Aug
29

Pro-Intelligent Design Group Wins First Amendment Suit

Early last year, I wrote a brief post about a suit brought against the California Science Center for unlawful discrimination against a pro-Intelligent Design group and the subsequent cover-up of the details behind the censorship. (If you don’t want to read the articles I link to in the original post, you can get the important points by reading my response to the commenter in the Comments section.)

Today, it was announced that the California Science Center (CSC) has agreed to pay $110,000 to settle the suit brought against it by American Freedom Alliance (AFA). The CSC will also allow the AFA to use its facilities to show the pro-ID film (“Darwin’s Dilemma“) that was the focus of the suit.

“This is the first free speech case for the ID movement, and its first victory in that field,” said William J. Becker, Jr., primary attorney for the AFA in the case. “This settlement represents an acknowledgement that a state-owned science institution sought to censor an event solely because it related to ID. It’s a vindication for ID, and First Amendment guarantees of free speech.”

The law is upheld and justice prevails. While Darwinian dogmatists sulk in the corner, freedom-loving people all over rejoice.

« Obama’s Science Czar and the Planetary Regime

Evian = Naive: Are You a Sucker for Bottled Water? »

Like!

Tags: 1st Amendment, academic freedom, AFA, American Freedom Alliance, California Science Center, censorship, CSC, Darwinian dogmatism, First Amendment rights, free speech discrimination, ID, Intelligent Design, William Becker

Posted in Politics Politics / Science / Religion Religion Science
9 Comments Posted by sirrahc

James says:

August 31, 2011 at 6:08 pm

I would recommend the CSC to have a Creation Stories day in which they show this film and also have films and readings about other creation myths, including Hindu, Chinese, Africa and Native American myths, and other fictional accounts such as Kipling’s Just So Stories. Put all the fiction, including Genesis, in one place on equal terms.

sirrahc says:

August 31, 2011 at 9:09 pm
Hi, James. Not sure what spirit to take your comment, but… thanks for chiming in, regardless. I should point out that, while I know it is popular among some to conflate creationism w/ ID, creationism was not at issue here. The CSC signed a contract to allow 2 films to be screened in its facilities. When it then reneged on showing one of the films, it broke its contract and, therefore, the law. There was also the cover-up of details that proved their motivation was because the film in question was pro-ID, thus unlawful discrimination.

As for your idea of showing films about various creation myths (including secular/materialist), I concur. But, I would like them to show how each stacks up against known scientific discoveries and best-supported theories. I am confident that the Judeo-Christian account of creation (taking all relevant scripture passages into account), particularly from an Old-Earth Creationist paradigm (e.g., see http://www.reasons.org) would come out the clear winner.
- James says:
  
  September 2, 2011 at 8:07 am
  Sirrahc, Creationism/ID has much more in common with Kipling than with science. Creation stories, including the two different myths from south-west Asia in Genesis, were ways for people to explain and understand their place in a complex, challenging, often troubling world. Unlike the science of evolution, they were never intended to understand how the world as we know it actually developed. Nor was the Bible ever intended to be a literal account of how the universe was made.
  
  Evolutionary biology, like all sciences, has a completely different aim and operates by a completely different process: stating hypotheses that explain the world as fully but also as simply as possible consistent with existing facts, testing them by finding out how well they fit with new discoveries or experimental data, and retaining those hypotheses that are required to explain the world and are not (or not yet) disproved.
  
  My point about having a “Creation Day” is a serious one. CSC could show your film, have readings of Kipling’s wonderful stories, maybe have Native Americans and other to tell creation stories from traditions other than Christianity, and use this event to demonstrate how evolutionary science understands the world in a completely different way from myths and other fictional accounts.
  - RepentHarlequin says:
    
    September 3, 2011 at 11:47 am
    Creationism is not a synonym for Intelligent Design. This tactic is used by fearful Darwinianists who are having their faith threatened while they have no answers to the many and obvious challenges to Fundamentalist Darwinist Beliefs.
    - James says:
      
      September 3, 2011 at 4:24 pm
      Re your first point: as a matter of historical fact, you’re incorrect. The term Intelligent Design was invented by creationists after unsuccessful attempts to make school teach biblical creation in science lessons.
      
