Evolution vs Intelligent Design: A response to the recent Dover, PA District Court Decision
On December 20th, the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania, in a very detailed opinion, ruled against introducing Intelligent Design in public education on the grounds that, in the court’s opinion, it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
The PA district court then went on to attack Intelligent Design (ID) in a very detailed way but essentially because it calls for a designer that, since “It” will be outside of the design, must have many attributes of a supernatural Creator. Primarily on this basis, the court concluded that ID must be religion and not science.
Modern science uses a process known as methodological naturalism which attempts to explain the universe only through forces that can be seen in action today. The court ignores the fact that science can only use the current to demonstrably look backwards so far.
For example, the Darwinian process of survival of the fittest cannot operate before the existence of the rules of life – DNA, because without genetics no mechanism exists with which to pass on inherited traits to offspring. How did the complex rules of life, DNA, come into existence in the first place? By definition, without a mechanism for passing on a life-form’s characteristics, the formation of the rules of life couldn’t have been through Darwinism.
The major complaint that many have with evolution isn’t with the special (micro evolutionary) theory dealing with the survival of the best adapted species, but with the more speculative general (macro evolutionary) theory; a metaphysical theory which has the far more ambitious goal of explaining the origins of all life from non-life. From available evidences, the validity of the “general” theory can only be established by Darwinists through blind faith!
Also very importantly, Darwinism can have no explanation for the existence of the natural laws of the universe which must have already been present for pre-life. One must account for the incredible fine-tuning for life of these starting conditions! Given that science has provided strong evidence for a beginning to the universe, the natural laws themselves also had to have a beginning.
Since Darwin’s time, science has operated under atheistic assumptions and cannot allow for the introduction of religion. Or can it? The central question is, whose religion? Let’s look at just what defines a religion.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, religion is:
- 1. An organized system of beliefs and rituals centering on a supernatural being or beings or Adherence to such a system. OR
2. A belief upheld or pursued with zeal and devotion.
There are many religious philosophies in this world, including: Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Mormonism, Freemasonry, Atheism, and many others.
“Atheism” a religion? Yes, it is frequently a “belief upheld or pursued with zeal and devotion”.
And as recently as August 2005 the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed earlier court decisions that non-theistic “belief” or philosophic systems, including atheism, were for purposes of the law “religious” in nature (see worldnetdaily.com).
In its Dover Memorandum Opinion, the PA District Court referenced the Supreme Court Allegheny decision:
- ‘The endorsement test emanates from the ‘prohibition against government endorsement of religion’ and it ‘preclude[s] government from conveying or attempting to convey a message that religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred.’
But by only allowing atheistic definitions of reality, aren’t these standards implicitly violated? It would seem that the court has allowed contradictory precedents.
Also referenced was the Supreme Court Lynch decision:
- “the observer looks to that evidence to ascertain whether the policy ‘in fact conveys a message of endorsement or disapproval’ of religion, irrespective of what the government may have intended by it.”
The court has set an impossible standard for itself. Everyone has some form of religion a philosophy of life; a model through which they interpret the world around them. Some follow traditional religious views; others naturalistic ones. But none will be in complete agreement and all have elements that must be taken on faith. No entity will endorse one without disapproving of another.
The courts need to take a fresh look at BOTH parts of the first amendment, and stop the unequal sponsorship of the metaphysical atheistic religion which is Darwinian naturalism. For an honest pursuit of the truth, people should be allowed to consider options other than Darwinism alone and the government should excuse itself from the debate!
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
