Opinion

Originally posted October 30, 2005, the following post was my first writing on Intelligent Design.

---

There are many school districts across the United States on their own or by law adding Intelligent Design to the high school science curriculum. The State Legislatures of Pennsylvania, Mississippi , Arkansas , South Carolina , Georgia and five others have had antievolution bills introduced in 2005. The language of these bills, in essence, state “alternatives” to evolution must be given equal time Many put forth Intelligent Design (ID) as such an alternative and William Dembski in 1998 declared ID a robust scientific theory (Matzke 2005).However, is Intelligent Design a scientific theory? In order to discuss this question, one must be clear about what a scientific theory is. For this article, a scientific theory is defined as follows: a scientific theory is a model that describes accurately a large class of observations, and makes definite predictions about the results of future observations (Hawking 1988). The theory of evolution describes accurately a large class of observations, and makes definite predictions about the results of future observations, and has survived countless experiments. Intelligent Design, on the other hand, has not. Intelligent Design is the view that nature shows tangible signs of having been designed by a preexisting intelligence. It has been around, in one form or another, since the time of ancient Greece (What is Intelligent Design?). This is an interesting conjecture; but it is a long way from a scientific theory. The main postulate of Intelligent Design is a preexisting intelligence, which cannot be proved, nor disproved by observation or experiment. As such, any preexisting intelligence would be outside the hot big bang model of the universe, and any actions taken by such a preexisting intelligence would have been before the beginning of time. Therefore, according to the law of economy, a preexisting intelligence should be cut out of any model of the universe, for any actions taken by it cannot be observed.

Intelligent Design cannot be put on equal footing with the theory of evolution in the high school science curriculum, for it is not a scientific theory. At best, Intelligent Design is a social theory. A social theory refers to the use of abstract and often complex theoretical frameworks to explain and analyze social patterns and large-scale social structures (Wikipedia Social Theory). Historically societies have used a preexisting intelligence to explain phenomena that have no clear explanation. Intelligent Design is, therefore, confined to the high school social studies curriculum.

Once in its proper place the discussion of Intelligent Design changes from should it be taught to—is it Constitutional? The answer to that depends on how one defines a preexisting intelligence. Is it God in the Judeo-Christian sense? Alternatively, is it a race of little green men from another star system or another universe? Intelligent Design is vague in this area. If it is God, then Intelligent Design is just another term for creationism, and thus is Unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has found:

First, the Court concluded that legal mandates to teach creationism did nothing to advance the cause of academic freedom because the open and unregulated field of academic science already permitted consideration of alternative theories. Legal mandates to include creationism were not necessary to protect academic freedom because the free market in scientific ideas had already considered creationism and rejected it on the merits. Second, the Court took note of the long history of strong links between creationist theory and certain fundamentalist religious sects. These two elements led the Court to conclude that the argument of a secular purpose for creationism was a “sham” (Brauer 2005).

For Intelligent Design to be Constitutional the preexisting intelligence would have to be that of a race of little green men from another star system or another universe, and once that case is made, Intelligent Design loses 99% of its supporters. If the above case is made, then man is no longer the center of the universe, and Intelligent Design then would be no better then the theory of evolution in the eyes of the people that support Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design is creationism by another name, for the supporters of Intelligent Design would not accept any preexisting intelligence, but that of God in the Judeo-Christian sense that makes Intelligent Design a social theory and a political issue. If any science were behind the claims of Intelligent Design, there would be no need for State Legislatures to introduce bills calling for Intelligent Design to be placed in the high school science curriculum. Intelligent Design would have made it into the curriculum on its own merits.

Why should there be bills promoting creationism in the public schools? If people want their children taught Intelligent Design/creationism there are private schools that will do it. Science has its own problems in the United States without having to fight-off religion. Not enough students are interested in science. That is not to say it is the fault of science teachers; science is expensive (the really interesting stuff usually is) and when the budget needs to be cut the first slice is taken from science. A subject that needs the latest and best textbooks and equipment at all times nationwide. American society is, has been, and always will be heavily dependent on science and the technology it provides for its survival. Thus, the teaching of science should be of the first importance. Yet, American society keeps getting sidetracked by debates that were or should have been settled over 200 years ago. The First Amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” This also holds true for the states. The above bills are repugnant to the Constitution and therefore cannot become law. Americans need to remember we, not only, have freedom of religion; we have freedom from religion as well.

