Those Defensive Darwinists

The Seattle Times ^ | 11/21/05 | Jonathon Witt

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

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.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I don't you can deny we all get hunches or flash of idea etc. some of it is helpful to lead us in the right direction and some can really mess you up.

When these things happen we will run it through our common sence, but sometimes we are prompted to seek beyond our reasoning...

This is a vital ingredience in all mankinds life!

Some of us become aware of that celestial realm and don't dismissed it like many Evols choose to do, which is to ignore that still small voice!

Their are angels/ghost among us taking place all the times some are friendly, some not too kind and even some are evil you can say these forces don't exist that is alright they will still do their thing!"

Thanks for, um, clearing that up. :)

[AndrewC]

Why do you accuse me of such a heresy and blasphemy?

Do you understand the English language? I accused you of no such thing. You however stoop to name-calling.

[Coyoteman]

Our evo-war canids are a mangy and decrepit bunch.

Except Coyoteman, of course.

[You left this out of your post.]

[Right Wing Professor]

[You left this out of your post.]

Uh, yeah, sure.

(I actually had you figured for half-hominid, half canid, anyway.)

[Coyoteman]

Now those kittens are CUTE! You will have lots of ZOT material in a while.

[starbase]

[So is the 'no-angels' concept of physics un-useful?]

Professor,
If we could go back in time to when you were very young, and I showed you this post and said in the future you were to write this, would you have believed me? :-)

[starbase]

[That's nice, but Marx' ideas were formulated before Darwin published.

1848 Communist Manifesto

1859 Origin of Species]

Old Karl was still scribbling away as late as 1870 when he wrote the second volume of Capital. He kept writing and working (bless his little heart) until his death on 14th March 1883. The Communist Manifesto was not his only influential work. He had plenty of time to incorporate Darwin's ideas, and I read he offered to dedicate Capital Vol. I to Darwin, who declined not wanting to offend his religious relatives.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"and I read he offered to dedicate Capital Vol. I to Darwin, who declined not wanting to offend his religious relatives."
You read wrong:

http://www.gruts.com/darwin/articles/2000/marx/index.htm

[PatrickHenry]

We discussed this in a thread a few days ago. Two points:

Marx's last work, Das Kapital, is the only thing he wrote and published after the world learned of Darwin and evolution. But Das Kapital doesn't mention either Darwin or evolution. No hint of any Darwinian influence.

Second, the tale about the offer of dedication has recently been revealed to be false. Someone will be along soon to post a link to that information.

[PatrickHenry]

See post 608. Have fun.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

That's 2 today. Next thing you know I'll be posting on all the major primes. :)

(of course, it probably just says I need to get a life lol)

[RunningWolf]

Like I said I read it just fine. As far as I am concerned there was/is no legitimate point you made so I did not even respond to it.

Your rhetorical logic (of better/worse greater/less based on google hits) is very poor. Why should I even dignify that with a response? I reject your inferences that is why.

I could go and make all sorts of logical connections based on your /google-hit/ logic, and I doubt you would like any of them.

In fact I just came back with hits of 65,900,000, 133,000 and 25,700, and no you wont like them. They are not goofy like your horse poop searches.

Wolf

[starbase]

["and I read he offered to dedicate Capital Vol. I to Darwin, who declined not wanting to offend his religious relatives."

You read wrong: ]

I read correctly, though the information may have been wrong.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I read correctly, though the information may have been wrong."

Fair enough.

[starbase]

["and I read he offered to dedicate Capital Vol. I to Darwin, who declined not wanting to offend his religious relatives."
You read wrong:

http://www.gruts.com/darwin/articles/2000/marx/index.htm]

I checked out the link. I'm not real comfortable with a template-built website named "www.gruts.com" as an authoritative source of information, it also has no outside links to the sources in its explanations, only one link the the Origin of Species.

It does have all the names and dates of the sources, though. I don't have time to hunt them down now, the site appears on the up and up, so I'll accept the explanation, but I have it on my to do list to verify all the source info.

[PatrickHenry]

I have it on my to do list to verify all the source info.

Try this link on the Darwin-Marx question, if you haven't seen it yet.

[AndrewC]

Interesting the twists of the internet.

This

Try this link on the Darwin-Marx question, if you haven't seen it yet.

leads to this

Further Reading:

Colp, Ralph Jr. 1982. The myth of the Darwin-Marx letter. History of Political Economy 14(4): 461-482.

Dawkins, Richard. 2000. There's more to books than titles. http://archive.workersliberty.org/wlmags/wl61/dawkins.htm

Which leads to this

by way of

I won't go on and on. If any readers were persuaded by Clive Bradley's ill-informed attack on The Selfish Gene, may I invite them to do what he apparently did not: struggle manfully past the title and actually read the book.

---

Back to the contents page for this issue of Workers' Liberty

Back to the Workers' Liberty magazine index

[ Home | Publications | Links ]

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

What part of realizing that a man is far more complex than a Rolex don't you understand. Evolution violates fundamental laws of nature. Devolving is the fundamental law of nature not the reverse.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you both so much for your kind words and encouragements!

The objective of the article and my posts on this thread was to counsel that certain tactics are like a dagger with more poison in the handle than the point. Those who use such weapons work against themselves and will diminish. Conversely, the side which follows the Christian "rules of engagement" will surely increase:

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all [men], apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And [that] they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. - 2 Timothy 2:23-26

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Evolution violates fundamental laws of nature."

That's hysterical!

"Devolving is the fundamental law of nature not the reverse."

If you are talking about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, you are in WAY over your head.