The Dover Intelligent Design Decision, Part III: Compatibility

The court’s opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District declares, “Both Defendants and many of the leading proponents of ID make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false.  Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a supreme being and to religion in general.”  The court speaks repeatedly of this “false duality” and “contrived dualism.” 

Natural selection is compatible with the idea that a supreme being created life in a one-celled organism and then stepped aside.  Darwin’s description of life as “having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one” hinted at this quasi-deist vision.  The mechanism that evolutionary biologists posit to explain later developments, however, attributes all life forms other than the first to random mutation against an environmental background composed, in significant part, of other life forms shaped by random mutation.  Complex life forms are the product of a mindless rather than a purposeful process.  All of our own species’ characteristics, mental and physical, exist only because, at some point, they furthered our ancestors’ reproductive success.  Although evolution itself poses no challenge to the idea that a purposeful process shaped life as it grew more complex, natural selection does.  The emergence of humans and hippopotamuses from a one-celled organism over the course of 3.5 billion years could not have been the product of both a purposeful process and an entirely random process.  Try as one might to embrace both theism and Darwinism, purpose and chance remain antithetical.  Well-meaning efforts to bridge the chasm fail whenever it rains.

The Dover court noted that the argument from design is “an old religious argument for the existence of God.”  An expert witness traced this argument to Thomas Aquinas, and he might have found it in Cicero as well.  Evolutionary biologists do not blush when they proclaim that they have vanquished the argument from design. 

The more someone studies the human brain (or the pigeon’s), the more wondrous this instrument becomes.  The brain can do many things that no instrument devised by human beings can.  Researchers examine in detail which areas of the brain perform which tasks and how neurons transmit information.  Despite their efforts at reverse engineering, these researchers have no thought that they might build a brain themselves within the next century or two.  Although the brain appears to be designed, evolutionary biology says that this appearance is an illusion.  Aquinas to the contrary notwithstanding, the design apparently found in nature should not increase your awe of God or lead you to believe in Him. 

If science and religion exist in separate spheres and if the argument from design is “religious,” the scientists who debunk this argument must have entered the religious sphere, not the other way around.  The Dover court must have gotten things backwards.  The court’s position appears to be that scientists may answer a traditional religious argument (and may do so in the public schools) because they are engaged in “science.”  Defenders of this traditional argument may not reply, however, because they are engaged in “religion.”  Catch 22.  Of course the court’s error lies in its assumption that religion and science must be entirely distinct, an error discussed in my December 23 post. 

Perhaps a rigorous “methodological naturalism” could bridge the gap.  Biologists might declare that they adopt only an assumption of natural selection, that their purpose is simply to see how far this assumption can take them, and that they take no position on whether this assumption is true.  That, however, is not what the biologists say, and it may not be what they should say if their goal is to describe the world as it is.  The biologists say that “evolution is a fact not a theory.”  Their critics then insist that “evolution is a theory not a fact.”  (For a school board to place a sticker with the critics’ statement on a biology textbook is unconstitutional, or so one federal court has held.)

Proclaiming “it’s a theory” or “it’s a fact” does not help.  The simplest sort of factual conclusion (“that’s a spoon”) rests on an interpretation of electronic impulses that rays of light generate when they stimulate your optic nerves.  Some parts of your visual cortex perceive lines that go this way, and others perceive lines that go that way.  Your mind makes assumptions of regularity (for example, that matter is cohesive and that surfaces are uniformly colored) as it assembles the visual picture (“why, that’s a spoon”).  The visual brain doesn’t work like a camera, and how it integrates images from electronic data remains mysterious.  Of course visual perceptions and other perceptions of fact can be wrong.  Like all other forms of knowledge, they should remain at least a bit provisional.  As I emphasized in my December 23 post, virtually all knowledge from the simplest to the most complex consists of sensed patterns in experience.  Nelson Goodman said appropriately that facts are small theories and theories are large facts.

Peacock’s tails and bacterial flagella pose challenges for natural selection, but other phenomena pose greater challenges.  These phenomena underscore the conflict between Darwinism and virtually all of the world’s religions.  They are central to religious conceptions of who human beings are. 

