ID gets pinned down in the classroom: lessons to take from the case

[solarbird]

This is what happens when the theoconservative movement gets examined in an arena where truth matters and words mean things. You get to see what's really going on in clear, precise, focused detail. You get to see the lies, the deceptions, the redefinition of words to mean their opposite, the demonisation of their opponents, the intimidation tactics the use, and finally, you get a judge who gets it.

Several excerpts from the decision are below, but I plead with you to read the entire decision, because it's kind of a very high-level survey of the fundamentalist movement. And I want to stress something:

Everything they've done here, they do everywhere.

These actions - these changing of words to mean their opposite, this stated revolutionary attempt to replace science with supernatural-causes thinking on every level of science, which they want to rebuild from the ground up ("entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design") - this absolute retreat from naturalism and observable reality to theology - these aren't the exception. They're the rule.

So when a theocon opens their mouth, remember Dover. Remember this case. Remember how they got taken apart when they were pinned down and under oath. Because it's all just like this. Everything is. If they open their mouths and say something, the odds are at least 50-50 that they are lying to advance their theocratic goal.

Please. Read it. It's double-spaced, so don't let the page count scare you. Here's a clear URL to a pdf of the full, unedited decision:

http://www.sciohost.org/ncse/kvd/kitzmiller_decision_20051220.pdf

Here're some excerpts. Footnoted material is between horizontal lines, and are reproduced in-line. Everything not a header here (all headers are both bold and italic) is verbatim from the decision.

---

Intelligent Design (ID) is, by definition, not science:

After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community. As we will discuss in more detail below, it is additionally important to note that ID has failed to gain acceptance in the scientific community, it has not generated peer-reviewed publications, nor has it been the subject of testing and research.

The goal of the ID as used by the theoconservative movement pushing it is to change science so that it is overridden by supernaturalistic theology:

It is notable that defense experts’ own mission, which mirrors that of the IDM itself, is to change the ground rules of science to allow supernatural causation of the natural world, which the Supreme Court in Edwards and the court in McLean correctly recognized as an inherently religious concept. Edwards, 482 U.S. at 591-92; McLean, 529 F. Supp. at 1267. First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to “change the ground rules” of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology. (28:26 (Fuller); 21:37-42 (Behe)). Moreover, defense expert Professor Minnich acknowledged that for ID to be considered science, the ground rules of science have to be broadened to allow consideration of supernatural forces. (38:97 (Minnich)).

Prominent IDM leaders are in agreement with the opinions expressed by defense expert witnesses that the ground rules of science must be changed for ID to take hold and prosper. William Dembski, for instance, an IDM leader, proclaims that science is ruled by methodological naturalism and argues that this rule must be overturned if ID is to prosper. (5:32-37 (Pennock)); P-341 at 224 (“Indeed, entire fields of inquiry, including especially in the human sciences, will need to be rethought from the ground up in terms of intelligent design.”).

The Discovery Institute, the think tank promoting ID whose CRSC developed the Wedge Document, acknowledges as “Governing Goals” to “defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies” and “replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” (P-140 at 4). In addition, and as previously noted, the Wedge Document states in its “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary” that the IDM’s goal is to replace science as currently practiced with “theistic and Christian science.” Id. at 6. The IDM accordingly seeks nothing less than a complete scientific revolution in which ID will supplant evolutionary theory. 14

---

14 Further support for this proposition is found in the Wedge Strategy, which is composed of three phases: Phase I is scientific research, writing and publicity; Phase II is publicity and opinion-making; and Phase III is cultural confrontation and renewal. (P-140 at 3). In the “Five Year Strategic Plan Summary,” the Wedge Document explains that the social consequences of materialism have been “devastating” and that it is necessary to broaden the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of ID. “Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.” Id. at 6. Phase I of the Wedge Strategy is an essential component and directly references “scientific revolutions.” Phase II explains that alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, “we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence that support the faith, as well as to ‘popularize’ our ideas in the broader culture.” Id. Finally, Phase III includes pursuing possible legal assistance “in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula.” Id. at 7.

