Those Defensive Darwinists

THE first court trial over the theory of intelligent design is now over, with a ruling expected by the end of the year. What sparked the legal controversy? Before providing two weeks of training in modern evolutionary theory, the Dover, Pa., School District briefly informed students that if they wanted to learn about an alternative theory of biological origins, intelligent design, they could read a book about it in the school library.

In short order, the School District was dragged into court by a group insisting the school policy constituted an establishment of religion, this despite the fact that the unmentionable book bases its argument on strictly scientific evidence, without appealing to religious authority or attempting to identify the source of design.

The lawsuit is only the latest in a series of attempts to silence the growing controversy over contemporary Darwinian theory.

For instance, after The New York Times ran a series on Darwinism and design recently, prominent Darwinist Web sites excoriated the newspaper for even covering intelligent design, insulting its proponents with terms like Medievalist, Flat-Earther and "American Taliban."

University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers argues that Darwinists should take an even harder line against their opponents: "Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough," he wrote. "The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians."

This month, NPR reported on behavior seemingly right out of the P.Z. Myers playbook.

The most prominent victim in the story was Richard Sternberg, a scientist with two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology and former editor of a journal published out of the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. He sent out for peer review, then published, a paper arguing that intelligent design was the best explanation for the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms 530 million years ago.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel reported that Sternberg's colleagues immediately went on the attack, stripping Sternberg of his master key and access to research materials, spreading rumors that he wasn't really a scientist and, after determining that they didn't want to make a martyr out of him by firing him, deliberately creating a hostile work environment in the hope of driving him from the Smithsonian.

The NPR story appalled even die-hard skeptics of intelligent design, people like heavyweight blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds, who referred to the Smithsonian's tactics as "scientific McCarthyism."

Also this month, the Kansas Board of Education adopted a policy to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. Darwinists responded by insisting that there are no weaknesses, that it's a plot to establish a national theocracy — despite the fact that the weaknesses that will be taught come right out of the peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific literature.

One cause for their insecurity may be the theory's largely metaphysical foundations. As evolutionary biologist A.S. Wilkins conceded, "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

And in the September issue of The Scientist, National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell argued that his extensive investigations into the matter corroborated Wilkins' view. Biologist Roland Hirsch, a program manager in the U.S. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, goes even further, noting that Darwinism has made a series of incorrect predictions, later refashioning the paradigm to fit the results.

How different from scientific models that lead to things like microprocessors and satellites. Modern evolutionary theory is less a cornerstone and more the busybody aunt — into everyone's business and, all the while, very much insecure about her place in the home.

Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists are openly skeptical of Darwin's theory, and a recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that only 40 percent of medical doctors accept Darwinism's idea that humans evolved strictly through unguided, material processes.

Increasingly, the Darwinists' response is to try to shut down debate, but their attempts are as ineffectual as they are misguided. When leaders in Colonial America attempted to ban certain books, people rushed out to buy them. It's the "Banned in Boston" syndrome.

Today, suppression of dissent remains the tactic least likely to succeed in the United States. The more the Darwinists try to prohibit discussion of intelligent design, the more they pique the curiosity of students, parents and the general public.

You demonstrate invincible ignorance.

You demonstrate an inability to mount a cogent rebuttal.

Try reading a few recent histories of Galileo.

I have read more than "a few".

I've also read the apologetics you cling to as source material. Unfortunately, they fly in the face of the actual documents written at the time of Galileo's trial, by the actual participants:

Papal condemnation/sentencing of Galileo: "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] Likewise, you confessed that in several places the exposition of the said book is expressed in such a way that a reader could get the idea that the arguments given for the false side were effective enough to be capable of convincing, rather than being easy to refute. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. [This includes torture - Ich.]
Under threat of conviction, Galileo publicly renounced his "false" doctrine that the Earth revolves around the Sun: "I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you [...] I wrote and printed a book in which I discussed this doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments of great cogency in its favor [horrors! - Ich.], without presenting any solution of these [i.e., without reconciling it with the Church's interpretation of Scripture -- Ich.]; and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves. [...] with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me"
-- Galileo's forced recantation, June 27, 1633

Galileo was 100% right, the Church was 100% wrong -- both in the facts, and in their decision to treat as "crimes" all of the things they accused Galileo of. No matter how hard you try, you can't put lipstick on that pig and make it pretty.

Even if as you laughably claim, the "real" beef was that Galileo couldn't "prove" his theory, THAT IN NO WAY EXCUSES ANY OF THE PERSECUTION OF GALILEO. The Church did not then, and does not now, have the moral right to persecute and imprison anyone for stating the results of his examinations of the evidence, whether he can "prove" it or not. The Church did not then, and does not now, have the moral right to persecute and imprison anyone for holding a position contrary to what scripture appears to state. The Church did not then, and does not now, have the moral right to persecute and imprison anyone for making an argument that might cause someone to question their religion.

The Church was dead wrong. There's no getting around that. And history has vindicated Galileo -- and his methods -- 100%.

I find it reprehensible that in this day and age, anyone would try to make any excuses for the persecution of Galileo -- or fail to learn from it. But even today we have countless numbers of people who insist upon placing their guesses about what scripture might be trying to tell them, over what people have learned through careful examination of the reality of Creation itself -- and still insist upon vilifying those who do.

I'm going to have to ask you to try, just for a moment, to stop posting outright lies as a poor substitute for an ability to actually rebut the material -- no matter how popular that tactic obviously is in the AECreationist playbook.

Excuse me - are you an Administrator? What gives you the right to ask me to stop posting my sincerely held beliefs? Did someone suspend the First Amendment on this thread? You believe I am posting "lies" - defined as saying one thing when I know that it is untrue. But that is not the case. Because I refuse to accept the "partyline" of Darwinism and evolution does not make me a "liar" and you a "truth teller. " This has to be one of the most arrogant postings I have ever read on FreeRepublic. Your claims that ID is wrong, and evolution is true is an expression of your sincerely held beliefs. And I respect that...and I would never "ask" you to do otherwise.

I am neither a dolt, nor an idiot. I am not a koolaid drinker. I have a graduate degree - the field is immaterial, the discipline of achieving said degree indicates some level of intellectual activity beyond whatever level you believe Creationists can't rise above.

It would appear, as usual, noone is going to convince anyone else. But a little respect would be appreciated.

[I'm going to have to ask you to try, just for a moment, to stop posting outright lies as a poor substitute for an ability to actually rebut the material -- no matter how popular that tactic obviously is in the AECreationist playbook.]

Excuse me - are you an Administrator?

Not the last time I checked.

What gives you the right to ask me to stop posting my sincerely held beliefs?

Try reading my post again, this time for comprehension. "Your beliefs" is not what I asked you to stop posting.

Did someone suspend the First Amendment on this thread?

No, which is why I'm free to ask you to stop posting fabrications.

You believe I am posting "lies" - defined as saying one thing when I know that it is untrue. But that is not the case.

So you actually *did* poll "these same clergy" who signed the letter? Do tell.

Because I refuse to accept the "partyline" of Darwinism and evolution does not make me a "liar" and you a "truth teller. "

Nor did I say that it did.

This has to be one of the most arrogant postings I have ever read on FreeRepublic.

You mean it's more arrogant than the guy who claimed that he knew what "these same clergy" actually believed on other subjects which weren't mentioned in the letter, in a cheap attempt to dismiss their opinions by making false ad hominems against them?

Your claims that ID is wrong, and evolution is true is an expression of your sincerely held beliefs. And I respect that...and I would never "ask" you to do otherwise.

Nor would I.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.