# PA Court rules against Intelligent Design



## Herald (Dec 20, 2005)

A federal court judgeruled that intelligent design cannot be taught in public schools. On first glance this is a set back for creationists. But is it really? Should we expect the public school system (or the courts) to be sympathetic to Christian beliefs?


----------



## CalsFarmer (Dec 20, 2005)

Just because secular officials refuse to acknowledge God as creator does not mean that they are right....just ignorant. To me it changes nothing...God will always be who He is...


----------



## wsw201 (Dec 20, 2005)

Besides, intelligent design only acknowledges the "Unknown God". Not the God of Scripture.


----------



## Casey (Dec 20, 2005)

Apparently members of Mid Cities Presbyterian Church have strong opinions on this matter!


----------



## ChristopherPaul (Dec 20, 2005)

I keep reading the title to this thread as *PCA *Court rules against Intelligent Design.

I am glad I am reading that wrong.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Dec 20, 2005)

Is it your opinion that nature contains a full revelation of God?

Seems to me that that's why we need Scripture - natural revelation is an incomplete revelation of God. ID is a theory predicated upon the information available in nature, not the information available in the Bible.

If it's a failing, its a purposeful failing. I tend to think of it not as a failure of ID, but a self-imposed limitation.



> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Besides, intelligent design only acknowledges the "Unknown God". Not the God of Scripture.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 20, 2005)

I think all the hopes many people place in the half-way house of ID is sheer folly.

The atheists took over the government schools in every area--every area--and then they shoved out the Bible, 10 commandments, prayer, etc., _last_. God was expelled way back when the government schools were founded. His disturbing literature was physically removed from campus a hundred years later when it became politically possible to do so.

Christians trying to get the Deist's god equal time along with Moloch is just the most absurd antic I can think of. At least the atheists recognize competition when they see it. Just like the baby-killers know they can never allow even partial-birth abortion to be banned. One step back the other way means they reached a limit and momentum has shifted. Pretending that "ID is in no way religious" is playing by the other team's rules. The truth is that the other team is just as religious as anyone else. And until this fact is revealed and acknowledged by all the serious players, the real "survival of the fittest" competition between the faiths can never begin.

ID is certainly true: because the God of the Bible ALONE is the Intelligence. No other position honors the One True God, but rather dishonors him by minimizing if not outright denying the truth.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Dec 20, 2005)

Amen Bruce. The only thing the court did was impose the religion of secularism on us and our children.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Dec 20, 2005)

The question remains unanswered:

Is nature a full revelation of God?


----------



## SmokingFlax (Dec 20, 2005)

Yes, the courts preferred unintelligent design instead.

Bruce and Patrick: Amen and amen.

mgeoffriau: I don't think that anyone would argue that a FULL revelation of God is available in creation. But then again there is revelation in creation enough to hold all men guilty:

Romans 1:18-21
...what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,...


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Amen Bruce. The only thing the court did was impose the religion of secularism on us and our children.



And this is one of the reasons why my position on homeschooling is hardening. We should expect society to embrace secularism. Those who are darkened spiritually will live in darkness. I can only speak for my family, but we will not leave our child in the hands of the ungodly for eight hours each day.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Dec 21, 2005)

God forgive us...


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> The question remains unanswered:
> 
> Is nature a full revelation of God?



Mark, how could it be? Is not general revelation made known to all men, while the mystery of the kingdom is revealed only to the elect?


----------



## mgeoffriau (Dec 21, 2005)

So far the two answers I have received are exactly as I myself believe. 

Natural revelation is an imcomplete revelation - a condemning knowledge of God, but not a full and potentially salvific knowledge of God.

Why then should a field that is devoted to studying only natural phenomena be expected to deal with truths that are not available within that field of study?

If God chose not to reveal the full nature of His mercy and goodness (which is not to say that creation is bereft of these attributes...only that they are not revealed as fully as in His special revelation), why are you expecting a field whose entire purpose is to focus on natural phenomena to expand its scope to include metaphysical truths beyond natural observation?


