A few weeks ago I promised to write more about the whole ID v Evolution thing. I haven’t finished reviewing that Dover court case (it’s still sitting on that same spot on my desk it was 2 weeks ago), but I promise I will.
But, I’ll talk about it a bit today, because they are at it again. The Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the same group behind the Dover suit, have filed a new suit against a small school in California for discussing ID in a philosophy class. So, first it’s not science, and now it’s not philosophy?
To me, this shows one thing: these people are afraid to have anyone discuss the topic. Why? Why should they care whether people believe in Creationism or ID or even Homer, for that matter? Come to think of it, they’d probably not care if some school was offering a class teaching some Native American creation myths. For some reason, they’re just bent out of shape about someone suggesting that God may, in fact, exist. I think that deep down they believe that if no one mentions God, perhaps He will cease to exist (kind of like Tinker Bell in Peter Pan).
Come on, don’t be wimps – if you believe Darwinism (or some other form of evolution) is superior, why sweat it? Will evolution stop happening because not enough people believe in it (back to the Peter Pan fear)? I’m willing to bet that these same people would yell “censorship!” if this were any other issue. But, they’re acting like little children, yelling to the courts, “Mommy, make them stop!” It’s ridiculous.
Any intelligent person knows that universal truth cannot be decided through litigation. You can suppress free speech and discussions about truth through litigation (i.e. censorship), and you can decide what appears to be true from the facts presented in the case being litigated, but that’s it. If someone could convince the Supreme Court to rule that the sky is green, would it change anything?
Now, here’s the irony of this new lawsuit: one of the basis of the suit is apparently that the views of evolutionists were not fairly represented in the class. If you don’t get the irony, consider this:
- Mandatory science classes are typically 100% pro-evolution.
- This same group sues to prevent the mention of any alternate views in these science classes.
- If evolution is a science and not a philosophy, why should it be taught in a philosophy class?
Again, I will restate one of the fundamental principles upon which this blog is based: there is no such thing as “common sense.” It simply doesn’t exist. There is uncommon sense, then there is general stupidity. We simply need more people with uncommon sense to turn the lights on for everyone else. A second principle is that conservatives are just as prone to general stupidity as liberals, which is why I think the Dover case went the way it did. The defendants there were just unable to present a half-way decent case, and so far my opinion is that they deserved to lose.
One final comment on the Dover case, and these evolution vs ID suits in general: it is impossible to resolve the core issues in the courts. All you can do is prevent the discussion from continuing in various localities. Not that some court won’t try, especially the 9th Circuit, who has only proven to my satisfaction that even they are prone to the principle of general stupidity.
