Real evolution.
Posted on 06/07/2002 11:35:28 AM PDT by jennyp
To Seattle area residents the struggle over how evolution is taught in public high schools may seem a topic from the distant past or a distant place.
Don't bet on it. One nearby episode in the controversy has ended, but a far-reaching, Seattle-based agenda to overthrow Darwin is gaining momentum.
Roger DeHart, a high-school science teacher who was the center of an intense curriculum dispute a few years ago in Skagit County, is leaving the state. He plans to teach next year in a private Christian school in California.
The fuss over DeHart's use of "intelligent design" theory in his classes at Burlington-Edison High School was merely a tiny blip in a grand scheme by promoters of the theory.
The theory is essentially this: Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being.
Who is this unnamed being? Well, God, I presume. Wouldn't you?
As unlikely as it may seem, Seattle is ground zero for the intelligent-design agenda, thanks to the Seattle-based Discovery Institute and its Center for Renewal of Science and Culture (CRSC).
Headed by one-time Seattle City councilman and former Reagan administration official Bruce Chapman, the Discovery Institute is best known locally for its savvy insights on topics ranging from regionalism, transportation, defense policy and the economy.
In the late '90s, the institute jumped into the nation's culture wars with the CRSC. It may be little known to local folks, but it has caught the attention of conservative religious organizations around the country.
It's bound to get more attention in the future. Just last month, a documentary, Icons of Evolution, premiered at Seattle Pacific University. The video is based on a book of the same name by CRSC fellow Jonathan Wells. It tells the story of DeHart, along with the standard critique of Darwinian evolution that fuels the argument for intelligent design.
The video is part of the anti-Darwin agenda. Cruise the Internet on this topic and you'll find something called the Wedge Strategy, which credits the CRSC with a five-year plan for methodically promoting intelligent design and a 20-year goal of seeing "design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life."
Last week, Chapman tried to put a little distance between his institute and the "wedge" document. He said it was a fund-raising tool used four years ago. "I don't disagree with it," he told me, "but it's not our program." (I'll let the folks who gave money based on the proposed strategy ponder what that means.)
Program or not, it is clear that the CRSC is intent on bringing down what one Center fellow calls "scientific imperialism." Surely Stephen Jay Gould already is spinning in his grave. Gould, one of America's most widely respected scientists and a prolific essayist, died just two weeks ago. Among his many fine books is one I kept by my bedside for many weeks after it was published in 1999, "Rock of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life."
In "Rock of Ages," Gould presents an elegant case for the necessary co-existence of science and religion. Rather than conflicting, as secular humanists insist, or blending, as intelligent-design proponents would have it, science and religion exist in distinct domains, what Gould called magisteria (domains of teaching authority).
The domain of science is the empirical universe; the domain of religion is the moral, ethical and spiritual meaning of life.
Gould was called America's most prominent evolutionist, yet he too, was a critic of Darwin's theory, and the object of some controversy within the scientific community. There's a lesson in that: In the domain of science there is plenty of room for disagreement and alternative theories without bringing God into the debate.
I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design. It has appeal as a way to grasp the unknowable why of our existence. But it is only a belief. When advocates push intelligent design as a legitimate scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations of evolution, it is time to push back.
That's what they continue to do in Skagit County. Last week, the Burlington-Edison School Board rejected on a 4-1 vote a proposal to "encourage" the teaching of intelligent design. Bravo.
Despite proponents' claims of scientific validity, intelligent design is little more than religion-based creationism wrapped in critiques of Darwin and all dressed up in politically correct language. All for the ultimate goal — placing a Christian God in science classrooms of America's public high schools.
You see, I can't argue against him anymore - he's not taking my money by force to teach pseudoscience.
In the beginning
Whether evolution or creation, both are still theories
Editor, The Times:
Wow, I had to duck fast and early to miss the knee-jerk reaction of Mindy Cameron ("Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection," Times guest column, June 3). The "We know what they are really saying" (wink, wink) and immediate call to arms over the discussion of any compatibility between intelligent design and natural selection. What she misses completely is that evolution and creation are both theories.
Wait just minute — hold that knee down! One has more backing from a certain segment of the population and one has more backing from another. Science is not supposed to be subject to those all-too-human emotions that impact positions and arguments from each side, but it is.
It is telling to note that Cameron states, "I have no quarrel with those who believe in intelligent design... But it is only a belief." It is an equally true statement to substitute "evolution" for "intelligent design." It may be a majority belief, but it nevertheless requires its own faith.
Stephen Jay Gould's theory tried to explain the lack of actual demonstration of evolution of a new species rather than the natural selection within a species. Until that happens and is repeatable (that, by the way, is science), evolution is simply a different religious belief.
- Barry Baker, SeattleA divine spark
I've read that in inventing the incandescent light, Thomas Edison tried some 4,000 different ideas before he hit on one that worked. Oops, that didn't work — oops, that didn't work — oops, that didn't work — Hot damn! — look at that baby glow!