Biologists and theologians agree that consciousness must serve a purpose.  The biologists, however, have no idea what this purpose might be.  Our autonomic nervous system has no need for consciousness to keep our hearts pumping, and our minds process tons of information without our awareness.  If some information processing and control of our muscular contractions can occur without awareness, why not all of it?  Why waste energy on sentience?  Scholarly papers purport to supply an answer, but Steven Pinker writes, “As far as scientific explanation [of sentience] goes, it might as well not exist.”

The theologians maintain that consciousness permits us to exercise free will, a notion that most biologists dismiss as the silly idea of a ghost in the machine.  Often, however, the biologists do not stick to their guns.  For example, while Pinker dismisses the ghost in the machine, he also rejects the “naturalistic fallacy” and declares that we can choose to be other than what nature has made us.  He does not explain how we can make the choice to depart from nature without free will, nor does he explain why we would want to after realizing that our concepts of right and wrong are just adaptive tools that furthered our ancestors’ reproductive success.

Similarly, E. O. Wilson is one of many biologists who reject the compatibilist position that other biologists endorse.  Wilson writes, “[L]ife has diversified on Earth autonomously without any kind of external guidance.  Evolution in a pure Darwinian world has no goal or purpose: the exclusive driving force is random mutations sorted out by natural selection from one generation to the next.”  Although Wilson refers to “the processes and goals obviously chosen by human beings” as “processes evolved as adaptive devices,” he champions a “scientific humanism” that, he claims, “imposes the heavy burden of individual choice that goes with intellectual freedom.”  One wonders what choices Wilson makes as a humanist – those that further his own reproductive success?  How could he and other humanists have evolved the capacity to do anything else?  Perhaps the adherents of theistic religions can’t stand the brutal truth that Wilson believes science has established, but then, neither can he.  Could there have been a miraculous moment in the evolutionary process when natural selection gave way to culture and free will?  At what point was reproductive success no longer the only maximand, and what designer might have been behind it? 

At first glance, the altruistic behavior observed in humans and other species cannot be squared with natural selection.  When a ground squirrel spots a predator and shrieks a warning, the squirrel endangers itself as it benefits others.  Groups in which members aid one another have clear evolutionary advantages over groups in which they don’t, but it is difficult to see how altruism could have evolved within groups.  When the squirrels that give warning cries lose their lives at a higher rate than the squirrels that stay quiet, the altruistic squirrels should die out before long.

Darwin wondered how natural selection could have produced castes of insects that spend their lives serving others while producing no offspring.  This anomaly seemed, he said, “fatal to my whole theory.”  In 1963, however, William D. Hamilton provided a partial explanation.  Because an organism’s genes are shared with its close relatives, saving close relatives can preserve enough common genes that altruism may yield a net evolutionary gain even when the altruist dies.  Selfish genes can produce selfless organisms.  Hamilton’s theory (“kin selection” or “inclusive fitness”) revolutionized evolutionary biology.  It reportedly led J. B. S. Haldane to remark that although he would not lay down his life for his brother, he would for two brothers or eight cousins. 

At most, Hamilton’s theory explained altruism within kinship groups.  In 1971, however, Robert Trivers did a massive amount of pre-computer math to show that, in some circumstances, reciprocal altruism toward non-kin (helping them until they fail to help you) could confer an evolutionary advantage.  In a profession in which the paradigm of natural selection was unquestioned, proving that altruism was not a complete stopper – that it was mathematically possible in some situations – led many to conclude, “Ah ha, that must be how it happened.”  Evolutionary biology is not (and could not be) a profession with clear standards of proof.

In an iterated game of prisoner’s dilemma, cooperating on the first encounter and then either cooperating or not to match the opposing player’s prior move is very often a winning strategy.  This strategy (Tit for Tat) ends in disaster, however, when opposing players never cooperate.  In a biological world governed by natural selection, the first reciprocal cooperator in a group of selfish organisms would lose, and it is difficult to see how a regime of reciprocal altruism could get started.  Biologists hypothesize, however, that kin selection or something else could have put a sufficient number of cooperative organisms in place to make Tit for Tat a winner. 

