Evolution and intelligent design Life is a cup of tea

Economist ^ | 10/6/05 | Economist

[shuckmaster]

How should evolution be taught in schools? This being America, judges will decide

HALF of all Americans either don't know or don't believe that living creatures evolved. And now a Pennsylvania school board is trying to keep its pupils ignorant. It is the kind of story about America that makes secular Europeans chortle smugly before turning to the horoscope page. Yet it is more complex than it appears.

In Harrisburg a trial began last week that many are comparing to the Scopes “monkey” trial of 1925, when a Tennessee teacher was prosecuted for teaching Charles Darwin's theory of evolution. Now the gag is on the other mouth. In 1987 the Supreme Court ruled that teaching creationism in public-school science classes was an unconstitutional blurring of church and state. But those who think Darwinism unGodly have fought back.

Last year, the school board in Dover, a small rural school district near Harrisburg, mandated a brief disclaimer before pupils are taught about evolution. They are to be told that “The theory [of evolution] is not a fact. Gaps in the theory exist for which there is no evidence.” And that if they wish to investigate the alternative theory of “intelligent design”, they should consult a book called “Of Pandas and People” in the school library.

Eleven parents, backed by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, two lobby groups, are suing to have the disclaimer dropped. Intelligent design, they say, is merely a clever repackaging of creationism, and as such belongs in a sermon, not a science class.

The school board's defence is that intelligent design is science, not religion. It is a new theory, which holds that present-day organisms are too complex to have evolved by the accumulation of random mutations, and must have been shaped by some intelligent entity. Unlike old-style creationism, it does not explicitly mention God. It also accepts that the earth is billions of years old and uses more sophisticated arguments to poke holes in Darwinism.

Almost all biologists, however, think it is bunk. Kenneth Miller, the author of a popular biology textbook and the plaintiffs' first witness, said that, to his knowledge, every major American scientific organisation with a view on the subject supported the theory of evolution and dismissed the notion of intelligent design. As for “Of Pandas and People”, he pronounced that the book was “inaccurate and downright false in every section”.

The plaintiffs have carefully called expert witnesses who believe not only in the separation of church and state but also in God. Mr Miller is a practising Roman Catholic. So is John Haught, a theology professor who testified on September 30th that life is like a cup of tea.

To illustrate the difference between scientific and religious “levels of understanding”, Mr Haught asked a simple question. What causes a kettle to boil? One could answer, he said, that it is the rapid vibration of water molecules. Or that it is because one has asked one's spouse to switch on the stove. Or that it is “because I want a cup of tea.” None of these explanations conflicts with the others. In the same way, belief in evolution is compatible with religious faith: an omnipotent God could have created a universe in which life subsequently evolved.

It makes no sense, argued the professor, to confuse the study of molecular movements by bringing in the “I want tea” explanation. That, he argued, is what the proponents of intelligent design are trying to do when they seek to air their theory—which he called “appalling theology”—in science classes.

Darwinism has enemies mostly because it is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Intelligent designers deny that this is why they attack it, but this week the court was told by one critic that the authors of “Of Pandas and People” had culled explicitly creationist language from early drafts after the Supreme Court barred creationism from science classes.

In the Dover case, intelligent design appears to have found unusually clueless champions. If the plaintiffs' testimony is accurate, members of the school board made no effort until recently to hide their religious agenda. For years, they expressed pious horror at the idea of apes evolving into men and tried to make science teachers teach old-fashioned creationism. (The board members in question deny, or claim not to remember, having made remarks along these lines at public meetings.)

Intelligent design's more sophisticated proponents, such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, are too polite to say they hate to see their ideas championed by such clods. They should not be surprised, however. America's schools are far more democratic than those in most other countries. School districts are tiny—there are 501 in Pennsylvania alone—and school boards are directly elected. In a country where 65% of people think that creationism and evolution should be taught side by side, some boards inevitably agree, and seize upon intelligent design as the closest approximation they think they can get away with. But they may not be able to get away with it for long. If the case is appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, intelligent design could be labelled religious and barred from biology classes nationwide.

[taxesareforever]

I feel honored that a history of my comments has been kept. Now to get them archived. Does it really mean that I have struck a nerve?

[taxesareforever]

Consider me a product of our public educational system.

[taxesareforever]

And there are probably those around here who agree with this stuff. Well, at least one.

Who might that be? :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I disagree with your assessment of what taxesforever is saying. I understood it, and maybe you did too, or maybe you did not."

