Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Lawyer says school proposal equates evolution, religion
(By RON MATUS, St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 2008)

Can science be like a religion?

In the case of Florida's proposed new science standards, yes, says the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings.

Pinellas lawyer David C. Gibbs III wrote in a recent legal memo that by singling out Darwin's theory of evolution as the sole pillar of modern biology, the proposed standards leave no room for other philosophical perspectives and cross the line between science and faith.

Gibbs also argues the proposed standards could face a legal challenge for violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

"Making this gigantic jump moves the evolutionary hypothesis from the realm of science into a philosophical faith-based belief system," Gibbs writes in the five-page memo, which he sent to the state Board of Education last month. "It has fallen into the same trap of which science has accused religion. It posits its entire interpretive rationale on something which is unobservable and untested."

The science-as-religion claim isn't a new criticism of Darwin's theory, which the vast majority of scientists consider to be sound and backed by evidence. But could it become a new legal argument to put the issue back before the courts?

Becky Steele, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, called Gibbs' claim "cockamamy."

"He claims that teaching science, based on well-accepted theories backed by factual evidence, is somehow promoting a particular religion in public school," she said in an e-mail. "Imagine them arguing that the Establishment Clause would be violated by teaching a calculus class that only expresses the 'worldview' of mathematics without any sense of the divine."

Gibbs wrote his memo just as the debate over the proposed science standards began heating up last month. The current standards, adopted in 1996, do not mention the word "evolution," and many scientists and science teachers consider them inadequate.

The Board of Education is scheduled to vote on the proposed standards Feb. 19.

Gibbs was unavailable for comment, and his firm referred questions to another lawyer, Barbara Weller, and to a curriculum specialist, Francis C. Grubbs.

Weller works for Gibbs' law firm and the Christian Law Association of Seminole, which specializes in religious liberty issues and is run by Gibbs' father. Grubbs works as a consultant to both entities and helped Gibbs craft the recent memo.

Gibbs represented Schiavo's parents in their unsuccessful battle against a court order to remove their severely brain-damaged daughter's feeding tube. She died in a Pinellas Park hospice in 2005.

Weller and Grubbs said Friday that they're preparing a more detailed memo, which they expected to complete Monday and forward to the Board of Education. Neither returned a call Monday.

Asked if they foresaw filing a lawsuit, Weller said, "We're certainly not there yet. ... We're just pointing out there's a problem, and it could be a legal problem."

The ACLU has also raised the possibility of a lawsuit if the Board of Education adopts a science curriculum that "includes particular religious groups' beliefs about the origins of the universe."

Evolution has spawned a number of legal battles over the decades. And to date, its critics have come up short.

In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court in Edwards vs. Aguillard struck down a Louisiana law that required creationism - the belief that a god or gods created the Earth, the universe and life - be taught alongside evolution. Current Justice Antonin Scalia was one of two who dissented.

In 2005, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled in a highly publicized case, Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District, that intelligent design is a form of creationism. Proponents of intelligent design argue that some systems found in nature - such as the human eyeball - are too complex to have formed without the intervention of an unnamed designer.

Jones also ruled that the Dover, Pa., school district violated the Constitution when it required that intelligent design be taught as an alternative theory.

Many others besides Gibbs have referred to Darwin's theory as a leap of faith. Former St. Petersburg City Council member Bill Foster, for example, used the term "Religion of Darwin" in a letter he recently sent to the Pinellas County School Board, urging the board to expose students to alternative theories.

Grubbs insisted that the Gibbs memo was an attempt to free the draft standards from bias and not to put faith into the mix.

"We are not injecting creationism or intelligent design into this. That's not our objective," he said.

But he added, "Our objective, I suppose, leaves the door open for that."

farmerman wrote:
According to RL humans were "created" along with everything else at about the saem time that the planet was cooling ......I can see everybody dancing around going "OW OW OW ".

RL likes to make these connections.


I do?

A hearing on the request for summary judgment has been scheduled for February 14, 2008 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

FLORIDA UPDATE

Quote:

Lawyer says school proposal equates evolution, religion
(By RON MATUS, St. Petersburg Times, January 15, 2008)

Can science be like a religion?

In the case of Florida's proposed new science standards, yes, says the lawyer who represented Terri Schiavo's parents and siblings.

Pinellas lawyer David C. Gibbs III wrote in a recent legal memo that by singling out Darwin's theory of evolution as the sole pillar of modern biology, the proposed standards leave no room for other philosophical perspectives and cross the line between science and faith.

Gibbs also argues the proposed standards could face a legal challenge for violating the constitutional separation of church and state.