---

More on why ID is, definitionally, not science: it is neither testable nor refutable:

Notably, every major scientific association that has taken a position on the issue of whether ID is science has concluded that ID is not, and cannot be considered as such. (1:98-99 (Miller); 14:75-78 (Alters); 37:25 (Minnich)). Initially, we note that NAS, the “most prestigious” scientific association in this country, views ID as follows:

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

Some of the tactics they use here, and everywhere else:

In analyzing such distortion, we turn again to Pandas, the book to which students are expressly referred in the disclaimer. Defendants hold out Pandas as representative of ID and Plaintiffs’ experts agree in that regard. (16:83 (Padian); 1:107-08 (Miller)). A series of arguments against evolutionary theory found in Pandas involve paleontology, which studies the life of the past and the fossil record. Plaintiffs’ expert Professor Padian was the only testifying expert witness with any expertise in paleontology. 15 His testimony therefore remains unrebutted. Dr. Padian’s demonstrative slides, prepared on the basis of peer-reviewing scientific literature, illustrate how Pandas systematically distorts and misrepresents established, important evolutionary principles.

We will provide several representative examples of this distortion. First, Pandas misrepresents the “dominant form of understanding relationships” between organisms, namely, the tree of life, represented by classification determined via the method of cladistics. (16:87-97 (Padian); P-855.6-855.19). Second, Pandas misrepresents “homology,” the “central concept of comparative biology,” that allowed scientists to evaluate comparable parts among organisms for classification purposes for hundreds of years. (17:27-40 (Padian); P-855.83-855.102). Third, Pandas fails to address the well-established biological concept of exaptation, which involves a structure changing function, such as fish fins evolving fingers and bones to become legs for weight-bearing land animals. (16:146-48 (Padian)). Dr. Padian testified that ID proponents fail to address exaptation because they deny that organisms change function, which is a view necessary to support abruptappearance. Id. Finally, Dr. Padian’s unrebutted testimony demonstrates that Pandas distorts and misrepresents evidence in the fossil record about preCambrian-era fossils, the evolution of fish to amphibians, the evolution of small carnivorous dinosaurs into birds, the evolution of the mammalian middle ear, and the evolution of whales from land animals. (16:107-17, 16:117-31, 16:131-45, 17:6-9, 17:17-27 (Padian); P-855.25-855.33, P-855.34-855.45, P-855.46-855.55, P-855.56-866.63, P-855.64-855.82).

In addition to Dr. Padian, Dr. Miller also testified that Pandas presents discredited science. Dr. Miller testified that Pandas’ treatment of biochemical similarities between organisms is “inaccurate and downright false” and explained how Pandas misrepresents basic molecular biology concepts to advance design theory through a series of demonstrative slides. (1:112 (Miller)). Consider, for example, that he testified as to how Pandas misinforms readers on the standard evolutionary relationships between different types of animals, a distortion which Professor Behe, a “critical reviewer” of Pandas who wrote a section within the book, affirmed. (1:113-17 (Miller); P-854.9-854.16; 23:35-36 (Behe)). 16 In addition, Dr. Miller refuted Pandas’ claim that evolution cannot account for new genetic information and pointed to more than three dozen peer-reviewed scientific publications showing the origin of new genetic information by evolutionary processes. (1:133-36 (Miller); P-245). In summary, Dr. Miller testified that Pandas misrepresents molecular biology and genetic principles, as well as the current state of scientific knowledge in those areas in order to teach readers that common descent and natural selection are not scientifically sound. (1:139-42 (Miller)).

And how they lie:

Although Baksa claims he does not recall Bonsell identifying “creationism” as the subject with which he wanted to share equal time with evolution, nor that Bonsell mentioned “creationism” at any time up until April 1, 2003, we do not find his testimony on this point to be credible. We accordingly find that Bonsell is clearly the unnamed Board member referred to in Peterman’s memo who wanted fifty percent of the topic of evolution to involve the teaching of creationism.

Apart from two consecutive Board retreats, Bonsell raised the issue of creationism on numerous other occasions as well. When he ran for the Board in 2001, Bonsell told Jeff Brown he did not believe in evolution, that he wanted creationism taught side-by-side with evolution in biology class, and that taking prayer and Bible reading out of school was a mistake which he wanted reinstated in the Dover public schools. (8:48-49 (J. Brown)). Subsequently, Bonsell told Jeff Brown he wanted to be on the Board Curriculum Committee because he had concerns about teaching evolution and he wanted to see some changes in that area. (8:55 (J. Brown)). Additionally, Nilsen complained to Jeff Brown that each Board President had a new set of priorities and Bonsell’s priority was that of creationism. (8:53 (J. Brown)). It is notable, and in fact incredible that Bonsell disclaimed any interest in creationism during his testimony, despite the admission by his counsel in Defendants’ opening statement that Bonsell had such an interest. (1:19). Simply put, Bonsell repeatedly failed to testify in a truthful manner about this and other subjects. Finally, Bonsell not only wanted prayer in schools and creationism taught in science class, he also wanted to inject religion into the social studies curriculum, as evidenced by his statement to Baksa that he wanted students to learn more about the Founding Fathers and providing Baksa with a book entitled Myth of Separation by David Barton. 22 (36:14-15, 17 (Baksa), P-179).