We gave him plenty of rope to hang himself, and he did. We didn't have to drag any of this out of him. We didn't have to misquote him out of context like creationists have to do with evolutionists.

Do you agree with him too? We have yet to see a creationist (like you) say they disagree with his pro-slavery, anti rational-thought sentiments. Do you think that reason is a gift from God or the Devil? Do you think that what is morally right or wrong in one country isn't morally right or wrong in another just because the laws are different? Do you think that slavery is not a moral issue? Is that what you wish to defend.

" So I'll address this slavery issue. 1st of all its absurd, not recent, not practiced, has been decided, etc etc."

So why does taxesareforever think it is still OK?

" See why I would like to take your side more seriously but I cant?"

Because like taxesareforever you believe that rational thought is a trick from the Devil? :)


"So then your response is to insist I am a creationist (even though I said I am not)..."

You are one, why are you denying it? Are you embarrassed? If you say you are in ID'er it is a variation on the same theme.

"...and demand proof of the resurrection (which I never brought in you did). Whats up with that?"

That was what I was talking about to the other poster in that thread when you butted in and made a comment. Sorry if you didn't realize what was being discussed. And I am STILL waiting for ANY positive physical evidence of the resurrection. If you don't know of any just say so.

" Wolf (looking askance) And then you think you have won some sort of victory?"

We have Wolfie, we have. Your tacit approval of his posts is all we could have wished for. It's says so much about you.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I feel honored that a history of my comments has been kept. Now to get them archived. Does it really mean that I have struck a nerve?"

It means we can't believe that somebody would be so moronic as to support slavery and say that rational thought is the work of the Devil on a forum called the Free Republic. It means you have sent so many of us into tears of laughter as we fell off our chairs at the dumb things you said.

We couldn't create a better creationist caricature of we wanted. Thanks! :)

[Thatcherite]

We have Wolfie, we have. Your tacit approval of his posts is all we could have wished for. It's says so much about you.

When people feel comfortable rejecting modern biology because it runs counter to their literal belief in their holy book, then why should we be surprised that they find the laws and morals of that holy book likewise to their taste? The real surprise would be if a creationist could bring themselves to condemn slavery. One would have to ask how they could compartmentalise their beliefs so; using a holy book as a science and history text but not a morality and law text would be very strange behaviour. "Taxes" is the only creationist currently openly and honestly admitting to a consistent position on this issue. No other creationist will currently clearly state their views, because they know them to be unnacceptable in modern Western society. Several others have been brave enough to admit their pro-slavery views in the past however.

[Thatcherite]

It means we can't believe that somebody would be so moronic as to support slavery and say that rational thought is the work of the Devil on a forum called the Free Republic. It means you have sent so many of us into tears of laughter as we fell off our chairs at the dumb things you said. We couldn't create a better creationist caricature of we wanted. Thanks! :)

And just as to the point it gave the other creationists an opportunity to clearly state their opposition to slavery and your viewpoints; an opportunity that not one creationist has accepted. This tells us so much. "Taxes" has many tacit supporters.

[PatrickHenry]

Reason is the Devil's bride.

[RightWingAtheist]

Now that's a Chris Lee movie I'd never even heard of.

[RunningWolf]

HHA HA HA.. LOL..!! HA HA HAH LMAO!! CarolinaGuitarman at his best.

taxes was misquoted all over the place. You have clipped text from at least 7 posters to him over the space of 500 posts. Plenty of people 'butted in' as you say.

You say many things, most of them about as absurd as these declarations and questions from you. You and your budds are are making a very poor showing for scientists in the case for evolution.

You want me to reject slavery? Well its your goofy and stupid game CarolinaGuitarman, LMAO LOL! But Wolf will play it with you as kitten momentarily distracted, then there is no more time for you about this.

Wolf now rejects slavery, and adds that to the list of rejected things as demanded by the goofball cultists of evo-cosmo cosmo-evo cult of the flying spaghetti monster.

This stands

Truth lives, lies evaporate & go away. Let go of your cult of cosmology & evolution, there is no truth there.

The cosmo evo cult lies to you with their conclusions, their inferences, their attacks.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" taxes was misquoted all over the place."

Where? Be specific.

"You have clipped text from at least 7 posters to him over the space of 500 posts."

They were all his quotes.

"Wolf now rejects slavery, and adds that to the list of rejected things as demanded by the goofball cultists of evo-cosmo cosmo-evo cult of the flying spaghetti monster."

Taxesareforever disagrees with you. He thinks there is nothing wrong with slavery. And we don't demand it, morality does.

