Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“Blessed be you, mighty matter, irresistible march of evolution, reality ever newborn; you who, by constantly shattering our mental categories, force us to go ever further in the pursuit of the truth.”
–Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, “Hymn of the Universe,” (Harper and Row, 1961).
It took the jury fewer than fifteen minutes to convict substitute teacher John Scopes of the crime of teaching evolution to Tennessee public school students in 1925. It was the last victory of Christian fundamentalists in their war against the disciples of Darwin, and a hollow one at that. Although the Tennessee Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law, it reversed the verdict because the trial judge had imposed a $100.00 fine on Mr. Scopes, contrary to a provision in the Tennessee constitution requiring a jury to assess fines exceeding $50.00. In sending the case back, however, the court made the unusual suggestion that further prosecution not be pursued. Scopes v. State, 154 Tenn. 105, 289 SW 363 (1927). It was not.
Fundamentalists were emboldened by the Scopes verdict. In 1928 Mississippi and Arkansas adopted similar laws and in the ensuing years, the subject of evolution was effectively dropped as a topic in many high school science courses, a trend that was not reversed until the Sputnik scare in 1958 led to a revamping of science curricula. It was not until 1968 that the Supreme Court decreed that laws forbidding the teaching of evolution in public schools violated the Establishment Clause. Epperson v. Arkansas, 397 U.S. 97 (1968).
With direct bans no longer available, fundamentalists pursued a new strategy, the adoption of “balanced treatment” legislation requiring that teachers provide time for the exploration of the Genesis story of creation as an alternative explanation of biological origins. In 1983 a federal district judge threw out Arkansas’ balanced treatment statute, concluding that creationism is “not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law. It is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable.” McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, 529 F. Supp. 1255, 1267 (E.D. Ark. 1982). Several years later, Louisiana’s balanced treatment statute was also found to violate the Establishment Clause under the Lemon test. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987).
Efforts to recast creationism as science under the name “intelligent design” were rebuffed in the now famous case of Fitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 400 F. Supp.2d 707 (E.D. Pa. 2005), in which the court succinctly stated that “[intelligent design] cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.” 400 F. Supp.2d at 765.
But the war is far from over. Creationists are once again in court, and this time they are urging that the teaching of evolution in the public schools is itself a violation of, inter alia, the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses because evolution theory incorporates the “core tenets of Religious (‘secular’) Humanism.”
Cope (a/k/a Citizens for Objective Public Education, Inc.), et al., v. Kansas State Board of Education was filed on September 26th in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The case seeks to enjoin implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards adopted by the Kansas Board of Education in June of this year. Those standards are objectionable under the First and Fourteenth Amendment, according to the plaintiffs, because they endorse the “orthodoxy” of scientific materialism, which “holds that explanations of the cause and nature of natural phenomena may only use natural, material or mechanistic causes, and must assume that, supernatural and teleological or design conceptions of nature are invalid.” (Complaint, para. 8) Plaintiffs contend that teleological and materialistic explanations of the natural world create “competing religious beliefs.” (Complaint, para. 75).
The allegations are absurd on a number of levels. First, Plaintiffs have adopted a definition of religion which eliminates any requirement for belief in a supernatural entity. Second, Plaintiffs’ reasoning, if pursued to its logical conclusion, would virtually preclude the teaching of science in the public schools because their objections go to the basis of what we understand as the scientific method. Third, Plaintiffs rely upon the same flawed dualism that taints most fundamentalist arguments, the false assumption that acceptance of the findings of evolutionary biology are incompatible with religious belief in general and Christian belief in particular. The great paleontologist and theologian Teilhard de Chardin, for example, who is quoted above, regarded evolution itself as part of the process of divine creation.
This latest assault on science is not the first time that creationists have relied on the Secular Humanism argument In Crowley v. Smithsonian Institution, 636 F.2d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1980), the court rejected the claim that a museum exhibit of evolutionary processes constituted a governmental endorsement of Secular Humanism. The court held that the Establishment Clause does not prohibit a science display which may happen to be in agreement with a tenet of a particular religion. And in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education, supra, the court observed, “Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.” 529 F.Supp. at 1274.