Was this an evolutionary process or intelligent design? Looks to me like it was both.
There are a whole lot of really interesting "Questions to Ponder" out there, like:
What sort of "stuff" did the Big Bang "bang" from?
What was God doing before Creation? Shooting pool at the eternal billiards parlor — or what?
Wasn't the Pythagorean Theorem true even before Pythagoras thought of it? Wasn't it always true? Even before the Big Bang, Creation or whatever? This sort of implies that "Nothing" may be impossible, if this theorem was always true — then there never was "nothing."
I think this makes the "Creation vs. Big Bang controversy" a little trivial; there's something more profound here.
We'll have to scrap the dogmas from both sides to pursue this much further. Seems to me to be a worthwhile venture, both in the classroom and out.
- Norm Seaholm, SeattleUnevolved thought
Mindy Cameron's summation as to what intelligent design argument is about, demonstrates stunning ignorance. She offered no credible defense of evolution. There is no evidence suggesting the super-micro particles of life evolve even in the slightest.
In the vacuum of anything better, I suppose evolution is all Darwinists have, but you look silly in insisting this be taught in public schools based on recent research, and it would indicate that this argument clearly has more to do with simple politics than it does science.
My criticisms of the entire debate centers in hypocrisy in checks and balances that dramatically change depending on which direction the criticism is headed. Until both parties can explain the opposing opinion correctly, and apply the same standards in both directions, none of us has the right to teach anything on this topic in the public schools.
Fortunately, judging from polls regarding belief in God, it appears the students of America can see a fraud regardless of how much evolution gets shoved down their throats. Might I suggest the Darwinist camp start being a bit more honest with their "evidence"?
- Phil Caldwell, SeattleBarriers at the gate
OK, I am a seventh-grade science teacher, and I just finished my mandatory unit on Intelligent Design (as required by the state and Harcourt Brace). My students ask the natural question (the only thing that matters in this theory): "Well, who is this Designer?" My answer: Xenu, the Uber Soul from a galaxy far, far away.
Would the Christians be OK with that? After all, their goal is not to put God in the classroom, but to offer a science-based alternative to evolution, so why should they care?
Fact is, the genesis of our universe only matters within the realm of science, because it is science that will make some practical use of the knowledge. Religious believers want the knowledge (actually, they act as if they already have it, don't they?) so they can drive a "wedge" between themselves and the rest of the unenlightened world. Heaven has a gate, right? With Saint Peter guarding it. What is a gate but a passage through a wall or fence? Why a wall around Heaven? Metaphor! We are good and smart and right. They are bad and stupid and evil.
Science has given us Velcro and minivans and computers and fields of wheat that feed 10,000 instead of 10. Religion has given us false comfort and hope when we are sick, and guys who fly jets into buildings.
Which domain of activity has benefited humanity more?
- Dave Stead, Port OrchardSeparate but equal
While we can all have sympathy for people whose religious beliefs seem threatened by the discoveries of science, Mindy Cameron is right to point out this need not be the case, since science and religion occupy two distinctly different spheres of the human experience.
To insist on the inclusion of "Intelligent Design" in science curricula is like adding sand to a recipe for apple pie — it just doesn't belong. It may be a comforting idea to those who refuse to accept the reality of what science discovers, but science isn't the place to turn for comfort and a sense of belonging — that job belongs to our religious and cultural beliefs, just as it should be.
We can no more shoehorn faith into the realm of science than we can force God into a test-tube, so why continue tilting at windmills? Congratulations to Cameron for the thoughtful essay on why such confusion benefits no one.
- John Hedley, Kirkland
Intelligent discussion
The designer has no label
Mindy Cameron's column on intelligent design is another attempt to obfuscate the issue of the origin of life ("Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection," guest column, June 3). Instead of scientifically addressing the critiques by intelligent-design proponents, Darwinists and their supporters like Cameron focus on the "G" word or a sociological agenda by right-wing conspirators. How about the scientific evidence?
I have the video "Icons of Evolution" that Cameron criticized. I read Jonathan Wells' book. He lists and describes in detail many distortions that appear in high-school and college biology textbooks and refutes Darwinistic claims that these "icons" prove the theory of evolution.
Cameron's dread of a belief system invading our schools has already happened. It is the materialistic, atheistic philosophy that serves as a base for Darwinian evolution and is disguised as science. A chief proponent was Stephen Jay Gould, who may have criticized traditional Darwinism (due to the lack of evidence in the fossil record) but was still a neo-Darwinist who held to the philosophy.
Intelligent design does not attribute a name to the designer. It could be a Christian, Muslim, Buddhist god or none of the above. It may have been space aliens, or the Earth itself, for Gaia theory fans. The important consideration is this: Does the scientific evidence best support design or macroevolution?