Keegan

---

Links

• Intelligent Design is not Science
• Intelligent Design Links

---

Matzke, N (2005) Intelligent Design bill proposed in Pennsylvania [On-line] Available: 10 October 2005 http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/news/2005/PA/929_intelligent_design_bill_propos_4_1_2005.aspBrauer, M.J. at el (2005) Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism And The Constitution Washington University Law Quarterly Volume 83 Number 1 2005 p 24 [On-line] Available: 10 October 2005 http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf Hawking S.W. (198 A Brief History of Time. New York: Bantam p 9

What is Intelligent Design? Access Research Network [On-line] Available: 10 October 2005 http://www.arn.org/idfaq/What%20is%20intelligent%20design.htm

Wikipedia Social Theory [On-line] Available: 10 October 2005 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_theory#Classical_Social_Theory 

Brauer, M.J. at el (2005) Is It Science Yet?: Intelligent Design Creationism And The Constitution Washington University Law Quarterly Volume 83 Number 1 2005 pp 101-102 [On-line] Available: 10 October 2005 http://law.wustl.edu/WULQ/83-1/p%201%20Brauer%20Forrest%20Gey%20book%20pages.pdf

Constitution of the United States Amendment One [On-line] Available:10 October 2005 http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Originally posted January 12, 2006, the following post is my latest writing on Intelligent Design, and is one of my better overall postings.

---

 

Introduction 

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania Judge John E Jones III handed down the Court’s ruling in the case Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al (hereinafter Kitzmiller). The decision was a stunning defeat for Intelligent Design in the science classroom. The Court found that the Board’s Intelligent Design policy violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

William Buckingham former Dover Area School Board member and one of two who spearheaded the Intelligent Design policy was asked for his thoughts on the ruling. Buckingham said, “I’m still waiting for a judge or anyone to show me anywhere in the Constitution where there’s a separation of church and state…. We didn’t lose; we were robbed” (Judge Rules against ‘intelligent design’ ‘Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes’).

The Separation of Church and State 

In my seven years as a teacher, I have never seen such a fundamental misunderstanding of a concept as I have with the separation of church and state. So, I take up Mr. Buckingham’s challenge, and attempt to explain the concept. The phrase is not found in the Constitution, but the concept is. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” The Bill of Rights applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus the state shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…. Basic to this concept is tolerance, as John Locke argued in his Essay on Toleration 1689, “all religions are worthy of respect, none priority” (Greaves 1992 p 566). The  United States was founded upon morality that is not exclusive of or to any religion; therefore, to protect the free exercise of religion no public agency funded by tax money can or should endorse any religion. The minute the state or any agency of it adopts one religion it prohibits the free exercise of all others, thus making any citizen who does not practice the state religion an outsider in their own community, and not entitled to its basic rights because they are different. The Founding Fathers called that Tyranny of the Majority.

Pluralism

Some would say the  United States is not a pluralistic nation, but a Christian nation. If that is the case, there would be no need for the following clause in Article Six of the Constitution which states: “…no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the  United States” (Article Six). This would seem to support the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. But, some still would say that the United States is a Christian nation. If that is true, who then can become a citizen of this Christian nation? Only Christians is the answer. Where do the great numbers of non-Christians go in that case? The fact is the United States is a pluralistic nation. Congress has upheld this in the Immigration and Nationality Act that in general states:

1. a period of continuous residence and physical presence in the United States ;

2. residence in a particular USCIS District prior to filing;

3. an ability to read, write, and speak English;

4. a knowledge and understanding of U.S. history and government;

5. good moral character;

6. attachment to the principles of the U.S. Constitution; and,

7. favorable disposition toward the United States (Naturalization).

There is no religious test for citizenship; the most important of the requirements is an attachment to the principles of the Constitution. That is a political requirement. Who can become a citizen? Any person who has a commitment to the political principles on which this nation is based; none more basic than the separation of church and state. The requirement of good moral character speaks to good citizenship. Thus, the United States is a pluralistic nation. One that shows respect of all religions, and not one that shows the intolerance of Mr. Buckingham’s statement, “This country wasn’t founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such” (Kitzmiller p 103).

