本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛Ruling on intelligent design an evangelic setback
Christian scientists don't buy theory
But `conversation' about concept not over
Dec. 22, 2005. 01:00 AM
RACHEL ZOLL
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal judge's ruling that intelligent design is faith masquerading as science is being viewed by all sides involved as a setback, though not a fatal blow, for the movement promoting the concept as an alternative to evolution.
Intelligent design advocates say the judge's lengthy rebuke of the concept Tuesday in a Pennsylvania case may energize supporters, many of whom view his opinion as part of a broader pattern of hostility by courts and government to religion in public schools.
U.S. District Judge John Jones criticized the "breathtaking inanity" of the 2004 decision by the Dover Area School Board to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum. He called the concept "a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism,'' saying the board policy violated constitutional separation of church and state.
Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher being.
"This galvanizes the Christian community," said William Dembski, a leading proponent at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank that promotes intelligent design research. "People I'm talking to say we're going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.''
Legally, the decision's consequences are limited. The Dover board is not expected to appeal because those board members who backed intelligent design were voted out of office in November and replaced by candidates who insist the refuted theory is not science.
Opponents say those advocating intelligent design emerged from the case substantially weakened.
The ruling is expected to influence judges in other districts and discourage other school officials from pursuing similar policies, said Hollyn Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee, a Washington group that promotes separation of church and state.
Battles over evolution are already being waged in Georgia and Kansas.
"Because it was a six-week trial, with a lot of testimony from proponents of intelligent design as well as critics from the scientific community, it's going to have a big impact," Hollman said. The court defeat comes at a time when movement leaders are failing to win support even among scientists sympathetic to their religious views.
The Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, an association of more than 100 U.S. schools, said its members approach the topic in a wide range of ways.
In fact, most conservative Christian colleges are far from embracing intelligent design.
The John Templeton Foundation, a major funder of projects to reconcile religion and science, has given none of its $36 million in annual science-related grants to intelligent design research, said spokesperson Pamela Thompson. "We do not consider it a hard science. We feel that it is not something that's important to universities.''
Dembski, of the Discovery Institute, formerly taught at Baylor University, a Baptist school in Texas, but left in the face of other faculty opposition.
He now leads the Center for Science and Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
Rev. Albert Mohler, the seminary president, criticized Christian schools for rejecting intelligent design, charging they are intimidated by the "secular establishment."
Biologist Uko Zylstra, the natural sciences dean at Calvin College, a Christian school in Grand Rapids, Mich., said intelligent design is not catching on at his college and others because it is based on philosophy, not science.
"We don't think this is how the problem should be articulated," Zylstra said. "The strength of intelligent design is as an apologetic — that God is the creator — but not a scientific explanation.''
Michael Cromartie, an evangelical and vice-president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington institute that addresses religious issues, stressed the intelligent design movement is "very, very young" and too new to be judged a success or failure.
"There are all kinds of smart, young scientists who are emboldened by the literature they read in the intelligent design movement and they're going to become important professors,'' Cromartie said.
"Dover wasn't a Supreme Court decision. It's a local decision. Local decisions are very important, but they don't end the conversation.''更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
Christian scientists don't buy theory
But `conversation' about concept not over
Dec. 22, 2005. 01:00 AM
RACHEL ZOLL
ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal judge's ruling that intelligent design is faith masquerading as science is being viewed by all sides involved as a setback, though not a fatal blow, for the movement promoting the concept as an alternative to evolution.
Intelligent design advocates say the judge's lengthy rebuke of the concept Tuesday in a Pennsylvania case may energize supporters, many of whom view his opinion as part of a broader pattern of hostility by courts and government to religion in public schools.
U.S. District Judge John Jones criticized the "breathtaking inanity" of the 2004 decision by the Dover Area School Board to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum. He called the concept "a religious view, a mere re-labelling of creationism,'' saying the board policy violated constitutional separation of church and state.
Intelligent design holds that living organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher being.
"This galvanizes the Christian community," said William Dembski, a leading proponent at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think-tank that promotes intelligent design research. "People I'm talking to say we're going to be raising a whole lot more funds now.''
Legally, the decision's consequences are limited. The Dover board is not expected to appeal because those board members who backed intelligent design were voted out of office in November and replaced by candidates who insist the refuted theory is not science.
Opponents say those advocating intelligent design emerged from the case substantially weakened.
The ruling is expected to influence judges in other districts and discourage other school officials from pursuing similar policies, said Hollyn Hollman, general counsel for the Baptist Joint Committee, a Washington group that promotes separation of church and state.
Battles over evolution are already being waged in Georgia and Kansas.
"Because it was a six-week trial, with a lot of testimony from proponents of intelligent design as well as critics from the scientific community, it's going to have a big impact," Hollman said. The court defeat comes at a time when movement leaders are failing to win support even among scientists sympathetic to their religious views.
The Council for Christian Colleges & Universities, an association of more than 100 U.S. schools, said its members approach the topic in a wide range of ways.
In fact, most conservative Christian colleges are far from embracing intelligent design.
The John Templeton Foundation, a major funder of projects to reconcile religion and science, has given none of its $36 million in annual science-related grants to intelligent design research, said spokesperson Pamela Thompson. "We do not consider it a hard science. We feel that it is not something that's important to universities.''
Dembski, of the Discovery Institute, formerly taught at Baylor University, a Baptist school in Texas, but left in the face of other faculty opposition.
He now leads the Center for Science and Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky.
Rev. Albert Mohler, the seminary president, criticized Christian schools for rejecting intelligent design, charging they are intimidated by the "secular establishment."
Biologist Uko Zylstra, the natural sciences dean at Calvin College, a Christian school in Grand Rapids, Mich., said intelligent design is not catching on at his college and others because it is based on philosophy, not science.
"We don't think this is how the problem should be articulated," Zylstra said. "The strength of intelligent design is as an apologetic — that God is the creator — but not a scientific explanation.''
Michael Cromartie, an evangelical and vice-president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a Washington institute that addresses religious issues, stressed the intelligent design movement is "very, very young" and too new to be judged a success or failure.
"There are all kinds of smart, young scientists who are emboldened by the literature they read in the intelligent design movement and they're going to become important professors,'' Cromartie said.
"Dover wasn't a Supreme Court decision. It's a local decision. Local decisions are very important, but they don't end the conversation.''更多精彩文章及讨论，请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net