Intelligent Design

ACLU: America’s Intellectual Terrorists

Spread the love

“… public schools should not be used by people to teach their personal religious beliefs to other people’s children…”

I agree. So when is the ACLU going to protect our children from being told they are unplanned and have no purpose and must believe the religion of Dawkin’s god?

First prizes in the worldwide competition for most hypocritical religious zealots and most vile intellectual terrorists go to the ACLU.

read here…

39 Replies to “ACLU: America’s Intellectual Terrorists

  1. 1
    charles1859 says:

    Dawkin’s god? I missed something here. I thought Dawkin was an atheist meaning “without god.” What’s the point?

  2. 2
    Marckus says:

    So you’re saying that science is a religion?

  3. 3
    Jack Krebs says:

    I don’t believe that students in schools are being taught that they are unplanned and there is no God. Dawkins et al may say that, but Dawkin’s metaphysics is not being taught as science. In fact, I recently heard an ACLU lawyer tell an audience that if there were a science teacher teaching that students were purposeless accidents and that science showed there were no God, the ACLU would be first in line to take them to court.

    If that’s true then what is the meaning of this in the Kansas Science Standards: “Biological evolution postulates an unguided natural process that has no discernable direction or goal.” (G8-12,S3,B3,I1)”. -ds

  4. 4
    Patrick says:

    Chance?

  5. 5
    Aquinas says:

    Off topic question: is Dembski a theologian?

  6. 6
    Aquinas says:

    Clarification: Is he a theologian in the sense that he’s a mathematician and a philosopher?

  7. 7
    jerry says:

    For comments 1 and 2.

    Darwinism has many similarities with religion. It is faith based. It has a creation myth. Many adherents including Dawkins say that Darwinism has implications for God and creation. Also its adherents have an unusual preoccupation with religion and are constantly making up stories about its mythical powers. If you try to challenge any of the tenets there is an inquisition that immediately ostracizes you and threatened your livelihood. Not quite like the early 1500’s but there are some similarities. It is not science since it does not use the scientific method to establish most of it’s premises but requires belief in unproven events. I am sure there are other similarities with religion.

    One funny line someone had on another forum was that Darwinism is the only religion that lies to itself.

    I believe Bill Demski has a theology degree or at least has studied theology at Princeton. But others can answer that better.

    The NeoDarwinian Evolutionist (NDEist) priesthood isn’t honest with themselves? Say it ain’t so! 😉 -ds

  8. 8
    egbooth says:

    DS, you may want to point out in your response to Jack Krebs that the only reason the word “unguided” is in the new Kansas Science Standards is because of the pro-ID community, specifically committee member Kathy Martin, who explicity added it. In fact, if you read through the Kansas science hearings held last May, you would have found scientists such as Steve Case arguing against the use of the word unguided in the standards.
    Even though many Dawkins-esque scientists try to insert the word “unguided” in their discussions about evolution, it is abundantly clear that in this case the only reason they are in the science standards is to create a false duality between science and religion. This is how you pro-ID folks love to add fire to the “Darwin=religion” fire.
    You have to remember DS, this is the one thing that I, Jack Krebs, a vast majority of the scientific community, and you all agree on: Any mention of “unguided” (in the supernatural sense) within any science lesson is completely meaningless and should not be used. That’s good isn’t it? Agreement. How ’bout a big group hug for that one?
    You’ve mentioned before in this blog that this is ID’s primary purpose (to remove any mention of “unguided” in science class) so why don’t you just take the troops off the line and call it a victory for everyone? We finally agree.

    Evidently you aren’t aware of the Wiesel 38 (38 Nobel laureates) who wrote a letter to the Kansas BoE saying, among other things, that evolution is understood to be an unguided, unplanned process. While I certainly agree that unguided is unscientific who are we to argue with 38 Nobel Prize Winners on what neoDarwinian theory is understood to be? Kansas included in the science standard a definition of evolution that 38 of the world’s greatest scientists said was the definition. Now if you’re quite through demonstrating to us how uninformed anti-ID knee-jerkers describe the “controversy” you can crawl back under whatever rock it was you came from. Or you can apologize and all will be forgiven. Your choice. -ds

  9. 9
    DaveScot says:

    Doug Moran

    The Peanut Gallery noticed you! Congratulations!

    http://www.antievolution.org/c.....274;st=630

    Near the bottom of the page. Comment by “Drunk” SteveStory.