"You say many things, most of them about as absurd as these declarations and questions from you. You and your budds are are making a very poor showing for scientists in the case for evolution."

You are making a pathetic case for Creationism. (Which is what you believe.)

"HHA HA HA.. LOL..!! HA HA HAH LMAO!!"

Time to up your meds... or maybe you need to see the vet again.

[taxesareforever]

Your welcome. Your comments, though, did not sound like they were being made while laughing.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Your welcome. Your comments, though, did not sound like they were being made while laughing."

Oh, but they were. :)

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker

[Coyoteman]

Keep this thread alive--it's too good to be forgotten

===> Placemarker <===

[mdmathis6]

"But since the devil's bride, Reason, that pretty whore, comes in and thinks she's wise, and what she says, what she thinks, is from the Holy Spirit, who can help us, then? Not judges, not doctors, no king or emperor, because [reason] is the Devil's greatest whore."
Source: Martin Luther, 1483-1546."

I ran across this posting of yours while tracking down another item. CS Lewis would have taken Luther to task with this one. In his work, "Pilgrims Regress" he wrote of Reason as a Virgin, unsullied by bias, morality. She stated(she was given feminine character in the book) that she forces the seakers of knowledge to be totally honest with themselves when considering a course of thought or action.
No true decisions could simply be decided by reason alone, to make a decision and attribute it to reason WAS TO MAKE A WHORE OF HER(and she "could not sully" herself with the notion of decision). She did give advice to the protagonist to seek advice fro "her cousins Faith, Hope, and Joy", for he sought advice on matters she could not give answers to and that she knew of others who had found their answers "with them"!

Interestingly enough, the book of Provebs speaks of Wisdom,"having her 7 pillars", who goes out into the Byways saying who-ever is thirsty amd craves wisdom let them come..." Wisdom is mentioned in the feminine here as well.

[13Sisters76]

---

Access Research Network
Phillip Johnson Archives

---

Darwinists Squirm Under Spotlight
Interview with Phillip E. Johnson

---

This article is reprinted from an interview with Citizen Magazine, January 1992.

Phillip Johnson has been a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley for more than 20 years. As an academic lawyer, one of Johnson's specialties is "analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments." A few years ago he began to suspect that Darwinism, far from being an objective fact, was little more than a philosophical position dressed up as science--and poor science at that. Wanting to see whether his initial impression was correct, Johnson decided to take a closer look at the arguments, evidence and assumptions underlying contemporary Darwinism. The result of his investigation is Darwin on Trial, a controversial new book that challenges not only Darwinism but the philosophical mindset that sustains it.

When did you first become aware that Darwinism was in trouble as a scientific theory?

I had been vaguely aware that there were problems, but I'd never had any intention of taking up the subject seriously or in detail until the 1987-88 academic year, when I was a visiting professor in London. Every day on the way to my office I happened to go by a large bookstore devoted to science. I picked up one book after another and became increasingly fascinated with the obvious difficulties in the Darwinist case--difficulties that were being evaded by tricky rhetoric and emphatic repetition. I then began delving into the professional literature, especially in scientific journals such as Nature and Science. At every step, what I found was a failure of the evidence to be in accord with the theory.

What was it that initially made you suspect that Darwinism was more philosophy than hard science?

It was the way my scientific colleagues responded when I asked the hard questions. Instead of taking the intellectual questions seriously and responding to them, they would answer with all sorts of evasions and vague language, making it impossible to discuss the real objections to Darwinism. This is the way people talk when they're trying very hard not to understand something.

Another tip-off was the sharp contrast I noticed between the extremely dogmatic tone that Darwinists use when addressing the general public and the occasional frank acknowledgments, in scientific circles, of serious problems with the theory. For example, I would read Stephen Jay Gould telling the scientific world that Darwinism was effectively dead as a theory. And then in the popular literature, I would read Gould and other scientific writers saying that Darwinism was fundamentally healthy, and that scientists had the remaining problems well under control. There was a contradiction here, and it looked as though there was an effort to keep the outside world from becoming aware of the serious intellectual difficulties.

What are some of the intellectual difficulties? Can you give an example?

The most important is the fossil problem, because this is a direct record of the history of life on earth. If Darwinism were true, you would expect the fossil evidence to contain many examples of Darwinian evolution. You would expect to see fossils that really couldn't be understood except as transitions between one kind of organism and another. You would also expect to see some of the common ancestors that gave birth to different groups like fish and reptiles. You wouldn't expect to find them in every case, of course. It's perfectly reasonable to say that a great deal of the fossil evidence has been lost. But you would continually be finding examples of things that fit well with the theory.