The Supreme Court in many cases: Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971, Edwards v. Aguillard 1987, and County of Allegheny v. ACLU 1989; to name three, has upheld the concept of separation of church and state. In Lemon, the Court set a three pronged test to determine if the government’s action is repugnant to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. It is the purpose of the Supreme Court to state what the law is. The concept of the separation of church and state started with John Locke. Then, it was expressed in Article Six of the Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. One need not be Christian to become a citizen, and one can be of any religion and become a citizen. 

Conclusion

Some Christians do not like the idea of pluralism; they do not see pluralism as a national strength, but a national weakness. These Christians see a commitment to biblical truths as necessary for the nation. In that case, pluralism is repugnant to the Bible as they read it. Pluralism has led, in their view, to moral relativism, and an amoral society. They have the right to hold that view because of the First Amendment. By denying the separation of church and state, they hope to give Christianity priority over other religions and points of view, thus denying those citizens who do not believe as they do the right to be different. Justice Robert Jackson, in 1943, stated: “The test of [freedom’s] substance is the right to differ as to things that touch at the heart of the existing order” (Johnson 1994 p 103). That would seem to make freedom of thought as much of a right as freedom of religion. The small number of Christians who do not like the idea of pluralism; either do not understand or do not respect the fact that this nation is made stronger by the separation of church and state, and the pluralistic nature of the First Amendment.

Keegan

---

Works Cited

Greaves R.L. et al (1992). Civilizations of the West: The Human Adventure NY : Harper Collins.

Johnson P.E. et al (1994). American Government. NJ: Houghton Mifflin

Judge rules against ‘intelligent design’ ‘Religious alternative’ to evolution barred from public-school science classes’ [On-line] Available: 21 December 2005 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/page/2/

Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al (2005) United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania [On-line] Available: 21 December 2005 http:/www.jgkeegam.com/id/kitzmiller.pdf

Naturalization [On-line] Available: 11 January 2006 http://uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/

 

 

---

Originally posted a year ago, it should be posted here.

Monday, July 24, 2006

A great article in the Billings Gazette: Retracing Clark’s Journey to Pompeys. Two hundred years ago, July 24, 1806 the Corps of Discovery was on the Yellowstone River. If not for the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, which President Thomas Jefferson thought Unconstitutional but made anyway, and the Corps of Discovery; the United States would not be the size it is today. The Louisiana Purchase was the first step in westward expansion that led to Manifest Destiny, the Mexican War; the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo; February 2, 1848, giving the United States California and in turn the Gadsden Purchase in 1853. It is debatable whether the Mexican War was a good thing. There is no such thing as a good war. There is nothing good in war except its ending.

The fact is the United States came out of that war with California and Texas. California, in 1848—49, was a place that people wanted to go. Land was cheap, abundant, and the weather was fair. This desire of people to get to California for its land and raw materials led to the construction of the Transcontinental Rail Road. The Road was called for by Congress in 1862 with the Pacific Rail Road Bill. The building of the Transcontinental Rail Road was the greatest industrial-economic feat in American History, and it was made possible in part by the exploration of Lewis and Clark.

Keegan

 

 

Recently, I upgraded from Microsoft frontpage to Microsoft Expression Web.  Aside from the time consuming process of removing useless code from the pages, there is the added complication of trying to comply with W3C  standards.  Consider the following, Yesterday, I completed The Prisoner Page.  Instead of using tables, I used the <div> tag to format page content.  During the process one thing became abundantly clear, I do not understand how to use the <div> tag. I have read it should be used instead of tables because tables add extra code to a page.  Additionally, tables can only be used for spreadsheet-like data and not for page layout.

That is all well and good; however, setting up <div> tags is time consuming and frustrating at best, at worst the formatting doesn’t work, and the page looks like shit.  Furthermore, tables in and of themselves do not add unneeded code to a page when used in combination with separate cascading style sheets.  On the contrary, tables are a quick way to ensure accurate formatting.  I have read nothing yet that has convinced me otherwise.

Keegan

This is a test of the new blog software.  I have chosen an offsite blog in the hope that the postings will be easier to organize than my list attempt.

The first postings, which hopefully will be up in the near future, will be some of my best writings from the past.  They will serve as a foundation for the posts that will follow on a somewhat irregular basis.

Keegan