----------



## SmokingFlax (Dec 21, 2005)

Mark:

For my own reasons my objections run along the lines that the implied naturalism/materialism of science (scientism) makes nonsense out of any metaphysical or ethical considerations by their dogmatic empirical stance -as if their position has no consequences whatsoever in any other disciplines and culture in general. It simply is not possible to keep the conclusions of such thinkers in a hermetically sealed and specialized little corner. Science is too important in that respect.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Dec 21, 2005)

I agree that the philosophical naturalism of scientism is a problem. And I agree that the implications of scientific study are not devoid of ethical and metaphysical import.

Nevertheless, if we believe that you can't discover the full revelation of God by staring at the stars and the flowers, but only in Scripture, then why are we complaining about a movement whose purpose is to provide useful catagories for the discovery of what limited Divine revelation *is* available in creation?

Moreover, isn't this good theology? To say,

"It is apparent that not all things can be discovered about God through the study of creation...but what can be discovered of His nature through creation, we will attempt to do."

I didn't think that the advent of special revelation meant that natural revelation no longer should be studied. It sounds as if you guys are saying that natural revelation is meaningless without special revelation.


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by mgeoffriau_
> So far the two answers I have received are exactly as I myself believe.
> 
> Natural revelation is an imcomplete revelation - a condemning knowledge of God, but not a full and potentially salvific knowledge of God.
> ...



Mark, while I am not alarmed by the federal court decision in Pennsylvania (the ungodly rule and they will make ungodly decisions), I must part with your logic on your last paragraph. Academic disciplines do not exist in a vacuum. It can be rightly argued that mathematics and language studies have commonalities. The same could be said for history and science. From the christian world-view there would be no disputing this. As a homeschool parent my wife and I seek to teach "all truth as God's truth" (sorry for the cliche'). Of course, this fallen world is unable to understand God's truth and, therefore, use different criteria when deciding how to teach academic disciplines. So from a fallen world-view, your argument makes perfect sense. From a christian world-view we must understand that the study of humanities or physical science centers around the creator.


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2005)

Oh...and Mark...you owe me royalties for your avatar. How you acquired a picture of me after waking up I'll never know.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Dec 21, 2005)

to Bill. While nature indeed does not contain a _full_ revelation of God, it _does_ contain enough about His existence and attributes to leave men without excuse for suppressing that truth - and the courts and schools do not even acknowledge _that_ much, but rather deny even that.


----------



## mgeoffriau (Dec 21, 2005)

Yes, I understand that. I am not defending the courts and school system...but instead defending ID, a movement whose purpose is to determine exactly what knowledge of God can be gained through the study of nature (or rather, to demonstrate that *some* knowledge of God is unavoidable in the study of nature).

I agree fully that the best scientist is the one who does his work excellently, in the full knowledge and appreciation for the God of Scripture. I do not, however, believe that this means that the demonstrating the limited knowledge of God available in nature is an futile effort. On the contrary, I believe that for many people who find the cultural domination of atheistic scientism, this may be an important way to remove obstacles to belief. My hope would be that God might be pleased to use these efforts as a tool to soften mens' hearts.

I will never argue anyone into the Kingdom with scientific evidences or philosophical proofs. If, however, I may remove obstacles to belief in these efforts, I have done some good.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 21, 2005)

> I don't think that anyone would argue that a FULL revelation of God is available in creation. But then again there is revelation in creation enough to hold all men guilty:
> 
> Romans 1:18-21
> ...what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,...



In a way I'm surprised that Bruce's post was not challenged. But this quote, inserted above, says it all for me. I *would* challenge the first phrase, questioning the use of the word "full" and playing on the idea of "sufficient". What is revealed is full enough to reveal what kind of God there is. I would disagree with Wayne on that, that the idea of ID gives us a non-descript God. But how to say it is difficult; the idea is simple, but the words in our milieu seem to fail to convey it. But I'll give it a try. 

We have one revelation in two parts: general revelation and special revelation. We have divided them into two revelations, because of the nature and purpose of the Scripture over and above the the revelation of God in nature. The idea, though, is that there is a single purpose behind the creation, of which Scripture plays a part; but in our milieu we tend to divide these two parts into almost dichotomous revelations, as if we can separate them. 