    I love our Peanut Gallery. They’re just so cute and cuddly. Cherish them, Doug. We won’t have them forever. Toys wear out.

  10. 10
    Jack Krebs says:

    We, the majority on the science committee, did not write that line – in fact we rejected it in committee by a 2:1 margin

    Egbooth is right. The phrase about “unguided” was added by the ID Minority on the writing committee and adopted by the Board. It is an unwarranted metaphysical addition made by the ID Minority. The majority of the writing committee (of which I am a member) believe that evolutionary theory, or science in general, can only study the physical world in a limited way, and that judging whether there is or isn’t divine guidance (as the word is meant to imply in the standards) is outside the scope of science.

    And yes I know about the letter from the Nobel 38, and about Dawkins, etc. If the Nobel 38 meant to make a statement about metaphysical or divine guidance, then, despite what ever well-meaning intentions they had, they were not talking about science and not talking for science. More importantly, they are not teaching Kansas school children.

    So, going back to the topic of the thread: if a teacher were to actually explicitly teach the position stated in the line added by the ID Minority (that evolution was a unguided process from a theological view, and that therefore students were accidents with no intrinsic purpose because there is no God), the ACLU would be first in line to support a suit against them, and Kansas Citizens for Science would support them.

  11. 11
    John Davison says:

    Dichard Rawkins IS God. I thought everybody knew that. He is most recently holding up Einstein as his model, apparently quite unaware of what Einstein thought about the likes of him.

    “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source… They are creatures who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”

    Long before Einstein Thomas Henry Huxley said the same thing.

    “Of all the senseless babble I have ever had the occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove there is no God.”

    I love it so!

  12. 12
    SteveB says:

    egbooth,

    While on one level I understand your resistance to the word unguided, I don’t think it can be justified intellectually. Reality (what science seeks to describe and understand) has implications.

    Consider the following expert quotation: (one of MANY that I could have dug up, had I been that motivated)
    “Modern science directly implies that the world is organized strictly in accordance with deterministic principles or chance. There are no purposive principles whatsoever in nature. There are no gods and no designing forces that are rationally detectable. The frequently made assertion that modern biology and the assumptions of the Judaeo-Christian tradition are fully compatible is false.” William B. Provine, “Progress in Evolution and Meaning in Life,” in Evolutionary Progress, ed. Matthew H. Nitecki (University of Chicago Press, 1988), p. 65

    If the continual and constant drumbeat of the pro-Darwin crowd is true that there is no design and no Designer, then what alternatives do we have? Dawkins for all of his obnoxious bluster is at least someone who understands that his naturalism has implications. Seems to me to be pretty clear that if there’s no Design, no Plan and no Guide, then what we’re left with is, well, undesigned, unplanned and unguided.

    And your argument is not with the advocates of ID, but with the clear implications of darwinism itself.

  13. 13
    DaveScot says:

    Jack

    You say no teachers in Kansas teach that evolution is an unguided process yet the science standards direct them to. Are they breaking the law? Please explain. I don’t understand why the standards exist if teachers are free to ignore them.

    The fact of the matter is that NeoDarwinian evolution IS understood to be an unguided, unplanned process. Random mutation + natural selection is by definition unguided and unplanned. Whether you explicitely use the words unguided/unplanned or not the effect is the same if you teach RM+NS in a vacuum that includes no criticism or possibility of other mechanisms underlying evolution. If RM+NS is all there is behind evolution then the Wiesel 38 are quite right about how it’s understood.

    Now, in light of the fact that RM+NS has never been observed doing the grand things it is claimed to be responsible for (the creation of new cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans) and while in fact RM+NS has only been observed accomplishing vastly smaller changes (finch beak size, moth pigmentation, etc.), is it warranted that an extravagant extrapolation of an unguided, unplanned process be taught in the absence of criticism or other proposed mechanisms? I don’t believe RM+NS warrants uncritical exclusivity. However, I’m glad you seem to recognize that its exalted position as the all-powerful mechanism is a claim driven by metaphysics instead of the empirical evidence.

  14. 14
    Red Reader says:

    Back on Doug’s Topic, from the article:
    “”As Ohio students compete with people from other states and nations for jobs in science and technology, allowing the teaching of intelligent design as a science standard will diminish their ability to compete in the economy,” [ACLU of Ohio Legal Director] Jeffrey Gamso said.”

