Sorry to be a bore about this but I think it's important. Much more important than a cool new coding technique or a way to drive entrance ramps faster.

Since finishing my reading of the United States District Court's ruling on the Dover Area School District's attempt to inject Intelligent Design into science classrooms (you can read it for yourself here), I am so apalled by the breach of trust perpetrated by the very people empowered to oversee the education of that community's children, and so concerned that it is at this very moment happening elsewhere, including here in Ohio, that I feel compelled to share more of the story along with several warnings for parents of all religious persuasions.

First, let me say that if you have any interest in these matters (and you should), once you get around all the legal references, this opinion reads like the plot for a Grisham best-seller. There are villains, plots, perjury...all we're really missing is a dead body and—considering we're talking about evolution here—you could probably drag one of those up, too, without too much trouble.

Over the past year or so, I've had what is probably more than my share of conversations with friends about this whole ID thing. In all cases, even my most devoutly-religious friends are believers in the scientific basis of evolution and do not deny that evolution has clearly been a part of the development of the world as we know it. Ultimately, the question, in our conversations, comes down to who and/or what started the evolutionary trail? That is, was there a god of some kind who planted the first bacterium which eventually morphed into life as we know it, or did that first spark somehow happen by natural means?

Generally, at one level or another, after enough Scotch and talk, that's pretty much where we end up. We all know there is a long, specific, and almost unbroken chain of evidence of the evolution of the species; we just disagree on what started it all. And, I can live with that. I don't think that first spark was started by a superior being (if so, then you have to go back to the more basic question of what spark started him?), but once you get past that first bit, we're all on pretty much the same page: Something got the ball rolling and it's been snow-balling ever since.

Given a few billion years' time, even small changes can have big effects.

But here's the thing, AND THE WARNING: The people who are trying to push "Intelligent" Design into our schools do not believe there has been any evolution. Not any. None. Nada. They believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis, which is to say that one day—literally one day—God waved his hand and created everything we see, as it now is.

Although the defandants in the case tried to backpedal away from it when confronted with the evidence, they make the following statement in their book which is, not coincidentally, the very book to which Dover students were pointed to understand more about Intelligent Design:

"Darwinists object to the view of intelligent design because it does not give a natural cause explanation of how the various forms of life started in the first place. Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly, through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features intact—fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc." (emphasis added)

Whoa, there. This is no argument-in-principle about what put the first bit of matter on the earth to begin its billion-year transformation, this is a blatant and ignorant disregard for even the most basic concepts of science.

Moreover, they believe the world is, give or take, 10,000 years old, just as the Bible says. Ten thousand years? Ten thousand years ago Homo sapiens sapiens already had domesticated dogs, permanent settlements, and had learned to use fire to cast copper and harden pottery.

Our forebears had widespread use of stone tools two million years ago. We have fossil evidence of predecessors to humans (Australopithecus, illustrated above) existing over three million years ago. Amphibians arose three-hundred million years ago. We have found rocks from the formation of the Earth's crust that were formed 3.8 billion years ago.

And you want to teach my kids the earth is only 10,000 years old? Or that there has been no evolution whatsoever over the history of the world? I don't think so. That is so far beyond ignorant I don't even know the word to use to describe it. Criminal, maybe. Or, at very least, negligent.

Actually, negligent probably is the right word because that is certainly what most of the members of the School Board were. The following is verbatim from the court ruling (minus citations to the official record of the trial, which citations I have ommitted simply for readability):

Remarkably, the 6-3 vote at the October 18, 2004 meeting to approve the curriculum change occurred with absolutely no discussion of the concept of ID, no discussion of how presenting it to students would improve science education, and no justification was offered by any Board member for the curriculum change. Furthermore, Board members somewhat candidly conceded that they lacked sufficient background in science to evaluate ID, and several of them testified with equal frankness that they failed to understand the substance of the curriculum change adopted on October 18, 2004.

In fact, one unfortunate theme in this case is the striking ignorance concerning the concept of ID amongst Board members. Conspicuously, Board members who voted for the curriculum change testified at trial that they had utterly no grasp of ID. To illustrate, consider that Geesey testified she did not understand the substance of the curriculum change, yet she voted for it. Moreover, as she indicated on multiple occasions, in voting for the curriculum change, Geesy deferred completely to Bonsell and Buckingham [the Board members who were trying to push ID through].... Second, Buckingham, Chair of the Curriculum Committee at the time, admitted that he had no basis to know whether ID amounted to good science as of the time of his first deposition, which was two and a half months after the ID Policy was approved, yet he voted for the curriculum change. Third, Cleaver voted for the curriculum change despite the teachers' objections, based upon assurances from Bonsell. Cleaver admittedly knew nothing about ID, including the words comprising the phrase as she consistently referred to ID as "intelligence design" throughout her testimony....

Despite this collective failure to understand the concept of ID, which six Board members nonetheless felt was appropriate to add to ninth grade biology class to improve science education, the Board never heard from any person or organization with scientific expertise about the curriculum change, save for consistent but unwelcome advices from the District's science teachers who uniformly opposed the change. In disregarding the teachers' views, the Board ignored undeviating opposition to the curriculum change by the one resource with scientific expertise immediately at its disposal. The only outside organizations which the Board consulted prior to the vote were the Discovery Institute and TMLC [Thomas More Law Center], and it is clear that the purpose of these contacts was to obtain legal advice, as opposed to science education information.

