On Dec. 21, 2005 U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled
that the Dover Area (Pennsylvania) School District’s public school
policy of teaching Intelligent Design in a public school science
class is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs were private citizens plus
the ACLU of Pennsylvania and a group called Americans United for
Separation of Church and State. This decision was met with
consternation in some religious quarters, but with a sense of
inevitability by many.
On Dec. 21, 2005 U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled that the Dover Area (Pennsylvania) School District’s public school policy of teaching Intelligent Design in a public school science class is unconstitutional. Plaintiffs were private citizens plus the ACLU of Pennsylvania and a group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. This decision was met with consternation in some religious quarters, but with a sense of inevitability by many.
On Jan. 9, the leadership of Frazier Mountain High School in Bakersfield, CA – as described in the Bakersfield Californian newspaper – was confronted with a letter from the same Americans United for Separation of Church and State. In the letter to Superintendent John Wright, the AUSCS warned that he had better not proceed with plans to cover intelligent design in the four-week philosophy class that was starting either, or a lawsuit would ensue.
What?
Perhaps the citizenry might put up with or even agree – the issue is not settled – that intelligent design is not appropriate for a public school science class. But to bar its consideration in a philosophy class is outrageous, an attack on religions that teach there is a God, and a serious infringement on the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The opponents of any public display of religion love to quote the first phrase of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “Congress (not the States, not your school board) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.…” What these folks are not fond of quoting, in fact I have never seen it, is the balance of the first section of the First Amendment. The first clause in its entirety reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
The free exercise clause is given equal footing with the establishment clause by the framers. Denying educators or anyone else the right to teach or be exposed to a philosophy (not a science) based upon intelligent design, is an outright attack upon religion.
What is philosophy, after all? I quote here from the great Protestant American Theologian of the last century, Dr. Paul Tillich: “Philosophy asks the question of reality as a whole; it asks the question of the structure of being.” It is not a scientific question. It is absurd to assert that Intelligent Design -– in brief, that there is a God behind creation – should not be included in the panoply of possible approaches to the question of the structure of being. Is there a “correct” philosophy and could there be a correct philosophy? The answer is no and no. All of the major religions of the world, except perhaps the Buddhist religion, believe there is a god or gods behind the physical creation. The question of the structure of being is above any answer that hard science can give. In the end we all are forced to answer this central life question.
When Christ said to Peter, “but who do you say that I am?,” he was referring to the central question of philosophy and theology – but not of science.
If Evolution is truly a scientific “fact” it does not belong to the realm of philosophy. One cannot have it both ways. If the court is correct that Intelligent Design does not belong to science, then by definition it belongs to philosophy. There is a logical contradiction in attempting to assert that a concept such as intelligent design belongs neither to the sphere of science or philosophy. Will people of faith be denied the concept that God may be the answer to the ultimate question?
Bottom line is this is one more brazen attempt by atheists to eliminate religion and the concept of God from our public lives. An attack on intelligent design in a philosophical context is an attack on the concept of God. The reasons behind the attack on God by the godless among us, is subject for a later column. How is it possible that intelligent design – the God of Creation – cannot be publicly discussed, as guaranteed by the free exercise clause, in the context not of science, but of philosophy? It is possible because people of faith do not pay sufficient attention.
The good news is that Superintendent John Wright of the El Tejon Unified School District has politely refused to pull or modify the course on philosophy, and we thank him for that.
Al Kelsch lives in Hollister with his wife Judy. They both enjoy running and singing. E-mail him at oi*****@ya***.com.