    Is this fear engendering prediction based on facts? I think not.

    The most recent “Nation’s Report Card” on science education in the U.S. available from the National Center for Education Statistics is from the year 2000. The NCES began testing in 1996.

    Question: Who has had a monopoly in the public schools for the last 100 years?

    Answer and Results of: the Darwinian monopoly of science in public schools
    Science Test scores for 12th graders continued their downward spiral from 1996 to 2000.
    In 1996, 43% of 12th graders scored “Below Basic” and 79% tested Less Than “Proficient”.
    In 2000, 47% scored “Below Basic” and 81% tested Less Than “Proficient”.
    (source: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsrepo.....ve-g12.asp )

    If two data points don’t make a trend, 81% below “proficient” is a trend all by itself. The ACLU’s charge that students will have worse test scores if ID is taught *along side* of Darwinism in schools is ludicrous AT BEST.

    Here’s why:
    The horrible result of Darwinian browbeating public school students is that students shun science; they abhor it, they avoid it at all costs.

    On the other hand, look at the interest of students in biology professor Caroline Crocker’s Biology 101 class. scordova posted this Washingtom Post article from Feb. 5, 2006: http://www.uncommondescent.com.....chives/779

    When I read the article, the thing that glared most obviously to me was the interest of the students in Prof. Crocker’s insurgency against Darwinism:
    (Read the whole story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....00822.html )

    Contrary to the ACLU’s assertion, ID would be a BOON to science education, not a detriment to it.

    My comments on scordova’s post
    ….
    If anything jumps out of the first 15 paragraphs, it is the reporter’s observation of the intense and immediate attention Crocker drew from the students when she started her lecture.

    Prior to the lecture: “they fully expected to hear what students usually hear”. Same ol’ same ol’. The 3 hour credit is required for graduation, otherwise many students would just as soon skip the class. Perhaps basket weaving would be more interesting.

    But once the lecture started: “The students leaned forward.” “Ripples of excitement spread through the class.” “Gasps and giggles burst out.” “The students sat stunned.”

    Neither was the science lecture gratuitous. Science came alive again–or maybe for the first time for some of the students.

    Evidence, observation, experimataion–SCIENCE! “Crocker brought up a new slide. She told the students there were two kinds of evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is easily seen in any microbiology lab. Grow bacteria in a petri dish; destroy half with penicillin; and allow the remainder to repopulate the dish. [snip]….”
    ….
    This article illustrates the pent-up interest students have for real science as opposed to dogma.

  15. 15
    SteveB says:

    Indeed. Nothing stifles interest and intellectual curiosity more than an entrenched bureaucracy telling students that they’re not allowed to critically examine the established orthodoxy. Kudos to RedReader for an excellent summary.
    -sb

  16. 16
    GilDodgen says:

    DaveScot: “…and while in fact RM+NS has only been observed accomplishing vastly smaller changes (finch beak size, moth pigmentation, etc.)…”

    Dave,

    In fact, RM+NS has not even been shown to be responsible for these trivial changes. The genetic information for the variation in moth coloration and finch beak size almost certainly existed in the populations to begin with, which is why the populations reverted to their original form when environmental conditions reverted to their original state. Thus, while natural selection played a role, random mutation did not. If it did, what a marvelous coincidence that new random mutations came along on schedule to reverse the effects of the first random mutations.

    Jack Krebs, Eugenie Scott, et. al., are passionate about not mentioning the unplanned, unguided and purposeless aspect of Darwinian theory (even though it is there, both explicitly and implicitly) for a very simple reason: Neo-Darwinism advocates have been caught with their pants down peddling nihilistic metaphysics to other people’s children. They know they’ll eventually be kicked out of public education on First Amendment grounds if they are exposed for what they are.

    P.S.: NDE also stands for Near-Death Experience. I wonder if there is a correlation.

  17. 17
    John Davison says:

    Beak size in Darwin’s Finches is correlated with rainfall and accordingly the size of the seeds of the plants on whch they feed. Such changes have nothing to do with evolution. They are all apparently a single species which just happens to have a reserve of variabilty.

  18. 18
    DaveScot says:

    The reserve of variability seems to be limited to scale and cosmetics. Look at the variability in dogs from 20,000 years of unnatural selection for unusual characters. We have short legs/long bodies and long legs/short bodies, floppy ears and upright ears, short tails and long tails, long fur and short fur, coarse fur and fine fur, dark fur and light fur. But not a single retractable claw, pupil that isn’t round, or anything else that isn’t canine. And they’re all still able to interbreed to produce fertile hybrids. This is probably the best demonstration available of the limits of random mutation + natural selection.

