Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Constitutionality of creationism resolution questioned
(Erik Schelzig, Associated Press, March 1, 2007)

A Democratic state senator wants to know whether a Republican colleague's questions to the state education commissioner about creationism are unconstitutional.

Sen. Shea Flinn, D-Memphis, has asked Attorney General Bob Cooper whether the request violates a provision in the Tennessee Constitution that bans religious tests for public office holders.

''The resolution in question requests our commissioner of the Department of Education to opine 'conclusively' on the origin of our universe and the existence of a Supreme Being,'' Flinn said in his request to the attorney general.

Sen. Raymond Finney, R-Maryville, has sponsored a resolution to ask Education Commissioner Lana Seivers whether the universe ''has been created or has merely happened by random, unplanned, and purposeless occurrences.''

Finney said he wants the department to say there's no scientific proof for the theory of evolution and to let schools teach creationism or intelligent design.

''Is there a creator? If yes, why are we afraid to teach creationism?'' Finney said earlier this week. ''And if the answer is 'well, we can't tell,' then why are we prohibiting an alternative theory?''

Flinn asked whether the resolution would violate the U.S. Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution.

Article 1 of the state constitution holds that ''no political or religious test ... shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under this State.''

Flinn didn't immediately return a phone call Thursday seeking elaboration on why he's challenging the resolution. However, Finney said he didn't know if the legislation is constitutional and is unsure about trying to pass it this year.

''Everybody is jumping the gun on this and getting upset for nothing. I have it in there ... but I probably don't have time this year,'' said Finney, a 65-year-old retired physician who said he has found no scientific proof of evolution.

Finney's resolution would not need approval from the Democratic-controlled House or the governor. Republicans hold a one-seat advantage in the Senate.

Education Department spokeswoman Rachel Woods has said the department would work to formulate answers to Finney's resolution if it passes the Senate.

Creationism is not part of the state's biology curriculum but schools can include it in elective religious studies, social studies and humanities courses.

The state Board of Education - not the Department of Education - oversees any changes to the curriculum, Woods said.

The East Tennessee town of Dayton was the home of the 1925 Tennessee ''Monkey Trial'' that pitted evolution against the biblical creation story and resulted in the conviction of biology teacher John T. Scopes for teaching evolution.

Scopes, a Dayton teacher, was convicted of violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution and was fined $100. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed the conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine of more than $50. It did not rule on the constitutionality of the law. The state repealed the law more than 40 years later, in 1967.

Senate Minority Leader Jim Kyle, D-Memphis, speculated that Finney is using the measure to gain political traction in advance of his 2008 re-election bid.

''This to me is an effort directed to a niche political group that he's trying to ingratiate himself to as he starts his re-election campaign,'' Kyle said.
Kyle said he will defer to the attorney general on constitutional questions about the resolution.

Senate Speaker Ron Ramsey disagreed with Kyle suggestion of political motivations.

''Raymond doesn't do it like that, he just does what's in his heart,'' Ramsey said.

Ramsey, R-Blountville, said he agrees with Finney's objectives.

''Obviously I believe in the supreme being: I believe in God and I believe Jesus is my savior,'' Ramsey said.

''He's just trying to make the point that creationism is an alternative to evolution, that there's two different views out there,'' he said.

That programme went off the boil. Must be something to do with free speech I guess.

You can't view it in the UK?