Fundamentalists have failed in their attempts to create science out of religion. There is no doubt that they will also fail in their attempts to create religion out of science. The only serious remaining question is why we must continue to have the discussion.
Gene H,
There is a class for doods like you:
(Student Science, Problems with ‘the scientific method’). Your teleology has fused your religious and science genes into magical thinking once again.
But Nick S thinks you are doing better now.
Gene H. 1, October 28, 2013 at 1:41 pm
Dredd,
The scientific method includes the implicit premise that science is fallible.
…
==========================
So does the religious method, but like you there are too many that quote platitudes to paint a rosy world that does not really exist.
And you, like them, when convinced by scientific or religious material against your will are of the same useless opinion still.
“Why do you keep assuming that theologians cannot do science?”
Why is it that you keep assuming that theology has any valid application to science?
The empirical objectively factual versus the subjective supposition that requires no objective proof whatsoever.
Science and theology are not only not the same game, they play in entirely different stadiums by entirely different rules.
As far as infallibility goes? Theology that refuses to incorporate new information based in reality because it contradicts dogma is precisely theology thinking that its subjective supposition is infallible compared to objective quantifiable reality. It’s the delusion of infallibility. Also, there may be disagreement in theology, but that is not the same thing as falsifiability. Theology, by its very nature of not dealing with objective reality, is incapable of falsification. But you can certain disagree with it. Theological disagreement has as much impact on science as two Trekkers arguing which is better, Capt. Kirk or Capt. Picard. Who likes Coke and who likes Pepsi? Who likes God and who like Allah?
Science doesn’t care.
It’s interested in “whys” and “hows” it can objectively prove.
The supernatural and supposition based thereon are irrelevant to science.
A post to OS was lost in WordPress, if someone could release it please. 🙂
I understand how theology works just fine, David.
You apparently don’t understand how science works though.
If you tried to get a paper published on phrenology or any other disproved notion, it would get the boot too.
ID posits a causation that cannot be proven. It isn’t science. It’s theology pretending to be science. Evolution and natural selection works just fine as a science without any kind of designer at all. A watch without a watchmaker.
Perhaps you see indifference as hostility because you expect others to believe as you do and, fortunately for all of science and unfortunately for you, science isn’t based in subjective belief but in objective fact.
It all comes back to your ridiculous notion that there is such a thing a subjective proof. In science, there is no such thing as subjective proof. The very idea is an oxymoron. But subjective proofs, the teleological arguments of theology, are simply par for the course. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Since science is indifferent to the supernatural, science can’t address that question validly (although it can address it as comedy). Yet those very kinds of question are the bread and butter of theology.
Apples and oranges.
What OS said and what RTC said. The far religious right does want to force their religion on the country and the country’s government.
rafflaw wrote: “The far religious right does want to force their religion on the country and the country’s government.”
And the far left want to force all religion out of the country’s government.
Po,
Your assumption is that I don’t think Dawkins is every bit the extremist as any Fundamentalist.
The exception is not the rule.
Tell me what god is! Nobody can know!
Belief is different for every person on earth.
Religion can be practiced for any activity known.
You can only believe something if you accept a premise.
And still you cannot know, you can intuit but not cognize.
Dredd,
The scientific method includes the implicit premise that science is fallible. That’s why the method insists on statistically valid data and repeatable experimentation that passes a given level of acceptable confidence (the confidence interval) to create consensus among the science literate. That science is fallible is illustrated by the history of science showing a continuum of change in understanding.
It’s scientific consensus based on observations obtained from methodical study versus an allegedly infallible theology.
But you being a fringer in microbiology yourself, I don’t expect you to understand that any better than I expect David to understand that the problem is rigid theology, not scientific consensus based on sufficient evidence, testing and critical analysis instead of wishful magical thinking.
Gene H wrote: “It’s scientific consensus based on observations obtained from methodical study versus an allegedly infallible theology.”
Why do you keep assuming that theologians cannot do science? And what is this about “infallible theology”? Most theologians believe in the fallibility of man; therefore, theology deduced by the reasoning of men is fallible. Why do you think empiricism became so popular? Theology has a lot of disagreement. There is nothing infallible about it.