...

Finally, although Buckingham, Bonsell, and other defense witnesses denied the reports in the news media and contradicted the great weight of the evidence about what transpired at the June 2004 Board meetings, the record reflects that these witnesses either testified inconsistently, or lied outright under oath on several occasions, and are accordingly not credible on these points.

---

22 Moreover, in an email to one of the social studies teachers on October 19, 2004, the day after the Board passed the resolution at issue, Baksa said: “all kidding aside, be careful what you ask for. I’ve been given a copy of the Myth of Separation by David Barton to review from Board members. Social Studies curriculum is next year. Feel free to borrow my copy to get an idea where the board is coming from.” (36:14 (Baksa); P-91).

---

And how, given half a chance, they're burning material and suppressing evidence:

In the midst of this panoply, there arose the astonishing story of an evolution mural that was taken from a classroom and destroyed in 2002 by Larry Reeser, the head of buildings and grounds for the DASD. At the June 2004 meeting, Spahr asked Buckingham where he had received a picture of the evolution mural that had been torn down and incinerated. Jen Miller testified that Buckingham responded: “I gleefully watched it burn.” (12:118 (J. Miller)). Buckingham disliked the mural because he thought it advocated the theory of evolution, particularly common ancestry. (26:120 (Baksa)). Burning the evolutionary mural apparently was insufficient for Buckingham, however. Instead, he demanded that the teachers agree that there would never again be a mural depicting evolution in any of the classrooms and in exchange, Buckingham would agree to support the purchase of the biology textbook in need by the students. (36:56-57 (Baksa) (emphasis added)).

...

As we will discuss in more detail below, the inescapable truth is that both Bonsell and Buckingham lied at their January 3, 2005 depositions about their knowledge of the source of the donation for Pandas, which likely contributed to Plaintiffs’ election not to seek a temporary restraining order at that time based upon a conflicting and incomplete factual record. This mendacity was a clear and deliberate attempt to hide the source of the donations by the Board President and the Chair of the Curriculum Committee to further ensure that Dover students received a creationist alternative to Darwin’s theory of evolution. We are accordingly presented with further compelling evidence that Bonsell and Buckingham sought to conceal the blatantly religious purpose behind the ID Policy.

And an example of the religious campaign against dissent:

Board members and teachers opposing the curriculum change and its implementation have been confronted directly. First, Casey Brown testified that following her opposition to the curriculum change on October 18, 2004, Buckingham called her an atheist and Bonsell told her that she would go to hell. (7:94-95; 8:32 ©. Brown)). Second, Angie Yingling was coerced into voting for the curriculum change by Board members accusing her of being an atheist and unChristian. (15:95-97 (Sneath)). In addition, both Bryan Rehm and Fred Callahan have been confronted in similarly hostile ways, as have teachers in the DASD. (4:93-96 (B. Rehm); 8:115-16 (F. Callahan); 14:34-35 (Spahr)).

Finally, how it's all a big lie for, and justified by, their theology.

Although Defendants attempt to persuade this Court that each Board member who voted for the biology curriculum change did so for the secular purposed of improving science education and to exercise critical thinking skills, their contentions are simply irreconcilable with the record evidence. Their asserted purposes are a sham, and they are accordingly unavailing, for the reasons that follow.

We initially note that the Supreme Court has instructed that while courts are “normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham.” Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (citing Wallace, 472 U.S. at 64)(Powell, J., concurring); id. at 75 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Although as noted Defendants have consistently asserted that the ID Policy was enacted for the secular purposes of improving science education and encouraging students to exercise critical thinking skills, the Board took none of the steps that school officials would take if these stated goals had truly been their objective. The Board consulted no scientific materials. The Board contacted no scientists or scientific organizations. The Board failed to consider the views of the District’s science teachers. The Board relied solely on legal advice from two organizations with demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions, the Discovery Institute and the TMLC. Moreover, Defendants’ asserted secular purpose of improving science education is belied by the fact that most if not all of the Board members who voted in favor of the biology curriculum change conceded that they still do not know, nor have they ever known, precisely what ID is. To assert a secular purpose against this backdrop is ludicrous.