This book purports to be an accurate, balanced account of the Dover trial but is closer to an Inherit the Wind type of mocking parody filled full of inaccuracies. It remind me of the early books I have read on the Scopes trial, such as Ray Ginger's Six Days or Forever. Fortunately, we now have the far more accurate and balanced book by Edward Larson titled Summer for the Gods (which was awarded numerous prizes) that cover the Scopes trial. Someone needs to do an accurate book on the Dover Trial as well because this book is irresponsible. Conversely, the Monkey book does have some excellent points. For example, the author states that the creation-evolution battle " is a war without end, without pity -- a war fought against stick figures and cartoons , with each side ready to demonize its opponent without hesitation. It would not occur to the organizers of the 'Steeling the Mind' conference to invite an evolutionary biologist to the conference so that the attendees hear another perspective just as it would not occur to the organizers of the annual conference of the National Science Teachers Association, which met a few weeks in the same vicinity, to invite a panel of creationists to join one of its sixteen separate sessions on teaching evolution and dealing with related controversies in public schools. The scientific community sees the creationist critics of evolution as yahoos, religious zealots, and scientific suspect charlatans. The creationists see the evolutionists as immoral and dishonest purveyors of a psuedoreligion called Darwinism that make God superfluous. They vilify and abhor one another in speeches, at conferences, on websites, and in blogs. There are occasional civil debates and attempts to cross the lines with bipartisan conferences, but they are rare; for the most part, any reaching out between these warring fractions is intended to gather information to refute." (p. 28).Then the author ignored his excellent advice and called those who believe that design in nature looks real, but is nothing more than an illusion, intelligent well educated, honest, close to perfect nice people, many who are professionals. Conversely those who conclude that design not only looks real, but is real, are ignorant yahoos, uneducated (p. 28), their ideas are "worthless" (p. 12), they are religious zealots (p. xvi), drug addicts (p. 38), lying fools (p. 349), bigots, ignorant and clueless (p. 27), ignoramuses (p. 29), bullheaded (p. 44), and scientifically suspect charlatans. This book demonizes one side and will only add fuel to the war that Humes notes goes on without end. I could not see any evidence that any Darwin skeptics reviewed this book for mistakes or even that Humes read much, if any, of the literature critical of Darwinism. All of the book's endorsers are well-known atheists or secularists known for their opposition to those who question orthodox Darwinism. Humes is very open about his strong dislike of Christianity. He claims that "there is no historical proof ... that Jesus of Nazareth ever lived" (p. 348) and that a "widely accepted historical influence on Hitler and the holocaust... was.. none other than Martin Luther" (p. 349), ignoring the fact that more Christians died in the camps than Jews (about 7 million vs. 5 million Jews, according to Jewish historian Max Dimont in his book Jews, God and History, and that Hitler made it clear after he got rid of the Jews that the Christians were next. Humes tries to argue that Darwin's ideas were not important in Hitler's goal of producing a superior race using Darwinian ideas and ignores the influence of Richard Wagner, Houston Chamberlain, and Darwin's disciple Ernst Haeckle. Humes adds that the Christian Bible is "rife with proven geographic, scientific, and historical inaccuracies that endorses immoral acts including slavery" ignoring the fact that a major force against slavery was Christianity as the film "Amazing Grace" illustrates, and that slavery in Roman days was very very different then that practiced in America before the middle 1800s. A slave then could become emperor, as some did, and had a list of rights denied most people today in much of the world. He claims that Darwin "neither considered nor accepted" social Darwinism (p. 349) when Darwin specifically stated he both considered and accepted social Darwinism. For example on Dec 3, 1869 Darwin wrote to the man who coined the word eugenics and founded the "science" of eugenics informing him that, after he read his seminal work that Darwin called a "memorable work, " one that we today regard as an infamous work, the book made him (Darwin) a supporter of eugenics. I was appalled at this book.

the author states that the creation-evolution battle " is a war without end, without pity -- a war fought against stick figures and cartoons , with each side ready to demonize its opponent without hesitation.

To show that R Humes new book "Monkey Girl" has really infuriated the IDers, heres a review posted on Amazon re: the book . I, of course , think that Humes book is a good fast paced narrative. However,there are shortcomings in detail that have to be expunged in favor of a good literary clip. Cant have both.

The use of morphine leads to a metabolic dependence on morphine.

The diabetic will die without insulin but he is not addicted to insulin. His use of insulin was not brought about by the use of insulin.

Wasnt Barrett Brown from the National Lampoon?

