Unconvinced Intellectuals

BreakPoint ^ | August 4, | Charles Colson

[Heartlander]

Unconvinced Intellectuals
Putting Darwin on the Witness Stand

BreakPoint with Charles Colson

8/4/2004, 12:00:00 AM

Most people have heard of the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial. At the trial, Scopes's defense attorney, Clarence Darrow, placed the prosecuting attorney, William Jennings Bryan, on the witness stand. Darrow was a well-known agnostic and Darwinist. To make evolution look good and the Bible look bad, Darrow wanted to question Bryan regarding his views on the Bible.

Bryan agreed, but only if he could question Darrow about evolution. The court ordered that Bryan take the stand first before asking Darrow questions. Yet though Bryan answered Darrow's questions, he never got to cross-examine his rival. Why not?

Scopes had pled not guilty, that's why there was a trial. But unexpectedly at the conclusion of his examination of Bryan, Darrow changed Scopes's plea to guilty. That closed the case and made it impossible for Bryan to call Darrow to the stand for questioning.

And so in the Scopes trial, scientists managed to present their case for evolution without any challenge. In fact, the Scopes trial is a metaphor for the whole debate over evolutionary theory. It has continually evaded critical scrutiny and proper cross-examination. But no longer. Scientists and scholars in the intelligent design movement are mounting a concerted effort to force Darwinists to open up and discuss the weaknesses of evolutionary theory.

In this regard, Dr. William Dembski has edited a fascinating new book titled Uncommon Dissent. This book features fourteen essays by intellectuals who find Darwinism unconvincing. Their dissent is 'uncommon' because the majority of intellectuals in the West have completely bought into Darwinian evolution. But with books like this, we can expect to see that majority erode, and quickly.

Contributors to this book include some of the 'usual suspects' in the intelligent design movement, like Dembski, Phillip Johnson, and Michael Behe. But there are also some new names. Frank Tipler, a physicist well known for his work on the anthropic principle, exposes how peer review in scientific journals actually stifles originality: Darwinists review Darwinists and never have to answer the challenges of intelligent design.

Another new name is Edward Sisson, an attorney who used to direct avant-garde theater. His chapter sheds some much needed light on the Scopes trial. For example, did you know that the very textbook from which Scopes taught advocated eugenics and promoted racism? Indeed, it divided humanity into five races and ranked them in terms of superiority, concluding with the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America. This is the book Darwinists insist Scopes had a right to teach?

Perhaps the most interesting chapter is the last by David Berlinski, a mathematician. In addition to his essay, we find Berlinski mixing it up with Darwinists who were criticizing his essay. Letters by Darwinists, like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Eugenie Scott, are all there along with Berlinski;s responses. I'll let you read the exchange and decide for yourself who got the better of it. Suffice it to say, after reading this chapter, and better yet this book, you'll realize that Darwinism is in for a grilling like none it has experienced before. And it's about time.

---

[Heartlander]

For further reading and information:

William A. Dembski, ed., Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing  (ISI Books, 2004).

See BreakPoints resource page on intelligent design .

[My2Cents]

***Ping***

[dandi]

Ping-O-Matic 3000

[Right Wing Professor]

I see the creationists have added to their motley intellectual arsenal an attorney who used to direct avant-garde theater. It's a refreshing addition to the usual suspects.

BTW, Heartlander, do you know what William Jennings Bryan's views on the race question were?

[Heartlander]

BTW, Heartlander, do you know what William Jennings Bryan's views on the race question were?

Were his views in HS science textbooks?

[Docbarleypop]

I am not sure how to post pics, so here is a link to the funniest thing ive heard about the scopes trial http://www.comics.com/comics/getfuzzy/archive/getfuzzy-20040715.html

[Right Wing Professor]

Were his views in HS science textbooks?

Nope, but they were taught in Sunday School.

[PatrickHenry]

Creationist thread. Archival ping.

[vpintheak]

You would think the scientists would like questioning of theories for the advancement of science wouldn't you?

[mewper]

IMHO, I don't think there is a conflict between the two views.

The Bible says that God created the world in seven days. And somewhere in the Old Testament -- I forgot where, but I saw it -- it also says that a day for God is a thousand years for man. So, the Darwinists can pick within which God-days the evolution process happened. The bottomline is, God rules and the Darwinists can only nitpick the scientific details within the laws that God has laid down.

[Bonaparte]

"...but they were taught in Sunday School."

Not disputing you, just wondering what your source for this information is.

[Bonaparte]

Just one more question, RWP...

Are Sunday Schools public institutions supported by tax dollars?

[sevry]

There clearly is a conflict. One is overtly religion. The other abuses science as a pseudo-religion called, scientism. For religion, there is no way to reconcile Adam and Eve, as special creation, with a supposed history of human ancestry stretching back millions of years, or at least hundreds of thousands. Either those existed, in that time frame, and were human, or were not. One speaks about Providence and the supernatural. The other calls upon scientism to rule out both, and in their place erect Nature herself as some sort of 'watchmaker' only because there is no God. The 20th century spoke to the result of such thinking. You can't reconcile the two camps.

[Havoc]

Cool. Thanks for the Ping. That ought to be an awesome read.

[AndrewC]

Bookmark

[Right Wing Professor]

Since the official church position of the Southern Baptists at the time was racist, and since they justified theit position biblically, I think it's a pretty fair assumption. Remember the Southern Baptists, as well as a couple of other sects, split from their denomination before the civil war, specifically over the issue of race and slavery.

The 'common wisdom' in the 1920's was that the races were inherently unequal. The school textbooks, and the Sunday schools, reflected the popular culture.

[Bonaparte]

So what you've stated axiomatically in post 7 you now identify as merely, "a pretty fair assumption." And, of course, you cite no source concerning your claim re 1920s Sunday School curricula.

Again, I've not disputed your contention, I've merely asked for documentation which you are apparently unable to supply.

I await your reply to post 12, in which I asked:

Are Sunday Schools public institutions supported by tax dollars?

Granted, it's a rhetorical question, but it's also a critical one, given that you appear to be equating the teaching of controversial doctrine in public school with the teaching of controversial doctrine in private settings.
________________________________________________________________

NB. Bryan was not a Baptist Southerner. He was a Presbyterian Northerner. Also, at the time of the 1845 schism, northern and southern Baptists were agreed that blacks were unfit for equality and for integration. They disagreed principally on the issue of slavery as it related to the question of fitness for mission work. Just an fyi.

[Right Wing Professor]

Again, I've not disputed your contention, I've merely asked for documentation which you are apparently unable to supply.

It's documented as well as your previous claim about high-school textbooks.

NB. Bryan was not a Baptist Southerner.

No, really? You astonish me.

Next you'll be telling me the Pope's Catholic.