Biologists cheer Trivers’ “just so” story not only because it provides a possible explanation for what otherwise might be a knock-out anomaly for the theory of natural selection but also because it makes natural selection seem a bit less awful.  Contrary to what earlier Darwinists believed, nature is not entirely red in tooth and claw.  Natural selection offers an explanation for nice impulses as well as vicious ones.  Some biologists believe that they have rediscovered natural law. 

Natural selection, however, cannot explain the behaviors and values that most religions endorse, that nearly everyone regards as virtuous, and that we actually observe from time to time.  Accepting Trivers’ story leaves the basic anomaly in place. 

Perhaps, as Trivers says, natural selection provides an explanation for reciprocal altruism.  More clearly, however, it explains rape, robbery, and homicide.  Natural selection validates altruism no more than it validates our darker side.  If natural selection authenticates anything, it authenticates whatever blend of noble and rotten impulses produced our group’s triumph over the tigers.  Natural selection fails to explain why every religion and tribe regards one side of our nature as more virtuous than the other.

“Reciprocal” altruism, moreover, is not the kind of altruism the golden rule endorses.  Every tribe’s heroes are those who sacrifice themselves for the group without prospect of reward.  Natural selection fails to explain why every culture views this un-Darwinian behavior as noble and why we sometimes see it happen.  The views of humankind taught by Darwinism are not those taught in most churches.   

In the main, religion has no quarrel with science.  Science has revealed phenomena as wondrous as anything in the Book of Genesis, and far from contradicting the argument from design, most modern science seems to reinforce it.  The God of the big bang and the expanding universe may strike believers as more awesome and inspiring than the God their grandparents knew.  Perhaps a moment of creation even implies a creator.  Evolutionary biology is distinctive in insisting that the evidence proves randomness and in rejecting Einstein’s dictum that God does not play dice with the universe.

The seventeenth-century shift in focus from irregularities in nature (miracles) to regularities or patterns changed the world for the better.  Modern science posed a challenge for stand-pat religion, and over the course of the next century or more, religion responded by consigning its work and science’s to separate spheres.  Theologians like Friedrich Schleiermacher declared that religion was about the “sense and taste for the infinite” and the “feeling of absolute dependence.”  Religion told science that it could take rationality and the physical world while religion took faith, feeling, and spirituality. 

When offered this truce, the scientists might have whispered to one another, “What a deal!”  Over the long term, limiting religion to irrational ways of knowing gives the game to science.  Religion is indeed about the “feeling of absolute dependence,” but sound religion, like sound science, requires the use of all our ways of knowing.  It demands that we do our best to integrate what we know into one coherent package.  Ironically, the assault on separate spheres now comes mainly from the religious groups regarded as the most conservative.  For the most part, other groups, unwilling to look like yahoos by questioning Darwinism, duck the issue.  The conservatives, more alert than the others to the incompatibility of Darwinism and theistic religion and less willing to paper over the problem with pap, now seek to confront Darwinism on its own term.

Perhaps the proponents of intelligent design should have a smaller place in the public schools than they want and a larger place than their opponents would give them.  It is difficult to see how students would be harmed by devoting the last day of a high school biology course to the question whether the material they have studied leaves room for an intelligent designer.  Partisans on both sides might prepare ninth-grade-level statements of their positions; teachers might ensure that students understand the arguments; and if some students prove bold enough to voice their own views, so much the better.  How this discussion would endorse or establish religion or cast non-religious students as pariahs escapes me (especially if the Darwinists have the better case). 

The rapid pace of modernist change (not all of it good) leads many to dig in their heels and declare that they want none of it.  The frightening gap between open-throttle modernists and old-time religionists grows wider.  Both sides in the culture wars might look less for ways to smash each other and more for ways to build bridges.  An honest discussion in high school classrooms of whether biology undercuts religion, reinforces religion, or simply lets the mystery be might help.  The wedge of which the proponents of intelligent design sometimes speak may go both ways.