  19. 19
    Michaels7 says:

    I would like to know why the ID minority insisted upon the language. Can anyone answer that without getting to overheated?

    Evolution IS understood by the academy to be an unguided process. The academy after all is dominated by atheists. -ds

  20. 20
    Red Reader says:

    Michael:
    Is Darwinism religious?

    Leading modern evolutionist Michael Ruse recently published a book titled, “The Evolution-Creation Struggle”. (see: http://www.icr.org/index.php?m.....38;ID=2604 )

    In the book’s prologue, Ruse makes this statement: “In particular, I argue that in both evolution and creation we have rival religious responses to a crisis of faith—rival stories of origins, rival judgments about the meaning of human life, rival sets of moral dictates….”

  21. 21
    Michaels7 says:

    Red, I think Darwinism exhibits different facits of a religious nature which turn it into a form of idol worship for some at the alter of materialism. I think many reasons have been documented here and as you quote, Ruse pointed out. I wouldn’t call it a formal religion however until hymn books are distributed, praise lifted up in formal meetings, people are married by Evolutionist Ministers and Missionary’s are sent abroad to dangerous places and miraculous healings take place. 😉

    My question arose did not understand the intentions. But after reading the comments again, it appears they’re forcing the evolutionist into certain admissions.

  22. 22
    jerry says:

    Michaels7

    It is a joke, saying that Darwinism is a religion. Everybody understands that here. They do not have prayers, clerics, hymns, rituals etc as you say. But they do act like zealots in many ways that is similar to a lot of religious groups. Darwinism is certainly a movement that is definitely faith based as opposed to data based and is one of the most close minded groups you will ever run in to.

    Because it is faith based it should be removed from the science curriculum and replaced by science.

  23. 23
    egbooth says:

    DaveScot,
    If I don’t get a response from you as to why my comments are being censored, I will be forced to start spreading the word about your actions. This is absolutely inexcusable and hypocritical. I have done nothing to get myself banned!

    egbooth

    Well let’s run down the list. Pick any one or more of the following: trite, derivative, boring, ignorant, wrong, hysterical, hyperbolic… read the comment moderation policy on the sidebar. I’m under no obligation to provide you with a soapbox. You got a chance to speak your mind. Now take it somewhere else. -ds

  24. 24
    dougmoran says:

    DaveScot: I love peanuts too. But let’s focus on that mullet. My wife’s nephew has published a song about this uniquely American hair style. The chorus is noteworthy: “Business in the front, and party in the back.”

    I take the referenced peanut gallery response with special glee. I learned at a very young age that attacks based on mispelling my last name meant only one thing: I had already won the debate. Punch me in the nose all you want, the debate is the only thing that matters in then end.

  25. 25
    dougmoran says:

    Michaels7:

    It might help to distinguish Darwinism from evolutionary theory. The former is a philosophical viewpoint, the latter is a scientific theory. The problem occurs when believers of Darwinism place their philosophical bias ahead of scientific honesty. When that happens, most folks would call it religion, and it is unconstitutional as a subject for science courses.

    So I vote for outlawing the teaching of the philosophy of Darwinism as science and encourage lively and honest pursuit of scientific truth, including evolution and ID theories. But I have no objection to teaching Darwinism – the phylosophy – in religion or philosophy courses.

  26. 26
    egbooth says:

    Why don’t you put up my original comment that I posted this morning and let your reader’s decide whether I was on a soapbox or not.

    I’m an editor. My job is to make people’s words disappear before others see them.

    You’re blaming Panda’s Thumb for being censors…how is this any different?

    I’m up front about it. A bold-lettered statement above every comment submission box says comments are moderated. Comment moderation policy is in the sidebar on the right.

    The least you can do, DS, is tell me why…

    I don’t have the time.

    Give me a chance. You may find out that we agree on more than you think (e.g., getting Atheism out of science).

    You get a chance with every comment. I don’t stop anyone from submitting them. If I don’t think it’s constructive for any reason it gets flushed.