One thing we do know: Students will remain impoverished when the school boards reject the advice of Congress and true science and instead embrace materialistic philosophy.
— Tim Hope, Kent
Clear-eyed faith
I found Mindy Cameron's column grossly misleading. From what I read, she sees intelligent-design theorists as anti-scientific hillbillies who reject accepted scientific fact. In reality, the theory of evolution is just that: a theory (i.e., something that hasn't been proven true). And 100 years of digging and probing hasn't proven whether or not it is (true).
We who believe in intelligent design come to our conclusions the same way scientists do; by examining the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on our observations. We came to our conclusion honestly, not through a blind, irrational faith like Cameron seemed to suggest.
Yes, intelligent design is founded on a religious basis. But evolution is also founded on a similar "religious basis": the idea of the absence of God.
If teaching an unproven theory that tries to explain God away is allowed to be taught, I don't see why an alternative theory to the same controversy could not be shown by its side. Intelligent design is, after all, an accepted theory, with its proponents in just about every area of science. And whether Cameron agrees or not, it is a rational theory that deserves to be given a chance in our public institutions.
— Joshua Tom, Bothell
Designer's dream
I submit that intelligent design is much more than a mere belief about life's origins. Many informed persons today consider intelligent design more scientific than evolution.
Item: It's the consistency and rationality of Earth's properties that allow scientists to explore hopefully and explain confidently. It's that same consistency and rationality that allows pharmacologists to design medicines that work predictably.
It would appear the intelligent designer wanted his creation explored by the fascinated and admired by the informed.
— J. Philip Prigge, Seattle
Sigh.
Intelligent design does NOT have to involve God, although theists can choose to place the intelligence in a deity.
The driving force behind the opposition to rational debate and discussion of intelligent design theory is a pervasive undercurrent of Anti-theism, or a need by some people to have there NOT be a God.
The mere suggestion that there may be a God, even alluding to His existence and involvement with intelligent design theory, sets a transcendent foundational framework for civilized moral human behavior that declares a right and a wrong way of living and interacting with others.
Evidently I'm part of the clean-up crew.
Isn't that like saying, "and on the 8th day, man created God"?
In Economics, this is called "Communism". Remember Communists? They were always railing against the "anarchy of the marketplace" in favor of rational design of industries & economies by highly trained soviets armed with 5-year plans. They were convinced that this ID approach would create lasting prosperity the likes of which anarchistic, evolutionary Capitalism could never hope to approach.
The driving force behind the opposition to rational debate and discussion of intelligent design theory is a pervasive undercurrent of Anti-theism, or a need by some people to have there NOT be a God.
The mere suggestion that there may be a God, even alluding to His existence and involvement with intelligent design theory, sets a transcendent foundational framework for civilized moral human behavior that declares a right and a wrong way of living and interacting with others.
I want a straight answer, J. Semper Paratus: Are you accusing me of immorality? Please be specific as to what aspects of my personality or sexual or financial, etc. practices you find immoral.
01: Site that debunks virtually all of creationism's fallacies. Excellent resource.
02: Creation "Science" Debunked.
03: Creationi sm and Pseudo Science. Familiar cartoon then lots of links.
04: The SKEPTIC annotated bibliography. Amazingly great meta-site!
05: The Evidence for Human Evolution. For the "no evidence" crowd.
06: Massive mega-site with thousands of links on evolution, creationism, young earth, etc..
07: Another amazing site full of links debunking creationism.
08: Creationism and Pseudo Science. Great cartoon!
09: Glenn R. Morton's site about creationism's fallacies. Another jennyp contribution.
11: Is Evolution Science?. Successful PREDICTIONS of evolution (Moonman62).
12: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution. On point and well-written.
13: Frequently Asked But Never Answered Questions. A creationist nightmare!
14: DARWIN, FULL TEXT OF HIS WRITINGS. The original ee-voe-lou-shunist.
The foregoing was just a tiny sample. So that everyone will have access to the accumulated "Creationism vs. Evolution" threads which have previously appeared on FreeRepublic, plus links to hundreds of sites with a vast amount of information on this topic, here's Junior's massive work, available for all to review:
The Ultimate Creation vs. Evolution Resource [ver 17].
For more than a century, science attempted to explain all human behaviour as the subrational product of unbending chemical, genetic, or environmental forces. The spiritual side of human nature was ignored, if not denied outright.
This rigid scientific materialism infected all other areas of human knowledge, laying the foundations for much of modern psychology, sociology, economics, and political science. Yet today new developments in biology, physics, and artificial intelligence are raising serious doubts about scientific materialism and re-opening the case for the supernatural.
Real evolution.
One movement is held back by the scientist/university/government complex. The other is held back by the nation's largest labor union. Both dams are beginning to break.
Arise Sheeple and throw off your chains!
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.