Comments

[Kimball Corson]

The different question arises in the Fresno case if what is being taught in the philosophy class is a Genesis styled creationism with other creation hypotheses being excluded, including non-deistic hypotheses believed in by agnostics or atheists. That would be prohibited by the Establishment Clause. The point is this: it does not matter what class – philosophy or biology – is used to teach what is being taught. The question is whether what is being taught violates the Establishment Clause in regard to religion or religious views. That is why comparative religions may be taught in the schools, with the caveat that attention and explanation must also be given to agnostic and atheistic beliefs systems as well. All or basically all may be included or none should be under the Establishment Clause.

[KImball Corson]

Another issue arises too in regard to the Fresno case. Are both the biology and philosophy classes requied of all students? If so, you might get around my last post, with some qualifications. If not, then what I wrote there should stand because a student might take only the philosophy course and not the biology course and for that student, the school has then violated the Establishment Clause. At least this an argument and aspect of the problem that should be addressed.

[The Law Fairy]

Kimball,

I see the problem differently. If the philosophy class is offered as an alternative to evolution, I'm unable to see even a possible Establishment Clause violation. The only thing it could possibly do is offer greater variety to the students -- if greater variety of viewpoints is a *problem* then we're likely already violating the Establishment Clause (in that, it's considered a problem because teaching certain theistic beliefs necessarily contradicts something they're learning in school -- in which case the school is inhibiting religion, which also violates the Lemon Test). I can't imagine that biology isn't a required course in school -- it's certainly far more likely to be mandatory than a philosophy course (wrongly, in my opinion, but that's a whole other set of arguments).

I suppose the struggle for me is that, unless the philosophy course amounts to sheer proselytizing, which I find unlikely, affirmative arguments against it need to be presented. If it is an "alternative to evolution," how can this possibly be unconstitutional? Just because something is non-evolution, does not make it a religion -- unless evolution itself is a religion, in which case we've already got the earlier alluded-to EC problem.

[Kimball Corson]

In response to Law Fairy:

Actually, I think we see the problem pretty much the same, if the philosophy class is not sheer proselytizing and students are required to take biology. I think the barrier of unconstitutionality can be avoided if proselytizing is abandoned in the philosophy class in favor of some tack similar to mine, to avoid conflicts with what is taught in biology and still be able to posit the possibility of deism as an alternative. That approach leaves open the possibility of deistic, atheistic and agnostic belief systems, each of which could also be taught in the philosophy class to further avoid Establishment Clause problems.

However, if the philosophy class is a wholesale "alternative to evolution," I cannot imagine how it can avoid conflict with the biology class and move hard in the direction of establishing religion in the school. But to strongly conflict with the biology class, the likelihood is the philosophy class would entail “sheer proselytizing” in the simple creationist or Genesis vein. The world created in six days would create serious conflicts, I think.

[The Law Fairy]

Kimball,

I think where we differ is the extent to which the philosophy class could contradict the biology class. I would say proselytizing is if they're actively trying to convert the kids to a certain viewpoint; if they're just presenting alternatives, I don't believe that's constitutionally problematic.

At the same time, it's a philosophy class. Given the bias we've seen displayed in the comments to these posts alone, I think it's a pretty safe bet that most kids are not going to take whatever they learn in a philosophy class, even if some of it is scientific, to trump what they learn in a biology class. And if they do, that's their right. In my opinion, any halfway decent philosophy class is necessarily going to conflict with science on a lot of levels. You'd have to teach about Aristotle's dubious views on the import of purported physiological differences between men and women. You'd have to teach about Descartes half-assed deontological argument for the existence of God. You'd have to teach the logical necessity of skepticism (which implies the fallacy of scientific "knowledge"). I don't see where offering alternatives that contradict evolution is any different or more problematic. It's just another way of viewing the scientific community from a philosophical perspective -- which is precisely what the kids ought to be learning in their philosophy course.

[ctw]

the post indicated in my last comment includes a course decription that resolves these questions. as I said, it's clearly a misnamed lemon, not a pearl.