This is appalling. You can read the decision yourself to see the specifics, of which there are many, but the bottom line is this: Most of the members of the Board allowed themselves to be bullied by a few born-again Christians who felt unimpeded by honor, duty, or even religous principles to do whatever it took to force their ignorant, narrow-minded, and self-serving viewpoints on both their peers and the children of their community.

Again, from the decision:

The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy. It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

1. Lance Jurgensen12/27/2005 03:05:40 PM

Scott, actually not boring at all.
I agree with the ruling, though my faith makes me question many things. I fully believe in evolution as you do, but as you stated, where did the "spark" come from. My faith allows me to believe that God was the spark. I have no answer for what "sparked" him, but I also do not necessarily believe that he 'was' sparked. He is what he is.

2. Scott Good12/27/2005 03:53:40 PM
Homepage: http://www.scottgood.com

Hi Lance,

What you've said is right on with what many of my friends believe and, really, who's to say they or you are wrong? I certainly can't prove there is or isn't a god; that's why they call it faith, after all.

I'm happy for anybody to believe whatever they want as long as they return the favor. Having said that, I'll not stand by quietly while they try to shove their particular flavor of religion down my children's throats by trying to masquerade it as science.

This separation of church and state, yet another example of the brilliance of the formers of the Constitution, is a lot of what keeps us from being like Iraq or, for that matter, Palestine and Israel.

Let's teach the provable things in school. Leave faith for home and church.

Scott

3. Ken01/02/2006 03:39:43 PM

Scott,
Interesting ideas and points, you are very passionate about this topic. Being educated in Biology (my undergrad was in Zoology) and a Christian I believe in ID. I came to believe in it through learning how life is created and the unbelievable sequence of events that occur to make it happen. The more I learned the more convinced I became that life is not just chance and that there is a design to creation. (For example, the gases that make up our atmosphere have a specific molecular weight; if they were any lighter then we would not have an atmosphere) Here are some thoughts for you:

A God powerful enough to create life (or direct its creation) may also be powerful enough to create history itself.

Religion is currently being taught in our schools. Just one example from history curriculum is the beliefs of the ancient Aztecs.

There is a common misunderstanding about the constitution and the separation of church and state. “the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." “ ( from http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html note that this is a link to a Christian site )

It is statistically unlikely that the events that need to come together to create life did so by chance.

I enjoy reading your blog, keep up the good work.

PS. If you are interested in learning about some very good logical arguments for Christianity, I would suggest reading CS Lewis ‘Mere Christianity”

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060652926/103-6865488-5839046?v=glance&n=283155

Sincerely,
Ken

4. Scott Good01/03/2006 09:56:17 AM
Homepage: http://www.scottgood.com

Hi Ken, and thanks for your note.

I'll take a look at the sites you've mentioned. Thanks for offering them up (if you'll pardon the pun). In the meantime, though, a couple of thoughts.

First, yes, sure, we talk about religion in our schools. There's really no way around it. Aztecs, Puritans, Calvinists, The Crusades, the Holocaust, Israel vs Palestine...history is replete with stories that really can't be taught effectively without providing some religious perspective. I wouldn't want this taught to my kids without the religious context as it wouldn't make any sense.

On the other hand, it's one thing to explain how the Crusades were a series of "Holy" wars used primarily by the Pope to promote Catholicism throughout most of the civilized world, but it's quite another to teach that Jesus Christ is our saviour and that the only road to salvation is through his teachings.

One is history. The other is religion. Schools are for teaching history; churches are for teaching religion.

If you want to introduce The Bible into schools as a part of a Comparative Religions class, knock yourself out. You'd have to do that to teach the course effectively. But you probably need to bring in the Koran and other religious references and teach them with equal weight, too.

There's nothing inherently unconstitutional in teaching about religions, what's unconstitutional is promoting any one religious idea (including Atheism) over others in a manner which can be construed as govermental support of any particular view.

That's what the part about "...prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." is all about. We are Constitutionally-bound to keep religion out of publicly-funded efforts of all kinds, including the eduction of our children. I don't care that you're Christian or that others are Jewish or Muslim or whatever they may be. I simply care that my children can grow up to make their own choices about what is and isn't right, about what does or doesn't fit with their view of the world, and that they aren't required by anybody to have others' opinions forced onto them.

That's what the problem is with Intelligent Design. It doesn't take much research to figure out ID is nothing more than Creationism, which is to say evangelical Christianity, with a facelift. It is not science, by definition, as science is based on positing testable theories which can be reviewed and, if appropriate, disproven by others. We can argue all day whether god created this world or not but by invoking miracles and unrepeatable, untestable influences into the process you have specifically made ID not a scientific pursuit. Therefore, it shouldn't be taught as science in a science class.

While I don't believe in a god, I don't tell my children they can't. My wife is quasi-Presbyterian. My oldest daughter is Catholic. My other children, when they ask, get honest answers. I tell them I can't prove there's not a god, but neither can others prove there is, and that they'll have to make up their own minds about whether there is or isn't. Ultimately, I care less what they think about these things and more that they make the decision based on their own experience, learnings and investigation than as a result of the inappropriate influence from others.

On your other comment, I agree that an omnipotent god could probably create history, too, but to what purpose? Trickery doesn't seem to be a reasonable action to expect from a benevelent god...or am I missing something here?

Thanks,

Scott