“None of the creationists have any power at all to force their views upon anyone. All they have are their ideas. ”
No, all they have are their beliefs. And, given half a chance, they would impose them on society if they had the power. You guys are the American Taliban
David: “…a careful genealogy of people.”
It’s a fairy tale, there’s nothing careful about it.
Your argumentation is never weaker than when you put forward your religious viewpoints, and that’s pretty weak. It exposes how completely inane you are
He who creates a conflict between religion and science knows little about either.
Also, to correct Gene, Richard Dawkins, the preeminent scientist and prophet of Atheism, uses science to refute theology, or at least attempts to. His is the only book I have ever abandoned halfway, for he used the same fallacies Creationists use to prove the existence of God in order to disprove Him. The new atheists use science as the scalpel with which to dissect religion and dismembered it. They erect it as the opposite of religion, and religion as the foil of science. Science is brought out as that general entity that is all truthful and perfect, and totally wholesome (as in no holes), that provides all the answers, and to question it or aspects of it, is to be either ignorant or delusional (not unlike how the faithful feel about God).
There is extremism on both sides, the few names who reject all religion as evil, and the just as few on the other side who reject all science as evil. In between, there is the large majority of scientists and religious who meet in between, using one to explain the other.
As perhaps the only Muslim int his forum, I can tell you that in my book there is no separation between science and religion. My approach to science is religious and my view of religion is scientific.
There was recently, an islamic conference about that very theme, evolution, that featured Muslim scientists and religious leaders, and surprisingly to some, both sides of the argument were featured, some believed in creationism, some in evolution and some in some form of both, and all used some of the same quotes from the Quran, such as:
And Allah has Created every animal from water; of them are some creeping on their bellies; some walk on two legs; and some on four. Allah Creates what He wills: for sure Allah has Power over all things.
[Noble Quran 24:45]
and
“And We made from water all living things.” (Quran 21:30)
My own brother and I had this debate where he supported evolution based on this quote, against my own argument that to believe in the thruth of the Quran,, is to take at face value the quote that God made man out of clay. What does that quote mean though? Is it an instantaneous occurrence or is it a much longer process, like when the Quran says God created the universe in 6 days, but took only 2 out of those 6 to create the earth, which makes the earth’s age 1/3 or the universe… http://www.speed-light.info/miracles_of_quran/age_of_universe.htm
Most of us believers, across faiths and practices, understand science and religion just as different, not differing voices, each seeking to explain the truth each is mot equipped to explain. When they work together, one by inspiring and the other by checking, we come closer to finding it, that truth ,the problem arises when each tries to (mis)explain the other.
Just another quote
Keith L. Moore is a professor emeritus in the division of anatomy (department of surgery), former Chair of anatomy and associate dean for Basic Medical Sciences (Faculty of Medicine) at the University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He has also worked at the King Abdulaziz University in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. He is most known for his textbooks on the subjects of anatomy and human embryology.
“It has been a great pleasure for me to help clarify statements in the Quran about human development. It is clear to me that these statements must have come to Muhammad from God, or Allah, because most of this knowledge was not discovered until many centuries later. This proves to me that Muhammad must have been a messenger of God or Allah”.
Joseph Campbell: ” I think the idea of life after death is a bad idea. It distracts you from appreciating the uniqueness of the here and now, the moment you are living.”
The sum of all religions: God, if you are there, can you get me out of here?
Infallible scientists vs. infallible religionists.
Infallible science vs. infallible religion.
Birds of a feather.
davidm,
I didn’t ask you to “defend religion.”
David,
Keep on missing the point. Also, I don’t consider Wikipedia the be all and end all for research. It is constantly being scrubbed of stuff some folks find embarrassing, depending on whose ox is being gored. There is a very good reason most teachers will not allow Wikipedia to be used as a source on classroom assignments.
The primary point is, theological matters cannot be proved. They cannot be weighed, measured, observed with any known optical device, or replicated.
Science has theories when there are loose ends, and a scientific law is when all the loose ends are accounted for. For practical purposes, there is no difference between a theory and a law in scientific study. When there is a scientific discovery at odds with some theologian’s pet belief system, it is the theologian who needs to adjust, not the science behind the new discovery.