[The Law Fairy]

I'm not sure it resolves them, ctw. From the sound of it this is an elective course. It is presented as philosophy, not science, so the science zealots can refrain from foaming at the mouth over misrepresentation. And it doesn't proselytize -- it's straightforward that it presents the problems with evolutionary science from this perspective. Students aren't graded on whether or not they agree with it -- they just have to support whichever side they choose.

I don't see a constitutional problem with this.

[that one guy]

Wouldn't introducing religious-themed courses into public school curriculum offend the "excessive entanglement" prong of the Lemon test, because the government would have to monitor such courses to ensure that various religions, sects, and agnotstic or atheistic belief sets were being treated equally and constitutionally benignly (which is of course impossible, since there are so many belief sets, some would have to be completely eliminated from study out of necessity)? If that is the case, then has the Lemon test made religion a taboo subject in public schools, as least in terms of making it a central focus of study in a course?

If so, this seems to me a shame. Whatever your views on religion, it is difficult to argue against its cultural, psychological, philosophical and historical significance. Religious-themed courses in public school could go a long way in understanding this significance, as well as engendering religous tolerance. If the Lemon test forestalls any religiously themed instruction in public schools, perhaps our First Amendment jurisprudence is off course.

It seems to me that our discussion on ID vs. Evolution raises a larger issue - what place, if any, should the study of religion, as an academic pursuit, have in our public schools?

[Kimball Corson]

Law Fairy wrote:

“Kimball, I think where we differ is the extent to which the philosophy class could contradict the biology class.”

I respond:

I think you are right here and I am probably too restrictive, as I think about it.

“I would say proselytizing is if they're actively trying to convert the kids to a certain viewpoint; if they're just presenting alternatives, I don't believe that's constitutionally problematic.”

I respond:

You are right here as long as what they do is indeed present alternatives and not dwell on one or two to the exclusion of others. That moves in the direction of proselytizing.

“In my opinion, any halfway decent philosophy class is necessarily going to conflict with science on a lot of levels.”

I respond:

Of course and it should, especially if it is a historical survey course. If we look more toward contemporary consensus, this can be less of a problem. People to adjust over time to what most perceive as “truth,” itself a troubled philosophical concept as you well know.

“You'd have to teach the logical necessity of skepticism (which implies the fallacy of scientific "knowledge"). I don't see where offering alternatives that contradict evolution is any different or more problematic. It's just another way of viewing the scientific community from a philosophical perspective -- which is precisely what the kids ought to be learning in their philosophy course.”

I respond:

As a romantic by nature and a skeptic by excessive education, I understand you here, loud and clear and think you are probably right on the latter point, as I think about it. I guess the real legal mandate is to present alternative ideas and theories and not have an agenda to narrow the focus to the teacher’s pet views. Philosophy can and should challenge contemporary perspectives and paradigms, including those of biology, but without dwelling on them exclusively.

ctw wrote about the Fresno course description:

“From the sound of it this is an elective course. It is presented as philosophy, not science, so the science zealots can refrain from foaming at the mouth over misrepresentation. And it doesn't proselytize -- it's straightforward that it presents the problems with evolutionary science from this perspective. Students aren't graded on whether or not they agree with it -- they just have to support whichever side they choose.
I don't see a constitutional problem with this.”

I respond:

Why pick on just evolutionary science. There are methodological and conceptual problems in many areas of science. Do we deal here with a latent religious agenda?

That One Guy then observes:

“Wouldn't introducing religious-themed courses into public school curriculum offend the "excessive entanglement" prong of the Lemon test, because the government would have to monitor such courses to ensure that various religions, sects, and agnotstic or atheistic belief sets were being treated equally and constitutionally benignly (which is of course impossible, since there are so many belief sets, some would have to be completely eliminated from study out of necessity)? If that is the case, then has the Lemon test made religion a taboo subject in public schools, as least in terms of making it a central focus of study in a course? If so, this seems to me a shame.” . . . If the Lemon test forestalls any religiously themed instruction in public schools, perhaps our First Amendment jurisprudence is off course.”

I respond:

The Lemon Test is I believe too restrictive and is indeed a lemon and badly in need of adjustment.