In reality, the fossil record is something that Darwinists have had to explain away, because what it shows is the sudden appearance of organisms that exhibit no trace of step-by-step development from earlier forms. And it shows that once these organisms exist, they remain fundamentally unchanged, despite the passage of millions of years-and despite climatic and environmental changes that should have produced enormous Darwinian evolution if the theory were true. In short, if evolution is the gradual, step-by-step transformation of one kind of thing into another, the outstanding feature of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution.

But isn't it possible, as many Darwinists say, that the fossil evidence is just too scanty to show evidence of Darwinian evolution?

The question is whether or not Darwinism is a scientific theory that can be tested with scientific evidence. If you assume that the theory is true, you can deal with conflicting evidence by saying that the evidence has disappeared. But then the question arises, how do you know it's true if it isn't recorded in the fossils? Where is the proof? It's not in genetics. And it's not in the molecular evidence, which shows similarities between organisms but doesn't tell you how those similarities came about. So the proof isn't anywhere, and it's illegitimate to approach the fossil record with the conclusive assumption that the theory is true so that you can read into the fossil record whatever you need to support the theory.

If Darwinism has been so thoroughly disconfirmed, why do so many scientists say it's a fact?

There are several factors that explain this. One is that Darwinism is fundamentally a religious position, not a scientific position. The project of Darwinism is to explain the world and all its life forms in a way that excludes any role for a creator. And that project is sacred to the scientific naturalist-to the person who denies that God can in any way influence natural events.

It's also an unfortunate fact in the history of science that scientists will stick to a theory which is untrue until they get an acceptable alternative theory-which to a Darwinist means a strictly naturalistic theory. So for them, the question is not whether Darwinism is true. The question is whether there is a better theory that's philosophically acceptable. Any suggestion that Darwinism is false, and that we should admit our ignorance about the origin of complex life-forms, is simply unacceptable. In their eyes, Darwinism is the best naturalistic theory, and therefore effectively true. The argument that it's false can't even be heard.

Surely there are some skeptics in the scientific world. What of them?

Well, there are several, and we can see what happened to them. You have paleontologist Colin Patterson, who's quoted in my first chapter. He made a very bold statement, received a lot of vicious criticism, and then pulled back. This is a typical pattern.

Another pattern is that of Stephen Jay Gould, who said that Darwinism is effectively dead as a general theory-and then realized that he had given a powerful weapon to the creationists, whose existence cannot be tolerated. So now Gould says that he's really a good Darwinist, and that all he really meant was that Darwinism could be improved by developing a larger theory that included Darwinism. What we have here is politics, not science. Darwinism is politically correct for the scientific community, because it enables them to fight off any rivals for cultural authority.

Darwinists often accuse creationists of intolerance. But you're suggesting that the Darwinists are intolerant?

If you want to know what Darwinist science is really like, read what the Darwinists say about the creationists, because those things-regardless of whether they're true about the creationists-are true about the Darwinists. I've found that people often say things about their enemies that are true of themselves. And I think Darwinist science has many of the defects that the Darwinists are so indignant about when they describe the creationists.

Across the country, there has been a growing trend toward teaching evolution as a fact-especially in California, your own state. What does this say about science education in America?

This is an attempt to establish a religious position as orthodox throughout the educational establishment, and thus throughout the society. It's gone very far. The position is what I call "scientific naturalism." The scientific organizations, for example, tell us that if we wish to maintain our country's economic status and cope with environmental problems, we must give everyone a scientific outlook. But the "scientific outlook" they have in mind is one which, by definition, excludes God from any role in the world, from the Big Bang to the present. So this is fundamentally a religious position-a fundamentalist position, if you like--and it's being taught in the schools as a fact when it isn't even a good theory.

Why should Christians be concerned about a scientific theory? Why does it matter?

Well, not only Christians should care about it. Everyone should. It is religion in the name of science, and that means that it is misleading people about both religion and science.

Copyright © 1997 Phillip E. Johnson. All rights reserved. International copyright secured.
File Date:2.22.97

---

[ Previous Page ] [ Return to Phillip Johnson On-line Articles ] [ Phillip Johnson Page ] [ ARN Home Page ]

---

This data file may be reproduced in its entirety for non-commercial use.
A return link to the Access Research Network web site would be appreciated.

Documents on this site which have been reproduced from a previous publication are copyrighted through the individual publication. See the body of the above document for specific copyright information.