As for Mendel, he was a scientist and a monk. He did not try to fit his scientific discoveries on genetics into his theology and the Church accepted his discoveries. The Mendelian laws of genetics are what they are. I am sure Brother Gregor continued to go to Mass and saw no need to confess sin for discovering the basic laws of genetics.
And FWIW David, when you claim to not be religious, I don’t believe you. You are dissembling, and it is obvious to everyone.
OS wrote: “The primary point is, theological matters cannot be proved. They cannot be weighed, measured, observed with any known optical device, or replicated.”
Some theological matters can’t, but some can. If a theological model makes statements about the physical earth, then it has the potential to be disproven or substantiated by evidence. If theology says the earth is 10,000 years old and another theory says it is 3.5 billion years old, don’t you think that an agreed upon empirical clock could distinguish between these two theories? What does it matter if one theory came from the Bible and the other one came from empiricism?
OS wrote: “As for Mendel, he was a scientist and a monk. He did not try to fit his scientific discoveries on genetics into his theology…”
Actually, he did fit his science into his theology in describing a limiting range in which genetic inheritance operated. He saw that as corresponding with the theology he extracted from Genesis, that the Creator made organisms after their own kind.
OS wrote: “…when you claim to not be religious, I don’t believe you.”
I realize how difficult it is for you when someone does not fit into your stereotype. I have made no effort to hide the fact that I am a theist, nor have I claimed to be ignorant about how either science or religion operates. Nevertheless, I belong to no religious group; ergo, I am not religious. If you define religious as being a theist, then I suppose I am religious from your perspective. My perspective of religious is someone who is a member of some religious sect, or someone who formally embraces the doctrine and dogma of a religious sect. If there was a religious sect I might be most likely to join, it would be Judaism, but I doubt they would have me because of my admiration for Jesus. I just choose not to be joined to any religion because I find that I am happier that way.
“Fundamentalists have failed in their attempts to create science out of religion. There is no doubt that they will also fail in their attempts to create religion out of science. The only serious remaining question is why we must continue to have the discussion.”
Because a spoilt three year old child will throw tantrums until he gets his way, crying when he doesn’t, and is unwilling to take “No” for an answer.
The only tools rabid theists have are the same that a three year old child has: (1) repeatedly asking the same question despite already knowing the answer, in hopes of hearing a different answer, and (2) violence when they don’t get their way.
Fundamentalists were emboldened by the Scopes verdict.”
Only because they weren’t educated enough to understand what the verdict meant. And they still aren’t educated enough today.
“Contrary to the allegations of many scientists, they do not ignore science.”
Really? Then why all the hubbub about evolution? It’s backed by a mountain of data and can be repeatably demonstrated by experiment.
“Rather, they are looking for actual proof that their literal interpretation of the Bible is false, and lacking that, they do not relent.”
So they are looking for actual (I’m assuming you mean objective) proof that something for which they have no proof to begin with (only faith and belief) and which they subjectively interpret is wrong.
That’s a lot like proving a negative or circular reasoning.
But let’s consider evolution once again. There is a more than a substantive amount of objective evidence as to how evolution operates via natural selection . . . which belies the notion that the world and life popped into being in an unchanging state set by a divine perfect being wishing to put man above all of nature as a special creation. Speciation affects all species, including the genus homo. We modern humans came from members of the genus that were not as we are and we will evolve into a species that is not as we are (assuming we don’t destroy ourselves first). That is just the nature of things.
For someone with an alleged background in biology, you demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding about how it works.
“Right now the science establishment acts with prejudice against the idea of a Creator. There is no other way to describe it.”
Yes, there is. Right now science acts with indifference to the idea of a creator because a creator – by definition a supernatural being – is beyond the scope of science’s proper inquiry and those that try to portray science as anti-God are simply lashing out because it is uncomfortable to have a belief challenged by facts. Thus we come back to Mike A.: “The truth is that fundamentalists reject anything which conflicts with their view of biblical inerrancy.”
