User:Jim62sch/translation1
Translation of French article:
Courrier international - 23 déc. 2005
ÉTATS-UNIS - Le "dessein intelligent" des chrétiens conservateurs ne passera pas -- Eric Glover
United States – The Intelligent Design of Conservative Christians Will Not Come to Pass
An American Judge has decided that the concept of “intelligent design” must be stripped from educational curricula, as it is in essence an invention of Conservative Christians who are part of George W. Bush’s “base”, to try to promote their ideas in the school system. According to the American Press, the decision is a defeat for the radical right, but a victory for intelligence.
By now, the Christian conservatives who once dominated the school board in Dover, Pa., ought to rue their recklessness in forcing biology classes to hear about "intelligent design" as an alternative to the theory of evolution. Not only were they voted off the school board by an exasperated public last November, but this week a federal district judge declared their handiwork unconstitutional and told the school district to abandon a policy of such "breathtaking inanity," stated the New York Times in an editorial.
“An intelligent decision, declared the Los Angeles Times, which described the concept of “intelligent design” as “the idea that life is so complex that it must have been created by a higher intelligence”, a higher intelligence that “is never officially identified but which most adherents believe to be God”, adds the New York Times.
“The decision of Judge Jones on Tuesday, December 20, is not binding on any other jurisdiction”, stated the Washington Post. Moreover, let us not be mislead, the Los Angeles Times warns us, “this decision will certainly not prevent the zealous supporters of “intelligent design” from continuing to try to infiltrate school curricula”. Nevertheless, “the decision of Judge Jones presents the issue clearly and is well-argued”, the Post continues. Additionally, the New York Times adds that, “Judge Jones cannot be accused of being a liberal activist, as he has been a longtime member of the Republican Party and was appointed by George W. Bush.
“Judge Jones noted that while the proponents of “intelligent design:” never specifically mention God, and use scientific-sounding language, they are nonetheless promoting religious theories,” the Washington Post continued. “The concept introduces a supernatural explanation for natural phenomena, and this is the essence of a non-scientific approach, that cannot now or ever be tested. Moreover, when the Dover School Board decided to impose this requirement, the board members defending the decision did not hide that they were doing it for religious reasons. “"It is ironic," Judge Jones wrote, "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 [intelligent design] Policy." The court also noted that the teaching of religion in public schools is a violation of the separation of church and state and will not be tolerated. Thus, “intelligent design” cannot, and will not, be taught in public school.
The LA Times, however, is under no illusion, “But like life on this planet, the movement to bring the teaching of religious beliefs — largely, Christian religious beliefs — to the public schools has not gone extinct. Thus, it will continue going on in one way or another and the expression “intelligent design” will be replaced by a concept of the same nature, using different words and a different name.”
The LA Times editorial also noted, “Science doesn't deny or confirm the role of divine power in the natural world; it is simply uninterested in such questions. This is where the more lyrical, and equally fascinating, studies of philosophy and religion come in — and where intelligent design properly belongs.” The Christian Science Monitor, however, does not take part in such a view, “at this time, no one can make a clear distinction between what is scientific and what is not. Throughout the 20th Century, scientific philosophy has tried to set such a limit, but it has failed.
The Christian daily moderates its stance however, stating, “no one should teach ‘intelligent design’ in biology class. Not necessarily because it is absolutely false, but because it is very weak as a scientific concept. In science class, it is necessary to teach theories that have proven to be reliable, not those resting on sparse and scattered elements and without authority.”
To that end, the British daily, the Guardian observed, “the prohibition of such a poor concept in a school course is an excellent thing. Allowing fallacious arguments cast doubt on the theory of evolution would be quite serious. Admittedly, in science nothing is ever sure, but were it not for the fact that Darwin’s theory has been reexamined, corrected and improved since the 1859 publication of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, and has bben the topic of many discussions regarding the theory, and as the ID arguments do not even relate to the concept of evolution, which is completely accepted and daily verified by the scientific community, we could not even describe the mutations of bacteria that become resistant to certain antibiotics.
“Intelligent design is a revival of an old idea: that animals seem designed, and this could not be by chance. However, even single snowflakes look designed, and each snowflake is a product of chance and environment. Darwin's "theory" must be just about as solid as Newton's laws of motion. These aren't quite absolutely certain either, but they get you to the office every day, to Australia, and even to the moon.”
Its British counterpart, The Economist, noted that the theory of evolution is probably the most profitable theory of the 20th Century. “One often remembers the famous, ‘survival of the fittest’ – a term created by Herbert Spencer, not by Darwin – but in reality, the most spectacular projection of modern Darwinism is that it has identified that collaboration and trust are at the heart of the human evolution, not simply competition and more competition."
That these two human traits, competition and cooperation, “are also at the heart of economic activity is without doubt an irony of sorts, because the fight between selfishness and altruism continues with an end and without a winner. Therefore, it is hardly astonishing that the most capitalist country on the planet, the United States, is also the one where one finds the greatest number of non-believers in evolution.
“Among the three great concepts of the 20th Century – Darwinism, Marxism and the Philosophy of Freud – the second died a painful death and the third is slipping gently to its end. It is only the first that grows increasingly stronger, as we realize, every day, just how much it has shaped humanity. It is clearly this plain spirit of hope that guides us into this New Year.