BCT Editorial – 12/23/05

This page was last updated on December 24, 2005.

Minor setback; Editorial; Beaver County Times; December 23, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Effort to force intelligent design into public schools won’t stop with judge’s ruling

“While welcome, the decision by a federal judge against the introduction of so-called ‘intelligent design’ in biology classes in the Dover Area School District is no cause for celebration.

“That’s because supporters of ID will not allow Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III to slow their assault on science. ID backers and their fellow travelers won’t stop until they have established a theocracy that rules every aspect of American life. They’ve already won major battles in Kansas and Georgia.”

[RWC] As most mainstream media outlets, the author misrepresents what the Dover school board did. The school board did not try to teach creationism in science classes. The schools board merely required a teacher – or an administrative person if the teacher refused – to read a statement pointing out that evolution is theory, not fact, and that creationism (a.k.a. “intelligent design”) is also a theory. The statement went onto say that if students wanted to learn more about creationism, books on the subject were available in the school library. Other than this statement, science classes covered exactly the same material as before.

“To them, this setback is just a skirmish in their long-term war against all things that do not conform to their belief system. It doesn’t matter to them that Jones wrote in his 139-page decision that intelligent design ‘is not science.’”

[RWC] By the author’s own guidelines below, evolution “is not science” either.

“Jones wrote that ID fails the science mark on three levels:

“- ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation.

“- The argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980s.

“- ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.

“He also wrote, ‘The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.’ For that reason, teaching ID violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, Jones ruled.”

[RWC] I recognize many of today’s judges have trouble with English as a first language, but this paragraph completely misrepresents what the so-called “establishment clause” of the 1^st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution actually says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” First, the amendment specifies Congress; it says nothing about local and state government. Second, the amendment specifies laws establishing religion. Explain to me how mentioning the possibility of creation is establishing religion. Third, the amendment also guarantees the free exercise of religion. It seems like 99% of the time, the people who pull the 1^st Amendment out of their pocket tend to forget the “free exercise” part.

Don’t get me wrong. I oppose official government religions at any level of government. My point above was to note what the Constitution actually says, not what some people want us to believe it says.

“But it’s important to understand that the Dover fight wasn’t about science. It was about the failure of far too many Americans to understand that science and religion occupy two different realms of human experience. Science is about what can be observed, tested and proven. Religion is about St. Augustine’s ‘faith of things which are not seen’ and his injunction ‘that even those things which are not seen are to be believed.’”

[RWC] Using the author’s own test, evolution cannot be taught either. Why? The author wrote, “Science is about what can be observed, tested and proven.” Evolution from primordial “soup” to humans cannot be “observed, tested and proven.” If it could, we would not label evolution a theory. I tend to believe in evolution, but that doesn’t mean I can prove it.

“Intelligent design and creationism can be taught in schools. They are perfectly acceptable in a class on comparative literature or religion. Jones acknowledged that. However, he ruled that ID had no place in ‘a public school science classroom.’

“Nor, contrary to popular myth, is religion banned from public schools. Students are allowed to form Bible clubs and participate in prayer groups. They are allowed to read their Bibles in their free time in school. They are allowed to discuss their faith with other students who are willing to do so. They are allowed to say grace before meals and to pray before tests. They are allowed to express their religious views in the form of reports, homework and artwork. They are allowed to distribute religious literature (in conformance with school policy). They are allowed to wear T-shirts, other garb and jewelry with religious messages (again, in conformance with overall school policy).”

[RWC] This is true, theoretically. In case the editorial author forgot, a Pennsylvania teacher lost her job because she wore a necklace with a cross. While a court eventually ruled in her favor, the case illustrates the problem. Schools are so scared of lawsuits by anti-religion fanatics, they generally end up acting unconstitutionally against displays of religious belief.

“Our schools are not religion-free zones, which makes one wonder what these people want, other than to turn our multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious representative democracy into a monolithic theocracy.”

[RWC] Wow, what a leap of illogic! The author wants only evolution taught, yet he claims those who want both evolution and creationism discussed are the ones who favor a monolithic presentation. I’ve asked this question before; do these guys read what they write?