm
Don said: “Nothing prevents it,â€
Great, so you admit that we can observe small changes and that nothing prevents these small changes from resulting in very big changes over a long period of time, particularly if a population of organisms becomes isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries.
Don said: “but if the new species was created by a number of minor changes over a very long period of time, you would expect to see fossil evidence of at least some of the intermediate steps.â€
Yes, in fact this is one of the predictions of evolutionary theory. And there are many fossils that show “intermediate†features. Take the evolution of the whale, for example:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/11/2/e_s_3.html
There are perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) which fill the gap between australopithecus (“Lucyâ€) and modern humans. Here’s another list of fossils that demonstrate transitional features:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
But even if you discount the fossil record, the fact is evolutionary theory is confirmed by many other independent lines of evidence — genetic, morphological, and embryological, just to name a few.
Here’s a great example of an “experiment that bears out the hypothesis:â€
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_04.html
Don, no one has ever seen an atom. Much of what we know of atomic theory is acquired from observing second- and third-order effects. However the absence of direct observations does not diminish what we know about the structure and behavior of matter. In fact, atomic theory is the foundational theory for understanding the basics of chemistry and physics. Evolutionary theory is equally well supported and foundational to the biological sciences. The fact that you keep referring to it as an “unproven theory†reveals a serious lack of understanding of how science works.