Christians are hell-bent on creating their own Armageddon.

But they think anti-IDers are doing that.

Can't you see c.i. that your fatuous statement only means that you are an anti-IDer and we've known that for a long time.

So you're running on the spot again. You are supposed to shed some light on your evidence for that particular social consequence you are predicating.

I hope you don't fall back on your old standby that American science will be wrecked because as I have shown it was Christianity that gave us science.

Quote spendius:
You obviously haven't read the thread.

The issue is whether to teach those aspects of "natural" theories which impinge dramatically upon the social organization as evolution theory does. ET does imply that you are a failure if you don't spread your genetic material at every opportunity using any strategy that works.


Evolution is still just a theory, an Idea, a Hunch, its an OK one I spose, but as I said, like any "natural" or "supernatural" theory that relates to pre-history, its full of holes. How does ET impinge on your social organization? Where is the imaginary ET bible that you drew that "you are a failure if you don't spread your genetic material at every opportunity using any strategy that works", thats absolutely hilarious. Someone would have to be an idiot to take that seriously (like the bible).

Quote spendius:
Some of us think that the pushing of evolution theory in schools is irresponsible and designed merely to provide jobs for those who have made themselves "experts" in such an easy subject as an alternative to real science. And we are not arguing for religious indoctrination either.


So let me get this straight . . . You believe that teaching evolution provides unnecessary "expert" jobs "in such an easy subject as an alternative to real science", yet you advocate the addition of ID, which would only add to the problem of, unnecessary "expert" jobs "in such an easy subject as an alternative to real science" ie; evolution AND intelligent design theory.

"Thats absolutely hilarious" and pretty much exposes a pretty severe bias on your part which causes me to question my own sanity, should I continue replying.

Quote spendius:
Would you care to define "our religious institutions"?


Customs, practices, relationships, or behavioral patterns of importance in the life of a community or society and the buildings housing such an organization of, pertaining to, or concerned with religion and its teachings in all its various forms (from monotheism ,polytheism, shop-a-lotsism, poddleism, spendiusism, fartism(its exactly as it sounds Very Happy)).

Quote spendius:
Pure drivel. Meaningless and worthless foam from the mouth.


I agree, thats drivel, but I think its drivel because I don`t believe for a second that evolution theory has done enough to truly state its dismissal as "counterproductive", UNLESS, its merely there to oppose religious teachings and create an independence from the said religious institutional teachings, not that any of those theories, "natural" or "supernatural", has a leg to stand on considering there holyness (mind that pun).

Quote spendius:
With opponents like that this should be a breeze.


Opponents? Polarize society more?
What exactly is going to be a "breeze"? And why are you pleased that it is going to be a "breeze"? To me its just another drop of water in the ocean, but would be interesting to get an answer.

Ok, so even if there was an intelligent designer, who was it, was it the Jehovah? Buddha? Satan? A giant floating god head? The great roaming space Gypsy? Aliens?

As Ken Miller says, evolution is nothing more than taking what youve already got and doing something new with it.

I think it is taking what you've already got and working with it as best you can.

Another uncorrelated statement asserting that "If your against christianity, your against ID",

And you haven't been running on the same spot? What light have you shed on the social consequences of the belief your asserting?

By George I think hes getting it, despite himself

I think it is taking what you've already got and working with it as best you can.

Xenoch writes:

Quote:

Ok, so even if there was an intelligent designer, who was it, was it the Jehovah? Buddha? Satan? A giant floating god head? The great roaming space Gypsy? Aliens?

Do you have to know where a thought came from in order to believe you had one? Do we have to know where the stuff of the universe originated in order to speculate on how that stuff has behaved and evolved?

We do not need to know who the designer was in order to be an IDer. There is no need for a belief in a 'being' at all, as evidenced in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, both quite passionate IDers.

All that is necessary is the ability to see or conclude that there are some things that seem to be outside the range of probability of explanation by either chance or natural selection as Darwin and his protege explain natural selection. This need include no religious overtones or an identifiable 'being' at all.

Thats what Mike Behe said in the Dover case. His logic didnt stand the "red face test" either.

The issue of "random chance" is not the way thatphenotypic expression of genomes works. Once a genome is established it sets the track and limits the possible choices for subsequent beings. WHY? because the environment selects for or against the genomes that work and so evolution via adaptation occurs.In addition, Freely mixing populations also share genes and produce subsequent speciation via drift . In all cases the variability , built into the genome limits the possibilities for subsequent types until mutations occur that are , at least, neutral .As Ken Miller says, evolution is nothing more than taking what youve already got and doing something new with it.