“It seems to me that our discussion on ID vs. Evolution raises a larger issue - what place, if any, should the study of religion, as an academic pursuit, have in our public schools?”
I respond:

That is a good question. My view is that if we deny any place to the study of religion in the schools we (a) foster ignorance in that area, (b) give atheism and agnosticism a leg up over other belief systems in the curriculum and thereby arguably create an Establishment Clause problem. A balanced and sensible course of presenting alternatives clearly is possible and is sure to be policed by parents sensitive to these issues. There is good oversight, a problem that mistakenly troubled the Lemon court.

[Deborah Spaeth]

Kimball

"I have received no explanations from you, only profanity, explitives, ad hominum slurs"

You're a lying axxhole, Kimball.

Learn to read. And learn to remember.

Prick.

[Deborah Spaeth]

Kimball the Lying Idiot

"Actually, I think we see the problem pretty much the same, if the philosophy class is not sheer proselytizing"

And fundies are going to promote such a class?

Dream on, you clueless retard.

Fyi -- do you recall the www.talkorigins.org link that I presented you with Kimball where your "fine-tuning" "science" (aka bullshxt) was debunked at the 4th grade reading level?

Do you remember that Kimball?

And remember how you hand-waved it away with a bunch of asinine quote-mining?

Remember that Kimball?

Well, you do now.

[Deborah Spaeth]

Kimball the Ultra-Retard Who is Just A Tad Arrogant, to Boot:

"In my proposal we either have happenstance in the form of hyper-improbable coincidence"

This is non-science bullshxt, but Kimball likes to pretends otherwise.

"or front-loading, non-interventionist deism qua ID if you will."

That's religion.

Bullshxt or religion. Isn't Kimball a great compromiser?

Or is Kimball just a two-faced moronic loser who can't pull his head out of his finely-tuned axxhole?

I believe the latter.

Let's teach the controversy.

After all, it's only "fair."

Right, Kimball?

[Deborah Spaeth]

Law Fair-to-Poorly:

"If the philosophy class is offered as an alternative to evolution, I'm unable to see even a possible Establishment Clause violation."

That's because you're a stupid tool, Law Fairy, as has been established already based on your inability to understand basic facts about the US legal system, coupled with your inability to ackowledge your own ignorance when your errors are pointed out.

I can imagine, oh, a dozen different embodiments of a philosophy in public school that would violate the Establishment Clause. If I felt like it, I could write them down in about five minutes.

But what is the point of teaching lying idiots like you, Law Fairy, or Kimball?

When your baloney is pointed out to you, you behave just like Prof. Alschuler: you dissemble and play stupid.

Doubt this is true? Don't. It's all archived here, shxtheads.

[Deborah Spaeth]

that one guy

"Is it unconstitutional for the school to simply permit ID to be discussed in a class, as opposed to the obvious (in my opinion) unconstitutionality of requiring it be taught in science classes?"

Is that what's happening in Fresno, dumbshxt?

[Kimball Corson]

Re Deborah Spaeth:

At this juncture, at Poster Child's suggestion, I am going to take a pass on Deborah Spaeth. Her incivility, profanity, incoherency and ad hominem slurs compromises anything she might have to say in civil discourse.

[Deborah Spaeth]

Kimball

"Her incivility, profanity, incoherency and ad hominem slurs compromises anything she might have to say in civil discourse."

Hahahaahah.

As opposed to your dissembling, refusal to admit error, refusal to admit inconsistency, refusal to address the direct deconstruction of your bogus arguments, your quote-mining, and your breathtaking arrogance? Is that right, Kimball?

You're truly pathetic. I'm sorry that you can't handle the truth, Kimball.

If you want civil discourse, Kimball, then show some willingness to be educated. You came into this forum seriously confused and now you run away with your hands over your ears.

Poor, poor baby. Mommy will dry your tears.

Just keep your pseudo-scientific "fine-tuning" bullcrap out of my school district, Kimball, and you won't have any trouble from me.

And fyi -- I know the difference between a school board meeting, a courtroom and a blog.

Unlike you.

[Deborah Spaeth]

Kimball the Liar

"Her ... incoherency ... compromises anything she might have to say in civil discourse."