The conflict isn’t between science and theology. It’s between certain kinds of theology and science. Science is indifferent to theology whereas some theology is outraged by science backed by objective evidence because it indicates that their theology (a non-provable subjective belief), literalistic or not, is wrong in some way. So they react like a spoiled or too young child being told Santa isn’t real instead of adjusting their worldview to incorporate new facts.
See dancing about architecture.
David M wrote: “Contrary to the allegations of many scientists, they do not ignore science.”
Gene H wrote: “Really? Then why all the hubbub about evolution? It’s backed by a mountain of data and can be repeatably demonstrated by experiment.”
Whether you realize it or not, there is a lot of debate in science about origins and how it happened. The creationist category just extends that debate beyond the philosophy that excludes the idea of a Creator. And when scientists are dishonest about the evidence, they scream louder. For scientists to take a vote to proclaim to the courts that there is not a shred of evidence for any model of origins that involve a Creator, that is pure dishonesty. Since when do scientists determine truth by voting? Science has become highly politicized because of the government grant money involved.
Gene H wrote: “So they are looking for actual (I’m assuming you mean objective) proof that something for which they have no proof to begin with (only faith and belief) and which they subjectively interpret is wrong.”
Apparently you do not understand the way theology works. They study sacred texts and develop models based upon that. Their models are not all the same. They do not all agree, nor do they just accept a model on faith. They use their mind to determine what might be true based upon the text, then look to whatever empirical data is available to falsify the models that are in error.
Gene H wrote: “There is a more than a substantive amount of objective evidence as to how evolution operates via natural selection . . . which belies the notion that the world and life popped into being in an unchanging state set by a divine perfect being wishing to put man above all of nature as a special creation.”
I don’t know any creationist whose model is what you just described. None. So that is a straw man. If Darwin did one thing right, it was destroy the concept that species are immutable. I don’t know any creationist today who argues that species are immutable.
Gene H wrote: “Speciation affects all species, including the genus homo. We modern humans came from members of the genus that were not as we are and we will evolve into a species that is not as we are (assuming we don’t destroy ourselves first). That is just the nature of things.”
It is really fascinating to read this from you. Do you really believe that humans are speciating today? And that is not speculation but scientifically proven fact in your mind? Really?
I readily recognize human evolution (not human speciation, but evolution nonetheless) and have spoken about the genetic differences between races of humans. There is no doubt in my mind that geographic isolation has led to various genetic differences within different populations of mankind. Genetic races in humans is real. However, when I point out such things here in this forum, people scream at me that I am a racist to even suggest such a thing. I believe in the past you yourself denied any genetic basis for race, appealing to the socially politically correct view that what we call race is only cultural. So which is it? Do you truly recognize genetic races of mankind who are evolving into different human species as you claim here, or not?
Gene H wrote: ” Right now science acts with indifference to the idea of a creator because a creator – by definition a supernatural being – is beyond the scope of science’s proper inquiry…”
No, not indifference, but prejudice against the idea of a creator. I have seen a paper not published simply because of an ending sentence suggesting an Intelligent Designer, then remove that single sentence of interpretation removed, and voila, the paper gets published. The issue truly is about interpretation of data and facts.
Although I agree that a supernatural being is beyond science’s ability to study, there may be empirical evidence that can refute creation models of origins. For example, if a theologian like Ussher claims that the earth was created on Sunday, October 23, 4004 B.C., do you seriously want to argue that science cannot address through empirical clocks the truthfulness of this model of creation? Of course it can, and so the idea that it is outside the realm of science to consider is poppycock. It is a ruse used by scientists to keep out what they view as the contamination of science.
Gene H wrote: “Thus we come back to Mike A.: ‘The truth is that fundamentalists reject anything which conflicts with their view of biblical inerrancy.'”
But the converse of this is just as valid, that establishment scientists reject anything which conflicts with their worldview that revelation is not a source of knowledge and everything in the world can be explained by natural laws and through empirical observation alone.
Gene H wrote: “The conflict isn’t between science and theology. It’s between certain kinds of theology and science.”
And a theologian like Mendel might say that the conflict is between certain kinds of science and theology. Come to think of it, Darwin himself might be in that camp, considering that Darwin’s degree was in theology, not science.