Wednesday, June 22, 2005

Intelligent Design Or The Same Old Stupid Atheism

Pennsylvania is considering a proposition allowing local school boards to include the intelligent design paradigm in their science classes in addition to evolution.

This should be a no-brainer, as numerous evolutionists have serious misgivings with the lack of evidence supporting evolution as the explanation for the origins of life as we know it. Also, the statistical-scientific implications (check here and here for just a few examples) of design versus evolution cannot be responsibly ignored.

The left led by their reliable legal staff at the ACLU fear that the paradigm of intelligent design injects a set of religious beliefs into the public classroom. Very probably it does, but certainly no more than evolution has already done, and the addition of intelligent design will create a much more frank academic discussion of the pertinent issues regarding origins.

Evolution specifically rejects the idea of God, which is an atheistic point of view. There is no room for a Creator in evolution, which very clearly teaches that the universe and all life in it evolved completely by chance as a result of physical and chemical interactions and changes. And the great majority of Americans' (to say nothing for the entire world's) belief systems involve a Creator of some sort.

But evolution has been crammed down the throats of students for years as proven fact, with not an iota of room for discussion of any other viewpoints, as leftist orthodoxy has demanded that they be excluded as unscientific religious propaganda.

But atheism, in which evolution was founded and remains based, is just as much a belief system as the world's established religions. It holds beliefs about a god, namely that there is/was none. It holds itself out as an exclusive belief system (there is no god, making it incompatible with other belief systems that include a god), and they their viewpoints are existential, there being no meaning to life other than the accident of our presence on earth, meaning that morality is an open question with no supreme being to dictate it. Make no mistake, atheism is as much a belief system as Christianity.

So forcing its version of history upon students and stifling any other discussion of other origin paradigms reflects a certain political arrogance on the part of the ACLU which reflexively litigates away any appearance of any viewpoint that in any way touches upon a set of religious beliefs.

But putting aside the First Amendment "freedom from religion" argument which the ACLU has twisted into the Constitutional discussion, the existence of two diametrically opposed scientific hypotheses presumes that at least one of them is wrong. Indeed, responsible scholars will admit that neither has been sufficiently proven to reject the other. In that case, what business does the ACLU have in demanding that one hypothesis be taught to the specific exclusion of the other? What business do these political lawyers have in science?

But the left very clearly makes this a political issue rather than an academic one. A responsible scientist considers all possibilities until there is evidence clearly against them or in favor of others. But by disguising their belief system as no belief system at all (and therefore an inoffesive one), the left has precluded a serious examination of the facts for the better part of a century. This is not an effort to prevent certain individuals from the discomfort of being exposed to others' beliefs (which the Constitution does not protect against), but rather an effort to advance, on state time and dollars, a very specific world view and set of personal values held by an intellectual minority to the exclusion of those held by the majority.

And if the ACLU and left are so certain of the strength of their origin hypothesis and so interested in the freedom of ideas, the best thing they could do would be to support the teaching of intelligent design so that responsible science can potentially and fairly exclude it as a fairy tale.

Or are they afraid that the opposite will happen?

1 Comments:

Anonymous JPB said...

Religion is a world wide human condition. Every society from primative to complex has a religious system. Evolution would predict that 50% of the world's societies should be athestic. Since the human condition is not so, religion must have serious survival aspects to become a species wide characteristic. Therefore, evolutionists should celebrate and promote religion as one of the human survival characteristics. Thanks, JPB

6:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home