They are inseparable, really. We recognize the distinction between the two, and that is good; but its not as though the information we can gather from our study of nature would yield alternative truths to what the Bible reveals. Its not as though a study of nature would only give us the answer that there is just some God, but no information as to what kind of God. At least that would be a very poor scientist that would be happy with the answer of just some no-name God; not with all the information that is there to tie the two revelations together. For the real scientist the problem is not the problem of evil, but the problem of good if he was studying the aspects of ethics or morals; it would not be a problem of ugliness, but of beauty, where it came from; it would not be a problem of merely not knowing what truth is, but that there is truth to learn, and that there is a capability and capacity to do so.

I keep thinking about what I call Darwin's nightmare: what if evolution/natural selection was true? The last thing one would expect, if that were true, would be that the results of his thinking bears any significant relation to anything being true, including his speculations about natural selection. The worst nightmare he could have is if he started believing his own thesis. As it turns out, he actually did have nightmares. Whether they were of this sort, I don't know, but it sure is a curious coincidence. 

I agree with Mark's sentiments, insofar that they intimate that, as long as we don't have our act together on the relationship of special revelation and general revelation, you can hardly expect the world to get it right; they're going to jump all over the opportunities we give them on this. The underlying motive is still enmity against God, whatever slant suits the purpose and can gain popular currency; they don't really care if its true or not. 

Let me ask this question: is the fact that we have a Bible part of general revelation or of special revelation?

[Edited on 12-21-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## Herald (Dec 21, 2005)

> Let me ask this question: is the fact that we have a Bible part of general revelation or of special revelation?



John - if forced to pick from one of these two options I would choose special revelation. Maybe a better term would be specific revelation. God chose to communicate to men in the words of scripture. General revelation is wide in scope. A waterfall, sunset, the ocean all sing out God's glory. But witnessing the grand majesty of God's creation does not provide a knowledge of sin or of forgiveness in Jesus Christ. 

All of us experience rain from the clouds, heat from the sun and the bounty of the earth. But the heart that is at enmity with God cannot appreciate the grandeur of the creation and its theological implications. 

Can God use a persons pursuit of scientific truth as a means to call them to Himself? Certainly. God ordains the end and the means. But in the end, the Christian should have a no-doubt understanding that God's revelation (both general and special) applies to all aspects of life, including the academic world. 

Look for the PA precedent to make inroads across the nation. I am surprised that this controversy did not first start in California. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court usually legislates this sort of nonsense from the bench. To see it happen in the east only shows how humanistic this nation truly is. But as God become more and more unwelcome in our secular society, the true church and the work of the kingdom will intensify.


----------



## kceaster (Dec 22, 2005)

The thing I like about this whole intelligent design debate is that the opposing view still wants empirical evidence. That's laughable. That's like saying they want God to prove to them He created. But they wouldn't understand it if He showed it to them. Because professing to be wise they become fools; because they suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

They want empirical evidence. If an intelligent being did design this, then how exactly is that being supposed to tell us how it was done? We obviously don't have the same intelligence, otherwise, we might be able to create something out of nothing.

Blessings,

KC


----------



## JohnV (Dec 22, 2005)

The thing about ID is not that anyone denies it, when it comes right down to it. They are not denying ID, but offering an alternative ID. Just think about it: we believe that all men descended from one man, an idea that seems ridiculous to others. But what do they offer as an alternative? They offer the idea that all men descended from a different man. Or that curious hummingbird in South America, developing its peculiarly long beak just for that delectable flower it loves so much, while at the same time that being the only way that the flower can reproduce itself too. Did the hummingbird develope its beak because of its lust for that flower's nectar? Did it sit and think it into being? Did hunger force the beak to elongate? These are ridiculous. They suggest an alternative intelligent design. The theory of Adaptaptation suggests design of some kind, and there is a postive intelligence behind it always. 

They may deny God, but they have a tendency to spell "Nature" with an upper case "N".