PUBLIC ACTS

OF THE

STATE OF TENNESSEE

PASSED BY THE

SIXTY - FOURTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1925

________

CHAPTER NO. 27

House Bill No. 185

(By Mr. Butler)

AN ACT prohibiting the teaching of the Evolution Theory in all the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of Tennessee, which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, and to provide penalties for the violations thereof.

Section 1. Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee, That it shall be unlawful for any teacher in any of the Universities, Normals and all other public schools of the State which are supported in whole or in part by the public school funds of the State, to teach any theory that denies the story of the Divine Creation of man as taught in the Bible, and to teach instead that man has descended from a lower order of animals.

Section 2. Be it further enacted, That any teacher found guilty of the violation of this Act, Shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction, shall be fined not less than One Hundred $ (100.00) Dollars nor more than Five Hundred ($ 500.00) Dollars for each offense.

Section 3. Be it further enacted, That this Act take effect from and after its passage, the public welfare requiring it.

Passed March 13, 1925

W. F. Barry,

Speaker of the House of Representatives

L. D. Hill,

Speaker of the Senate

Approved March 21, 1925.

Austin Peay,

Governor.



PUBLIC ACTS

OF THE

STATE OF TENNESSEE

PASSED BY THE

EIGHTY - FIFTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY

1967

________

CHAPTER NO. 237

House Bill No. 48

(By Smith, Galbreath, Bradley)

SUBSTITUTED FOR : SENATE BILL NO. 46

(By Elam)

AN ACT to repeal Section 498 - 1922, Tennessee Code Annotated, prohibiting the teaching of evolution.

Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Tennessee :

Section 1. Section 49 - 1922, Tennessee Code Annotated, is repealed.

Section 2. This Act shall take effect September 1, 1967.

Passed : May 13, 1967

James H. Cummings,

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Frank C. Gorrell,

Speaker of the Senate

Approved : May 17, 1967.

Buford Ellington,

Governor.

Any comment on that conclusion ros?

The real thing was when the realisation of inevitable personal demise took place and a scientific materialist claims it was a pure physical process but makes no attempt to suggest the mechanism by which evolution came by it nor to wonder why humans are the only organisms to which it happened out of all the vast array of obvious possibilities. It was a one off. For it to have happened within organic bio-systems only the once is really unique and a divine spark is a pretty obvious contender for the responsibilty despite, being unprovable, for an animal with such a capacity.

I gather some types of drug can return us to the vegetative state but I've never tried any.

I have already explained fm that 1925 is light years away from 2007

Case against UC system proceeds
(JENNIFER KABBANY, Californian.com, March 4, 2007)

MURRIETA ---- Kyle Brodmann, one of several students who decided to sue the University of California system for rejecting some of his high school's proposed courses for college-entrance credit, said he isn't just standing up for himself. He's defending his school and religious freedom.

"Hearing the UC system may not approve of certain subjects, it was like our education was looked down upon," said Brodmann, 18, a senior at Calvary Chapel Christian School, in the first interview of a student named in the lawsuit since it was filed more than one year ago.

The lawsuit contends the system discriminates against private, Christian schools by rejecting some proposed courses for college-entrance credit because they include or are based upon Christian viewpoints.

UC officials have maintained that there is no such bias against Christian academics and that they just want students admitted into the system to be prepared for its academic rigors.

The Murrieta school's top administrator, Des Starr, said a handful of families have left the school because of the lawsuit, but campus leaders believe what they are doing is "standing up for their faith," and Brodmann is a part of that.

Brodmann, who maintains straight "As" at the Murrieta campus while also participating in football, soccer and track, said his education has been challenging. Its Christian bent, he said, has made it fulfilling. Protecting that type of schooling for others is part of his motivation for joining the lawsuit.

Brodmann said he has applied to every UC campus, and very well may attend one. But he said he hopes his actions will help his campus and others like it for years to come.

"This is not only for my school, but it's for me personally," Brodmann said. "It's about what I have learned, and what I believe."

