Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Resolution for 2007: Stop the ACLU
(EDITORIAL OPINION, Judge Roy Moore, WorldNet Daily, January 3, 2007)

Each year the American Civil Liberties Union and other liberal organizations continue their efforts to destroy traditional values that we once assumed were self-evident and beyond question. And each year we sit quietly by doing nothing to stop their relentless assault on our culture and our religious heritage. As our resolution for the New Year, let us join together to defeat the ACLU's anti-Christian agenda and restore our civil and religious freedom. Below are three opportunities available to us to accomplish that goal.

On Feb. 28, 2007, the case of Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation will be heard before the United States Supreme Court. At issue in Hein is whether individuals or organizations have a right to bring a suit in court (standing) merely because they disagree with the expenditure of taxpayer funds to faith-based groups in the same manner in which such funds are given to secular organizations. For many years federal courts have allowed liberal organizations like the ACLU and the individuals they represent to bring an action in federal court despite the fact that no "case" or "controversy" required by the Constitution actually existed. Historically, hypothetical questions and philosophical disagreements with government policy were not sufficient to give a plaintiff standing to sue in court. In order to bring an action, a plaintiff has to have a real legal dispute with a person or entity and has to have suffered actual harm or "concrete injury."

However, in 1968 the Supreme Court in Flast v. Cohen made an exception to the rules of standing and allowed a taxpayer lawsuit against Congress for appropriations given to parochial schools. The taxpayers had no direct interest or actual injury, but simply disagreed with the expenditure given to religious schools and felt that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Since the Flast decision, the ACLU and others have used this loophole to flood the courts with lawsuits in which taxpayer monies had a relationship with anything religious or any connection with an activity that acknowledged a sovereign God. For example, in 2005 a federal judge in Indiana ruled that taxpayers represented by the ACLU had standing to challenge the Indiana House of Representatives for its custom of opening its sessions with prayer in the name of Jesus. That federal judge cited Flast as an exception to the general rule that "[f]ederal taxpayers are generally not permitted to bring suit challenging federal government expenditures," and ordered the Legislature to stop prayers.

Other actions involving the Pledge of Allegiance and displays of the Ten Commandments of God have been attacked using this same exception to our legal principles of standing. In the Hein case pending before the high court, we have an opportunity to stop this abuse of our Constitution, which has given special favoritism to the ACLU and others who have an anti-God agenda. The Foundation for Moral Law will be filing a legal brief in this case Friday, Jan. 5.

Another opportunity to stop the ACLU agenda would be the passage of the Constitution Restoration Act by Congress (S. 520 and H.R. 1070 last year). As I explained in an earlier column ("The solution to save the Pledge"), the CRA would stop federal courts from exercising jurisdiction over cases in which God is acknowledged as the sovereign source of life, liberty or government. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law prohibiting the "free exercise" of our religion. How, then, can federal judges, a part of the national government, presume to tell us how, when or where we can acknowledge God?

Finally, passage of the Public Expression of Religion Act, or PERA, (H.R. 2679 in the 109th Congress), would prevent federal courts from awarding attorney's fees to the ACLU and other liberal organizations who have taken advantage of an exception created by Congress regarding the award of attorney's fees in civil rights cases. As I explained in my column entitled "No more tax money for the ACLU," the ACLU should no longer be richly rewarded for groundless attacks on our religious liberty.

No better resolution for this New Year could be made than a commitment to stop the ACLU and other groups like them in their vicious assault on our faith and morality. Please contact your representative and senator in Congress and demand support for the Constitution Restoration Act and the Public Expression of Religion Act. And pray that the United States Supreme Court will find in the Hein case that the Flast exception created in 1968 should be discarded so that plaintiffs can no longer sue simply because they disagree with the faith upon which our country was founded.

Let's make 2007 a year the ACLU will never forget!