    I will however see about putting a link to the moderation policy above the comment submission form so it’s clear what the rules are. -ds

  27. 27

    Uncommon Descent, the ACLU and “Unguided” Evolution

    All of my favorite subjects rolled into one. Over at Uncommon Descent, Doug Moran reacted to the ACLU threatening to sue the Toledo school district for allowing the teaching of ID by declaring them to be the “most vile intellectual…

  28. 28
    TWood says:

    Hello,

    This being my first post, I would like to set the moderator at ease and say that, as an architect, I see an implied hand at work in a good design. However, I don’t think much can yet be said about the specific intent of The Hand. Put me in the ‘It’s an ongoing process.’ camp.

    I would like to ask a question though. This line of thought confuzzles me: “that evolution was a unguided process from a theological view, and that therefore students were accidents with no intrinsic purpose because there is no God”

    With no intrinsic purpose because there is no God. I don’t see the automatic connection between having an intrinsic purpose and God. Even without a God our lives have the intrinsic purpose to continue life, as does all life. And even if we don’t procreate directly, our actions have an impact on the society at large, which in turns affects life on the planet.

    Is the concern that unless students are taught that they have intrinsic purpose that they will become bad people?

    TW

  29. 29
    John Davison says:

    I am still offering some serious money that a cross between a Chihuahua and a great Dane will produce fertile offspring in either direction. If the Chihuahua is the bitch and Great Dane is the son of a bitch sire that Chihuahua bitch will deliver a single fertile puppy. If the Chihuahua is the son of a bitch sire and the Great Dane is the bitch that Great Dane bitch will deliver a large litter all of whom will prove to be fertile.

    A spontaneous cross was reported by Winge in his book “Inheritance in Dogs” involving a St Bernard son of a bitch sire and a Dachshund bitch. That Dachshund bitch delivered a single puppy who proved to be a fertile bitch herself. The only problem was that the bitch had inherited the large body from her St Bernard son of a bitch father sire and the short legs from her Dachshund bitch mother. As a result her belly dragged on the ground during her pregnancy and had to be protected by towels. Her name was “Rollmops.”

    Isn’t it sad that such terms a term as bitch and son of a bitch should derive from animals as nice as dogs? It doesn’t seem right somehow. I enjoy talking about dog genetics because it gives me a wonderful opportunity to bitch a little.

    I love it so!

    Edits by management. A male dog is called a sire.

  30. 30
    John Davison says:

    I know that but he is also a son of a bitch, of that you can be certain. Lord, a man can’t have any fun any more. At least you didn’t delete the words. Thanks for that anyway. Furthermore, a male dog is not a sire until he has successfully serviced a bitch. Until he has he is just another dog. Words have meaning. Don’t misuse them please.

  31. 31
    John Davison says:

    Speaking of dogs, would someone here who is still allowed to post at “After The Bar Closes” please inform those sons of bitches that I am responding to their comments about me at the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread on the side bar. I would do it myself but I have been denied that opportunity by Field Marshal Esley Welsberry and his email is no longer valid. Thanks.

    I love it so!

  32. 32
    John Davison says:

    Thank you avocationist for doing what I just requested. How have you managed to survive at both forums?

  33. 33
    John Davison says:

    America’s most dangerous intellectual terrorist is Al Gore going over to Saudi Arabia of all places to criticize this great nation and its purposes.

  34. 34
    Michaels7 says:

    I’ll go you one better John. Jimmy Carter 1) Iran, 444 days, 2) Oil embargo, 3) Inflation, unemployment, 4)Norway, PLO, Arafat, Hamas, Hizbollah, 5) Chavez 6) C.S. King’s funeral 7) He’ll eventually say Satan himself ran fair elections.

    Everywhere Jimmy has gone, destruction is soon to follow.
    Its scary.

  35. 35
    John Davison says:

    Poor Jimmy Carter just can’t accept the fact that he is a loser. Al Gore suffers from the same syndrome.

  36. 36
    clbell says:

    “So when is the ACLU going to protect our children from being told they are unplanned and have no purpose and must believe the religion of Dawkin’s god?”

    Only the weak minded need a god to have a purpose in life. I make my own purpose. Why don’t you?

    Comeon clbel, you can do better than that. -dm

  37. 37
    Tina says:

    Biological systems are “self-guided” by the determinations of their DNA.

    This is “design intelligence” rather than intelligent design.

  38. 38
    Tina says:

    This place is deserted – no one visited since 18 Feb 2006. So what on earth am I doing here????

  39. 39
    Patrick says:

    Try the front page?

Leave a Reply