Finally, although Defendants have unceasingly attempted in vain to distance themselves from their own actions and statements, which culminated in repetitious, untruthful testimony, such a strategy constitutes additional strong evidence of improper purpose under the first prong of the Lemon test. As exhaustively detailed herein, the thought leaders on the Board made it their considered purpose to inject some form of creationism into the science classrooms, and by the dint of their personalities and persistence they were able to pull the majority of the Board along in their collective wake.

Any asserted secular purposes by the Board are a sham and are merely secondary to a religious objective. McCreary, 125 S. Ct. at 2735; accord, e.g., Santa Fe, 530 U.S. at 308 (“it is . . . the duty of the courts to ‘distinguish a sham secular purpose from a sincere one.’” (citation omitted)); Edwards, 482 U.S. at 586-87 (“While the Court is normally deferential to a State’s articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham.”). Defendants’ previously referenced flagrant and insulting falsehoods to the Court provide sufficient and compelling evidence for us to deduce that any allegedly secular purposes that have been offered in support of the ID Policy are equally insincere.

Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the 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.

Comments

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

I agree with what you're saying, here, and applaud the judge.

However, I would like to point out that as a moderate I see the same tactics of Doublespeak and the Big Lie being used by the far left, as well.

The polarization of politics in this country has led to the extremists on both sides being identical except in the details.

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

Sources?

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

Just look at any of the "blood in the streets" type of predictions from the far left about any measure which reduces restrictions on firearms ownership.

They've never come true, but the hoplophobes keep right on making them.

[annathepiper]

Saying you believe that there will be "blood in the streets" if firearms are not restricted is not the same thing as uttering "doublespeak" or outright lying, the way the defendants in this case did.

It's simply making a prediction. It might be a stupid prediction, and it might be inflammatory, but it's still just a prediction. A Far Right analog would be how civilization is going to fall apart if queer people are allowed to get married--which you'll also notice hasn't happened yet.

Doublespeak is when you try to dress up a concept in deliberately misleading language, to make the person it's addressed to think you're saying something else. I see no such sign of this in your example.

Nor do I see any sign of the kind of outright falsehood exhibited by the defendants in this case. These people didn't even have the grace to stand by their own beliefs when challenged on them in court.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

As you know, I've been a bit under the weather the past few days and am only now getting around to replying, since I had to search for some stuff.

For now, just two recent, related but not exactly parallel examples.

A Liberal New York judge has ignored a federal law protecting legally-operating manufacturers of firearms against harassment lawsuits and approved such a suit going forward.

After being taken to court over their efforts to disarm law-abiding New Orleans citizens, superintendent of police P. Edwin Compass and another city official denied issuing such orders. The judge almost laughed at them; like millions of others he'd seen the new broadcasts where they had made the statements. (Don't know their political alignments, and not sure if they were lying under oath.)

[annathepiper]

Er. Sorry, but I don't think either of these examples validate your point. When you say that the Far Left engages in "doublespeak" and "the Big Lie" as much as the Far Right and is therefore equally bad, you're basically saying at least to me that they're engaging in practices of active deceit. But neither of the examples you've presented here prove that.

The first example more strikes me as a case of "furthering a political agenda" rather than practicing deceit. It is clearly not an agenda you agree with, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean that judge is being deceitful. It just means he's ignoring a law. Which I will cheerfully grant is Bad, but it's not the same thing as engaging in doublespeak or a "Big Lie".

The second example can't validate your argument either if you don't even know the political inclinations of the involved parties. For all you know, they might consider themselves conservatives. ;) I will, again cheerfully, grant that lying about statements they themselves publically made is incredibly slimy. But it's again not quite the same thing as a "Big Lie" presented by a political or religious movement such as Intelligent Design, wherein the lies are beyond the level of an individual's actions. "Evolution and creationism are diametrically opposed and if you believe in one, you can't believe in the other" is an example of an ID "Big Lie".