And pray that the United States Supreme Court will find in the Hein case that the Flast exception created in 1968 should be discarded so that plaintiffs can no longer sue simply because they disagree with the faith upon which our country was founded.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in intelf no character of enmity against the lwas religion or trnaquillity of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is delared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Judge Roy Moore wrote:

And pray that the United States Supreme Court will find in the Hein case that the Flast exception created in 1968 should be discarded so that plaintiffs can no longer sue simply because they disagree with the faith upon which our country was founded.

As a Brit it gives me particular pleasure to call "Judge" Roy Moore an imbecillic prat and not worthy of office

George Washington wrote:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in intelf no character of enmity against the lwas religion or trnaquillity of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is delared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Signed John Adams 1797

Judge Roy Moore wrote:

And pray that the United States Supreme Court will find in the Hein case that the Flast exception created in 1968 should be discarded so that plaintiffs can no longer sue simply because they disagree with the faith upon which our country was founded.

As a Brit it gives me particular pleasure to call "Judge" Roy Moore an imbecillic prat and not worthy of office

George Washington wrote:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in intelf no character of enmity against the lwas religion or trnaquillity of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is delared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Signed John Adams 1797

The opening words of this (above) quotation would cause uproar in today's Washington ascendency. Yet Ed Buckner has convincingly demonstrated that they caused no dissent at the time, among either politicians or public.
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least.

In fact, based on the preceding posts, I wonder how the Founders would have ruled on the issue of whether ID should be taught (or allowed to be mentioned) in the schools?

Foxfyre wrote:

In fact, based on the preceding posts, I wonder how the Founders would have ruled on the issue of whether ID should be taught (or allowed to be mentioned) in the schools?

Foxfyre,

In my opinion, the Founders were practical men. They would want science to be taught as science and religion to be taught as religion. The controversy in Dover occurred only because there was an attempt to teach intelligent design as science. In the first 300 pages of this thread, I actually tried to determine if intelligent design qualifies as science. In my opinion, it does not qualify as science unless the definition of science is changed to include non-natural phenomena.

Jefferson and Franklin, of course, were experienced in natural science. I doubt that intelligent design would meet their criteria for science.

Fox, of the quotes you produced, only McHenry specifically mentions Christianity, and even then only in defense of it against attack. The others talk of "religion", what proof do you have that they meant Christianity or a version thereof?

So the rule of thumb was to acknowledge that ID was one of many theories for the origins of the universe

Foxfyre wrote:

So the rule of thumb was to acknowledge that ID was one of many theories for the origins of the universe

There is the structurally fatal flaw to which ID-iocy falls; it does not and cannot meet the requirements necessary for any proposition to be considered a theory in any scientific sense - wholly apart from any other question. It is simply a proposition, a point of view.

Main Entry: the·o·ry
Function: noun
Pronunciation: 'the-&-re, 'thi(-&)r-e
Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music>
4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in>
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave>
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory>
synonym see HYPOTHESIS

I think it qualifies as theory. We can't prove it at this time, but neither could Newton prove his theory at the time he conceived it. But how can we be certain that it will never be proved?

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories
Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman's terms, if something is said to be "just a theory," it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don't really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, the law of thermodynamics, and Hook's law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains a whole series of related phenomena.

An analogy can be made using a slingshot and an automobile.

A scientific law is like a slingshot. A slingshot has but one moving part--the rubber band. If you put a rock in it and draw it back, the rock will fly out at a predictable speed, depending upon the distance the band is drawn back.

An automobile has many moving parts, all working in unison to perform the chore of transporting someone from one point to another point. An automobile is a complex piece of machinery. Sometimes, improvements are made to one or more component parts. A new set of spark plugs that are composed of a better alloy that can withstand heat better, for example, might replace the existing set. But the function of the automobile as a whole remains unchanged.

A theory is like the automobile. Components of it can be changed or improved upon, without changing the overall truth of the theory as a whole.

Some scientific theories include the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, and the quantum theory. All of these theories are well documented and proved beyond reasonable doubt. Yet scientists continue to tinker with the component hypotheses of each theory in an attempt to make them more elegant and concise, or to make them more all-encompassing. Theories can be tweaked, but they are seldom, if ever, entirely replaced.