[Edited on 12-22-2005 by JohnV]


----------



## JohnV (Dec 22, 2005)

> _excerpt from Judge Jones' ruling, as quoted in the New York Times_
> In making this determination, we have addressed the seminal question of whether Intelligent Design is science. We have concluded that it is not, and moreover that Intelligent Design cannot uncouple itself from its creationist, and thus religious, antecedents.
> 
> Both defendants and many of the leading proponents of Intelligent Design make a bedrock assumption which is utterly false. Their presupposition is that evolutionary theory is antithetical to a belief in the existence of a spureme being and to religion in general. Repeatedly in this trial, plaintiffs' scientific experts testified that the theory of evolution represents good science, is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, and that it in no way conflicts with, nor does it deny, the existence of a divine creator.
> ...



There are quite a number of interesting things said here. For one, just reverse the sides and imagine the same ruling, changing I.D. for evolution, and vice versa. The exact same arguments, but applied in opposition to evolution being the _de facto_ orthodoxy, the default science of origins. There are several indications in this judgment that solidly ground I.D. as a meaningful and profitable subject of study, but yet, without grounds of any sort, excludes it from the science classroom. It is tied to, not just a religion, but to Christianity; and that is the sole grounds for exclusion, citing some nebulous, shifting meaning to an amendment in the Constitution. A very interesting and pregnant contradiction, to be sure. 

I count many such interesting contradictions in this extract. It would be interesting to see the entire judgment. I'm taking this to work tonight to work on some of these. I'll be back in a day or so with some observations. The New York Times also gathered some newsbites from other interested parties, and published them inside their lengthy article. There is a lot of stuff here, and all really interesting in what they say and what they don't say. I am eager to take these into account as well.


----------



## SRoper (Dec 22, 2005)

I'm not sure how the court could have found differently. Teaching creation science in government schools was already determined to be unconstitutional. The plaintiffs showed rather convincingly that intelligent design is equivalent to creation science as the editors of the book that was recomended, _Of Pandas and People_, replaced every instance of creationism with ID.

I think what is most shameful about this whole episode is how many members of the school board were clearly motivated by religious belief (calling those who were against teaching ID atheits and saying they were going to hell), and then they turn around and try to claim that they were really concerned about stifling secular scientific inquiry.

Here's the ruling.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 22, 2005)

Thanks for the link, Scott. I was going to look it up, but you saved me the trouble.


----------



## JohnV (Dec 27, 2005)

One of the interesting things about this case is that the School Board was on trial, but the Board was changed during the trial. It was not so much, then, that there was not as much opposition, or that that the defendants were different at the end than at the beginning, so to speak, but that this changed the trial itself. There would be no appeal, because those on the Board that had instituted the policy under examination had been ousted, and a new Board that would repeal it installed. There also would be no particular restraint upon the judge's ruling either. It is not that the case for the defence had not been fully presented, but that the case of the plaintiffs was plainly the will of the people too. 

The point is that this allowed for some reckless assertions in the statement of judgment. Such is the stuff that good cases for the opposite is made of. The judge was perhaps just a bit too cockey and overstated the case against ID. And this makes for some interesting observations. 

But what most interested me, when I first read the exerpt from the judgment, was the categorization of what constitutes religious instruction in the public classroom. Its not just that ID is not disprovable, factually, for evolution is of the same nature when it comes right down to it. The point is how they view religion itself. Clearly, in their eyes, evolution does not reflect a religious precommitment, while ID does. And that's what intrigues me. Why do they see things that way? 

And also implicit in the follow-up articles in the New York Times is the difference between _a god_ and _the God_, in observing what constitutes religious instruction that is allowable and religious instruction that is not. That point comes down to what they perceive as "doctrine" or what is not ( and that's the very word they use, interestingly. ) Religion can be taught, but only on the value of its historical, social, or literary significance to the culture, not to teach doctrine. Notice the sanitation of the term that has taken place in order for such a thing to make sense. 

And that's where the Lemon test applies, I guess. That's interesting too; I've got to look into that a bit more. Anybody know anything about it?


----------