Dara tells me that when it comes to the gun control movement, actually, yeah, they're just as guilty as fundamentalists of engaging in these kinds of practices. But can you point at examples of doublespeak or Big Lies outside the gun control movement?

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

What "blood in the streets" types of predictions? I know lots of liberals and leftists and I've never once heard that kind of prediction from any of them in my 36 years.

I don't think there's a left-wing position on gun control in the first place. There are some middle-of-the-road urban liberals (not the "far left") who don't like guns because their only experience with guns is their use in street violence, but most actual leftists aren't haplophobes. There are plenty of pro-gun or gun-neutral leftists.

I see a lot more alarmism by gun rights fundamentalists who claim that guns are necessary to protect against government tyranny, but are usually the same people supporting government tyranny on everything but guns. They're the ones who seem to think every slight gun regulation is another step toward totalitarianism. The sad fact is that authoritarian forms of government as often allow private gun ownership and use private gun owners to help enforce their authority as they ban them outright. In America, private gun owners have been key to lynchings and strike-breakings throughout history, and are often used to intimidate or kill political activists.

The fact is, guns have a neutral effect on liberty in this country on balance. Their use shouldn't be infringed, because our constitution should mean something and if our society doesn't want people to own guns freely we have an amendment process that must be used first. Their use should also not be infringed because, like any tool or hobby, people should be free to own and use guns so long as they aren't infringing on the rights of anyone else.

Guns aside, if you focus on the real political issues in this country, all of the power and most of the abuse of rhetoric is coming from one side. The political centrists are mostly cowed and silent, the mainstream liberals are spineless and accommodating, and there is almost no real left to speak of in this country, much less one to speak of as a "side" on par with the right wing monolith that stands astride the country right now. To even speak of "both sides" in the current climate is absurd.

[solarbird]

I don't have primary sources for this, so take it with the standard grain of salt, but I do remember hearing such things from the sort of centre-left crowd you describe. In particular, I remember after Florida adopted concealed-carry, there was a lot of that sort of blood-in-the-streets level of rhetoric. I think I remember specifically some people going on about how European tourists should get warnings upon arrival in the US not to travel to Florida, crap like that.

As someone who has fought in this arena as well, I have to say that the best echo I've seen for the fundamentalist tactics set has been in the harder-line gun-control crowd. You see a lot of the same "truth"-selection criteria there, too; in particular, the "we are a priori correct, therefore, if a factoid supports our position, it must also be valid, reality be damned" approach to what is and isn't true shows up quite a lot, as does the tendency to recycle bad data in new forms to make it look shiny and new.

Mind you, for banner, anybody to the left of Joe Lieberman is pretty much "hard left." (HI BANNER! It's true, don't deny it. ^_^ )

[llachglin.livejournal.com]

I'm not saying they're not out there, just that their numbers are so small that I don't notice them, and even though I spend hours each week keeping tabs of left-leaning politics, the issue of guns hardly comes up at all and when it does it's as likely to be a liberal supporting gun rights than not. A good example is Daily Kos--while anti-gun folks are certainly present there, the prevailing position on guns tends to range from hard libertarian to leaving it up to individual states and cities to make regulations (or not) appropriate for each locality. But the issue rarely comes up. It's simply not a concern of the mainstream activist left, and much less so for the hard left.

I have no doubt that there are anti-gun nuts out there. I'm aware of them, but they're a marginal issue-based constituency without significant connections to other political groups. They're noticeable to anyone who pays attention to the gun issue, obviously, but the point I'm trying to make is that the entire issue of guns, if you're not a gun rights supporter or anti-gun extremist, doesn't register as an important one. And, as a moderate on the issue, I see dishonesty and extreme rhetoric as common tactics among both supporters and opponents of unregulated gun ownership.

I should also point out that in this case, I wasn't responding to banner, so his views on what makes up the hard left aren't relevant in this case.

[mathmuffin.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the information.

The only rational argument I have seen for the Intelligent Design theory is that we Christians are irritated that our view of creation is rejected a priori by the scientific community without a chance to make our case. Judge Kitzmiller's statement, "ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation," is an example of that automatic rejection. It is like the Patent Office automatically rejecting patents for perpetual motion machines. It saves the office a lot of useless paperwork, but it is truly frustrating to the inventor who just build an honest-to-goodness working perpetual motion machine.