      Re your second point: Darwinian evolution (not Darwinism – it’s not a religion) is a set of testable hypotheses, like any other theory in science.
      - sirrahc says:
        
        September 3, 2011 at 5:14 pm
        For the record, let me clarify why it is wrong to conflate creationism and Intelligent Design (though I doubt you will care for the distinction). While compatible with certain religious teachings (and not just of the Judeo-Christian type, either), Intelligent Design Theory is not the same as Biblical creationism. Whereas creationism begins with a religious text, ID Theory begins with what we know about the world and the design inferences we make all the time based on the “fingerprint” of specified complexity. Thus, ID “holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” That’s it. If it was the creation (pardon the pun) of fundamentalist Christians, you wouldn’t see atheist, agnostic, Moonie, Buddhist, & Jewish supporters of ID. The modern ID Movement formed in the 1980s, but the basic idea behind the term has been around at least since the ancient Greeks.
        
        Btw, you may not like the term “Darwinism”, but its use is certainly widespread, and not just by its opponents. As you well know, an “ism” is not necessarily a religion. It can designate any sort of system, practice, ideology, movement, etc.
  - sirrahc says:
    
    September 3, 2011 at 10:13 pm
    Thanks for clarifying that your “Creation Day” suggestion was serious. Though, from your tone, you may as well call it “Fairy-Tale Day”. ;> Again, as I understand it, “Darwin’s Dilemma” takes a broader, ID approach and is not religiously-oriented.
    
    My post dealt with Intelligent Design, but you’ve made some assertions about the Bible and creation stories, too. (Not surprising, since you insist they are the same.) Normally, I’d stay more on topic, but since I’m in the mood, I’ll say a few things about that, as well.
    
    I would largely agree with you that ancient creation stories “were ways for people to explain and understand their place in a complex, challenging, often troubling world.” However, I think a fair assessment of what the Bible has to say on the matter — again, not limited solely to Genesis — shows it to be very different from other creation stories. Much more accurate and indicative of divine superintendence. Btw, I assume the “two different myths from south-west Asia in Genesis” you refer to are the events of the first two chapters. This is a little surprising, because they are easily explained and reconciled as complementary texts.
    
    I find it odd that you would assert “Nor was the Bible ever intended to be a literal account of how the universe was made.” How exactly would you know such a thing? On what do you base your conclusion?
    
    To be sure, the word “literal” is often misused or misunderstood in this setting. Good hermeneutic practice says that each book (or portion thereof) of the Bible should be understood in a way that is faithful to the genre and consistent with the intent of the author(s). If there is no internal indicator that a passage is to be taken as other than literal, then it should be read literally — i.e., as actual, historical events and statements about reality. That said, no Christian claims that the Bible is a “science text” (as some have put it). But, it does say things that, explicitly or implicitly, touch on scientific matters. It may not go into a lot of detail; the relevant passages only give limited information or implications. But, those who take a “high view” of Scripture believe it communicates truth about such things.
    
    What you have described seems to be a fair, if abbreviated, version of the “scientific method” — that is, how scientific inquiry is supposed to work, in general. And that’s great. But evolutionary biology, as indicated by its very name, makes the a priori assumption that neo-Darwinian processes can adequately explain everything in the history & diversity of life on Earth. In other words, “We already know what happened. It’s just the details that are being worked out.” So, whenever the evidence goes against evolutionary expectations, it is force-fit or explained away. The trend-line shows more & more problems for neo-Darwinian theory. Even among non-ID types, there is growing recognition that Darwinian icons like the power of natural selection and the ‘Tree of Life’ just don’t bear out. Each new hominid discovery seems to throw another wrench into the works and cause a rewrite of “human evolution”. But, most scientists are so married to evolutionary theory and the naturalistic philosophy behind it that they stubbornly hold onto it, despite the contrary evidence.
    
    For related comments, which also help explain my viewpoint, see http://aviewfromtheright.com/2011/07/24/must-christians-accept-evolution/ I also have a 3-part series called “Living on a Razor’s Edge” that discusses design in the universe, our galaxy, our solar system, the Sun, Moon, & Earth.

robert says:

August 31, 2011 at 6:37 pm

You’re kidding me!! THIS had to go to court?? I thought science was supposed to encourage debate, even with those who are (dare I say) marginalized? How else are discoveries made? I should think the much-vaunted “scientific method” would prove what is the more valid theory — unless, of course, the scientists don’t believe in “theories”.

sirrahc says:

August 31, 2011 at 9:18 pm
I tend to agree, robert. The ‘establishment’ seems to want to prove there is no controversy, no problem with their interpretations of the evidence, by shutting up/down anyone who dares speak out against the consensus. Yes, there are differences among materialists, but they allow no challenges against a strong materialist worldview or methodology.