Brodmann's comments come as the suit continues to wind its way through the legal system. It was filed not only on behalf of Calvary Chapel Christian School in Murrieta, but also the Association of Christian Schools International, which represents more than 800 religious schools in the state and 4,000 nationwide.

Federal Judge S. James Otero ruled late last year that three students could be added to the original complaint, a sophomore and two freshmen who plan to apply to the UC system, documents state.

"This lawsuit is about the future of Christian education," said Robert Tyler, the school's attorney. "As a result, we want to make sure this case stays alive. If by the time it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, if all our original plaintiffs have graduated high school, it's arguable they could throw the case out because it doesn't involve existing students."

Tyler said he was pleased the judge allowed him to add new students to the case because he wants to keep it fresh and relevant. He said he would continue to ask the court to add students as the lawsuit progresses.

Depositions in the case are ongoing, and a jury trial is scheduled to start in November, he said.

Tyler said he believes the depositions, several of which took place in late January, are going well for the school.

He said the UC system's director of undergraduate admissions testified that even if a course provides all of the material and content expected by the university system, if it is taught from a Christian perspective, the course will be denied for college-prep credit. The director also testified that even though a history or science course includes all of the content required by the university system, it is deemed "inaccurate" if it is taught from a Christian viewpoint, he said.

Another UC representative testified that a student who is "saved" would not be "adequately prepared" for studies at the university level if he or she was taught science from a Christian perspective, Tyler said.

"They are hiding behind the argument that the academics of these courses are not rigorous enough or are too narrow of a focus," he said.

UC attorney Christopher Patti, in a written statement, said that: "We do not agree with plaintiffs' characterization of the testimony in the case. Suffice it to say, the University of California does not discriminate against anyone, in admissions or otherwise, on the basis of religion."

Proposed courses rejected by the system include "Christianity's Influence on America," which a UC document cited as "too narrow (and) too specialized" as reasons for not approving the course.

Another one was "Christianity and Morality in American Literature." The class was described in documents as an "intensive study in textual criticism aimed at elevating the ability of students to engage literary works." Authors students would have studied included Mark Twain, Edgar Allen Poe, Benjamin Franklin and C.S. Lewis.

In responding to the complaint of UC officials that some of Calvary Chapel's submitted courses were "too narrow (and) too specialized," the lawsuit lists dozens of other UC-approved courses it contends are "much more narrow and specialized," including "A study of Western Caribbean Culture" and "The 60's: A Closer Look."

The lawsuit also contends that the UC system approves other high school courses "so long as they are not ideologically disapproved or disliked." It cites about three dozen courses the plaintiff's attorneys believe fall in that category, including "Existential Literature," "Gender, Sexuality and Identity in Literature," "Intro to Buddhism," and "Feminist Issues Throughout U.S. History."

Part of the lawsuit also delves into science classes, contending that the UC system is denying some science courses that use common Christian textbooks because its officials don't approve of the fact that they deal with creationism, the belief that God created the universe in six days, and intelligent design, which accepts most scientific theories and natural laws but asserts they are the result of a higher power.

The complaint cites an e-mail from a UC official stating the textbooks are "not consistent with the viewpoints and knowledge generally accepted in the scientific community."

Starr said that while his peers and pupils are proud of the suit and its objectives, a handful of families have left the school because of what Starr said he believes are misperceptions about the lawsuit. For one, he said, some families think the courses that have been rejected by the UC system are being taught at the school. In actuality, the courses were only proposed, he said.

Moreover, he said be believes the lawsuit has created an erroneous perception that the school's academics are not preparing students for college.

"Our kids are very well-prepared," he said, adding that his students take as many, if not more, classes than their public school counterparts and that the school has been accredited by Western Association of Schools and Colleges, the same organization that accredits public campuses.

Despite any troubles for the school created by the lawsuit, Starr said he doesn't regret his decision to join it.

"We are considered a large school, and sometimes there is more responsibility placed on schools that can afford to take a risk like this ... to protect against viewpoint discrimination," Starr said. "We are desiring to please our Lord and savior. ... This is a form of our obedience to him."