However, Intelligent Design fails even that one valid reason in two ways. First, the proper place to argue that point is in the scientific community, not the classroom. Second, Creationism has been measured scientifically before. It failed. It is ironic that the ID textbook is named Of Pandas and People, because Stephen Jay Gould's The Panda's Thumb is a good refutation of Creationism.

By stripping the religious content out of Creationism to create Intelligent Design, all that is left is a hollow meaningless shell. Judge Kitzmiller sees that any attempt to fill that shell fills it with Creationism. On page 25 of the decision, the judge says, "Although proponents of the IDM occasionally suggest that the designer could be a space alien or a time-traveling cell biologist, no serious alternative to God as the designer has been proposed by members of the IDM, including Defendant's expert witnesses." It is embarrassing to me to see other Christians support this stripped and meaningless theory in the name of Christianity, especially while simultaneously denying that they are doing it for Christianity.

Erin Schram

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Science "rejects" the Christian view of Creation because the Christian view of Creation is not a scientific concept. Scientific concepts must both be testable and falsifiable, and supernatural causation is neither. Saying that science rejects God is like saying that economics rejects dancing; it's not disproving it, it just has nothing to do with it whatsoever.

[mathmuffin.livejournal.com]

Oops, the decision is by Judge Jones. I got the name of the case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, mixed up with the name of the judge. Sorry about that.

Various views of Creation are testable. For example, a God who loved logical order would create species on a logical system. Instead we have a mishmash of species that looked like they evolved from species designed for other ecological niches. So that version of Creation is false.

Likewise, if God manifested a pillar of fire in front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., and boomed out, "I am the Lord your God," then that would be scientifically observable evidence for God (not conclusive evidence, since it could be that some prankster invented a large-scale hologram projector).

However, God seems to operate on a private basis during these modern days. Asking scientists to judge God on that basis is like asking them to evaulate a stage magician's magic tricks. Too much is hidden behind the curtain for a fair evaluation. So we Christians should simply apologize for the lack of evidence and try to avoid troubling the scientists.

Nevertheless, to say that by definition God must be supernatural and science doesn't cover the supernatural is to argue from a tautology rather than from facts. It is as bad as some of Thomas Aquinas's arguments from logic that God must exist, such aa, "God is perfect, and non-existance would be a flaw in that perfection; therefore, God must exist." Immanuel Kant managed to disprove all of them.

As for economics and dancing, I am sure that anyone who runs a dance studio business has great concern for the economics of dancing.

Erin Schram

[flirtaciousj.livejournal.com]

What about the politics of dancing?

Or the politics of mmmm feeling good?

[solarbird]

Don't forget the politics of moving - at least, not if you want your message understood.

[kathrynt.livejournal.com]

Various views of Creation are testable. For example, a God who loved logical order would create species on a logical system.

That's not testable. That's a supposition. How would you falsify that statement? How would you test it?

Likewise, if God manifested a pillar of fire in front of the Capitol in Washington, D.C., and boomed out, "I am the Lord your God," then that would be scientifically observable evidence for God.

Not really. It would be scientifically observable evidence that a pillar of fire appeared in front of the Capitol and said "I am the Lord your God."

God is not testable. God is not falsifiable. Science is only concerned with things that are falsifiable and testable. QED. If it's your contention that God IS falsifiable and testable, please describe the tests for me!

As for economics and dancing, I am sure that anyone who runs a dance studio business has great concern for the economics of dancing.

COMPLETELY missing the point. Dancing may have economic components, but economics says nothing about dancing. Mathematics says nothing about love. Science says nothing about God.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

Science is about What and How. Religion is about Why.

And when either steps into the realm of the other, the results are always nonsensical from the purpose of that realm, and often laughable.

[annathepiper]

Nevertheless, to say that by definition God must be supernatural and science doesn't cover the supernatural is to argue from a tautology rather than from facts.

But the problem, Erin, is that when it comes to God, you can't argue based on facts. You can only argue based on belief. There is no objective evidence that the Christian God exists, any more than there is evidence that anyone else's deity exists.

So trying to make a scientific argument based on something that is inherently subjective just can't work. You may believe that God created the world, and that's fine, but you can't objectively prove that your belief is any more factual than a Muslim who is claiming that Allah created the world, or a pagan who's claiming that Zeus or Odin or any other deity did it. You can certainly look at the world and decide for yourself that what you're seeing is indirect evidence of God at work, and again, that's fine.

