Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Judge finds lies by religious proponents ironic

The case in Dover P.A. testing whether "intelligent design" may be taught in science class has adjudicated in favor of science vs dogma. This really should not be a surprise, so rather than posting here about the victory of science vs dogma, I wish to focus on a comment made by the judge in his ruling:
"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."
Ironic indeed. It seems to me that the entire intelligent design movement is based upon deceit. The reason creationists have turned to intelligent design "science" is because the courts have ruled that teaching creationism in public schools establishes religion. Creationists have therefore changed the language they use to promote their view. But it remains the same view. Creationists feel that having lost the scientific and legal battle regarding their religious viewpoint means they must make it appear their actions are not religious in nature. In doing so they rely upon deception. Which it would seem to me is intrinsically anti-Christian, or anti-religion of nearly any sort.

The history of Christianity is replete with examples where true believers stood proudly for their beliefs, in many cases leading to their martyrdom. The one famous case where an apostle renounced his belief is that of Peter. When Jesus told Peter he would renounce him three times before the cock crowed Peter could not imagine it happening. Yet it appears for all the world that modern day creationists are intent on publicly renouncing their religious convictions, knowing full well they do so as they commit the act. In the emulation of Peter the modern day creationist does not bother being shocked at the notion they would deny their belief, and they feel no shame when their denial of belief is revealed. Indeed they rely upon this public denial to forward their cause.

In a previous post I ranted about a proven case of apparent perjury in the Dover case. The actions of the creationist school board member are very instructive of the deceptive nature of the I.D. movement:
A former school board member who denied advocating that creationism be taught alongside evolution in high-school biology classes changed his story Thursday, after lawyers in a federal courtroom played a TV news clip that recorded him making such a comment.

William Buckingham explained the discrepancy by saying that he "misspoke."

...The clip that was shown later in the day came from an interview that he gave to a news crew from WPMT-TV in York later in the month.

"It's OK to teach Darwin," he said in the interview, "but you have to balance it with something else, such as creationism."

Earlier in Thursday's court session, Buckingham claimed that he had been misquoted in stories from two newspapers that reported his advocating the teaching of creationism to counterbalance the material on evolution.

"It's just another instance when we would say intelligent design and they would print creationism," he said.

When Stephen Harvey, the plaintiffs' lawyer, noted the similarity of the newspaper reports to what he told the TV crew, Buckingham replied, "That doesn't mean it's accurate."
Have you no sense of shame suh! Have you no sense of shame? (Trying to imitate John Daly on a weblog really does not work so well) I mean, what about the 9th commandment? Is it ok to simply disregard spirituality and biblical teachings in order to reach a political goal? How cynical is that?

Finally it does distress me greatly when I find myself so commonly arguing against the supposed Christian perspective of events, because I identify myself as a Christian. It is unfortunate that the neo-conservative movement in America has hijacked religion and used it to further their political goals. By their fruits you shall know them. I find the fruits of modern day neo-conservatism to be bitter, and wish that the religious aspects so wrapped up in modern day politics would be delegated to our private lives, not the legislatures and courts of the land.

Comments: Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Subscribe to Posts [Atom]