Don't pretend to be even stupider than you are, Kimball. I'm writing at a well-educated high-schooler's reading level for your sake.

You're the twit who wants to waste 14 year old's time with rotted-through creationist philosophy and pseudoscientific cosmological mumbo jumbo.

Not me, Kimball. You.

Remember how you claimed that kids would rise up to the level of the discussion?

But then you showed how an alleged adult like yourself was unable to do so?

At the time, that was funny, as in "oddly hypocritical."

Of course, now it doesn't seem so odd ...

[Deborah Spaeth]

The Fresno school's "philosophy" class:

""This class will take a close look at evolution as a theory and will discuss the scientific, biological, and Biblical aspects that suggest why Darwin's philosophy is not rock solid. This class will discuss Intelligent Design as an alternative response to evolution. Topics that wlll be covered are the age of the earth, a world wide flood, dinosaurs, pre-human fossils, dating methods, DNA, radioisotopes, and geological evidence."

HAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHA!!

Yeah, that sounds REAL constitutional.

Law Fairy, here's your chance to be famous, just like the ass-hats at the Thomas More Law Center for Christian Idiots.

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAhahhahahah!!!!!!

"Physical and chemical evidence will be presented suggesting the earth is thousands of years old, not billions."

What do you think, Kimball? Is that "plausible" ??? HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!! Go ahead, Kimball. It's all about "fairness" right???? And Kimball -- did you notice that this school board shares some curious similarities with you, like relying on DEAD people to testify???? HAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!

Here's the instructor:

"Name: Mrs. Sharon Lemburg
Department: Special Education
Brief Biography: B. A. Degree in Physical Education, Social Science: with emphasis in Sociology, Special Education
Class Description: Special Education
Club Advisor or Coach? Soccer and Softball"

BWAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!

Pay attention, Alschuler. Seriously. You could probably learn something from Ms. Lemburg.

"Hurst, who has children in 10th and 12th grades, said the class also interfered with his personal religious views as a Quaker and "reflects a preference for fundamentalist Christianity over all other religious and scientific viewpoints."

Just like Kimball's "compromise" pays lip service to the apologetics of fundies but ignores all the rest of the world's religions and the viewpoints of atheists who think fundies are pure shxt.

Are you starting to "get it" now, Kimball?

[Kimball Corson]

I Pass.

[Deborah Spaeth]

Kimball passes and so does El Tejon.

http://www.au.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr006=a7oqy5kvo1.app13a&abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=7795&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

Once again: my side wins!

Thank you very much.

Morons.

[Kimball Corson]

You don't win. You just loose your audience. So who is the moron?

[Mike B.]

The Vatican weighs in:

Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'

By NICOLE WINFIELD
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; 4:45 PM

VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.

The article in Tuesday's editions of L'Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials _ including the pope _ on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.

The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution "represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth."

He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s, and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.

"This isn't how science is done," he wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801571_pf.html

[jamie byrne]

hi,
was just browsing the web, and happened on this blog. i'm a law student at adelaide uni,...soon to graduate. but anyway, i'm really surprised that arguments like this actually happen,....anyone heard of william of occam,...and the idea that theological argument is a misnomer,... and the fact that absolutes like faith and god are beyond the scope of this sort of examination and exist only in peoples minds? faith is faith, science another thing,...he was excommunicated around about 400 or was it 500 years ago,....maybe its time to go back and examine his thinking,....it might help,...and from the conflaguration,..it certaionly couldnt hurt,.....

[Rudolf Rentzel]

I enjoyed your comments on the case very much. However, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on how to resolve this problem, or how to move forward.

The problem as I see it, is that evolution by means of random natural selection is presented to students in public schools as the exclusive explanation for the manifest complexity of live and the cosmos all around us, and any alternative explanation is condemned and prohibited by the courts in the public school arena.

I would appreciate any thoughts about how to resolve this problem.

[Mel Steffor]

I could put this question to rest. I can prove that there is an intelligent designer. He talked to me in 2006 and 2007. I have proof too. Lots of proof. Volumns upon Volumns.