But since countless millions of people all over the world are looking at the very same world and interpreting it differently than you, seeing evidence of different deities at work, science has no way of objectively saying who's right. The only thing science can do is look at the concrete physical evidence that's before us. It's the only fair and rational thing to do.

Note: I'm saying this as someone who has called herself an agnostic for most of her life, but who was raised Christian. I'm familiar with the concepts of the religion, and I have a healthy respect for the power of faith even today. I absolutely understand that faith is a force that humanity often needs to get through hard times. And I am not, repeat, NOT, repeat, NOT trying to knock your faith.

But I am trying to say that from a scientific standpoint, there just isn't any way to objectively measure what your faith is telling you.

[mathmuffin.livejournal.com]

Sometimes I forget how strange my relgious beliefs are. The other people at church are amused and confused by me. Sometimes I wonder why they let me teach Sunday School. I suspect it is because to me Lutheran Christianity is fun.

I like testing my faith. I like to see how God interacts with the world and analyzing those interactions with the mathematical tools developed for science. You say there is only indirect evidence, not direct evidence. That is true, but I know how to analyze indirect evidence.

To me faith is not blind belief. "Faith" is an old word for "trust." I trust God, because he has earned my trust. If he demanded my trust without earning it, I would not be a Christian.

Erin Schram

[elfs.livejournal.com]

To say that by definition God must be supernatural and science doesn't cover the supernatural is to argue from a tautology rather than from facts.

Nonsense. If he's not supernatural then he is not God. (I find the whole idea of the "supernatural" a bit absurd: either God himself operates on some regularities, in which case what God is can be codified and replicated, or he does not, in which case His actions are indistinguishable from randomness.)

The whole intent of science is to push back the natural models as far as they possibly can. For science to invoke the "supernatural" as an explanation is to destroy science: to allow it is to allow any investigation to end with the phrase, "God did it, that's the way it is."

That's not science. That's a rejection of science.

[loopback.livejournal.com]

It's worth pointing out that because something is not of the natural world, it doesn't mean that it doesn't operate on some regularities.

It just means that those regularities (whatever they may be) are not testable within the Natural World. Which is why any "theory" that involves the invocation of God, Satan, Underpants Gnomes, or a giant red space aardvark will not be a scientific theory.

[jarandhel.livejournal.com]

Various views of Creation are testable. For example, a God who loved logical order would create species on a logical system. Instead we have a mishmash of species that looked like they evolved from species designed for other ecological niches. So that version of Creation is false.

That assumes, of course, that our idea of logical order from our limited perspective and god's idea of logical order from an infinite perspective would necessarily match enough for us to recognize god's version of order when we see it.

[waysofseeing.livejournal.com]

Also, the judge in this case brought up an important point that's getting widely ignored. There is an inherent assumption in evangelical Christianity that evolution and Christian belief, or more broadly, science and religion, are polar opposites that cannot be reconciled. That's not the case.

My father is a devout Christian and a longtime professor of microbiology. He sees no conflict between evolution and his beliefs. In fact, it gives him more respect for God, that He would create a complex and wonderful system like evolution to allow His creation to grow and change.

[(Anonymous)]

While the rank and file of the Church may feel all this is an issue of faith, even of a particualrly slavish and willfully ignorant form of faith, the leaders of this movement are not so encumbered. This is all part of a power play, the aquiring and asserting of socio-political influence, not for any greater good (despite its various labels) but for the self-serving authoritarian desires fort the various players. "Bible Nazi" is an inflamitory destraction, but it is not so far away from the dark hearts of these so-called "christians", who want a nation of ignorant, impassioned, and obediant bible-bearing stormtroopers to crush any real Christ-based notions as well as all those goddless types.

[stickmaker.livejournal.com]

Actually, once you take the poetic language and the vagaries of translation into account, Genesis can be seen as a flowery-phrased description of the creation of the Solar System and the appearance of life on Earth.

God is described as putting living things on Earth in an ordered sequence through time. (The Hebrew word translated into English word "day" can, like day, mean something besides a 24 hour period. Hebrew scholars say than in context this second meaning is obviously how it is used. So the whole "created in six days" bit doesn't mean what most think it does.) It even has the various living things appearing in the same order (at least from one interpretation of the Hebrew phrasing) as predicted by evolution and verified by the fossil record.

That's right. The Bible teaches evolution. :-)