Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Theory of 'intelligent design' isn't ready for natural selection
The Seattle Times ^ | 6/3/2002 | Mindy Cameron

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.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: creationism; crevolist; darwin; dehart; evolution; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 681-697 next last
To: Junior
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.

12 posted on 6/7/02 12:24 PM Pacific by jennyp

Talk about twisted...evolution is reverso-whacko-sicko 'science'.

Creation was founded on natural design...Adam Smith---'the invisible hand'.

Communism--fascism is from EVOLUTION---inevitable progess---TYRANNY!

53 posted on 6/7/02 1:12 PM Pacific by f.Christian

321 posted on 06/08/2002 1:42:00 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Junior
One whacko is amusing. Two or more become a movement.
322 posted on 06/08/2002 1:59:28 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Condorman
Gratuitously insulting rats won't make you any friends, you know.
323 posted on 06/08/2002 2:02:14 PM PDT by Gumlegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
One whacko is amusing. Two or more become a movement.

Pegged it. These people make any attempt at intelligent discussion a waste of time.

324 posted on 06/08/2002 2:09:31 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
The theory is essentially this: Life is so complex that it can only be the result of design by an intelligent being.

This is so much more a plausible theory than: Complex life just sponteously Combusted into it's complex closed cirvo form.

Futhermore there is much more evidence for ID than evolution...Entropy alone puts evolution to shame.

325 posted on 06/08/2002 2:12:41 PM PDT by sirchtruth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sirchtruth
Entropy alone puts evolution to shame.

Really? Could you explain this for us?

326 posted on 06/08/2002 2:17:58 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro
Dynastic Etypt apparently starts somewhere around 900 or 1000 BC.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Laugh all you want, Reep; you will be the last generation of your own family who ever believes in in an Egyptian history going back to 3000 BC; they won't even be teaching that in schools five years from now. This is the one area of Velikovsky's research which has pretty much found general acceptance amongst experts at this point.

But don't take my word for it. Do your own google searches on 'chronology' and 'revision', and see if what turns up is the one or two hits you'd expect if this was something two or three weirdos believed in.

327 posted on 06/08/2002 2:20:59 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
Main Entry: en·tro·py
Pronunciation: 'en-tr&-pE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -pies
Etymology: International Scientific Vocabulary 2en- + Greek tropE change, literally, turn, from trepein to turn Date: 1875
1 : a measure of the unavailable energy in a closed thermodynamic system that is also usually considered to be a measure of the system's disorder and that is a property of the system's state and is related to it in such a manner that a reversible change in heat in the system produces a change in the measure which varies directly with the heat change and inversely with the absolute temperature at which the change takes place; broadly : the degree of disorder or uncertainty in a system
2 a : the degradation of the matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity b : a process of degradation or running down or a trend to disorder
3 : CHAOS, DISORGANIZATION, RANDOMNESS
328 posted on 06/08/2002 2:22:38 PM PDT by f.Christian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: gg188
Sounds like you've pretty much figured it out.

For the lowdown on Chuck Darwin, stupidest white man of all time and his BS theory, and on the continuing efforts of feebs like Steve Gould and Niles Eldredge to keep the charade going for another generation:


329 posted on 06/08/2002 2:27:17 PM PDT by medved
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: medved
Aw, nothing refutes evolution better than this picture, n'est-ce pas?
330 posted on 06/08/2002 2:35:44 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 329 | View Replies]

To: medved
Laugh all you want, Reep; you will be the last generation of your own family who ever believes in in an Egyptian history going back to 3000 BC; they won't even be teaching that in schools five years from now. This is the one area of Velikovsky's research which has pretty much found general acceptance amongst experts at this point.

I guess that if this prediction doesn't pan out:

1) You'll shut up and go away in five years (least likely), or
2) You'll say it was the mainstream science/history conspiracy that suppressed the truth, or (most likely)
3) You'll be posting the same spam with the same words, meaning the effective date of your claim slides into the future at the rate of one day per real day.

331 posted on 06/08/2002 2:38:10 PM PDT by VadeRetro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: medved
Laugh all you want, Reep; you will be the last generation of your own family who ever believes in in an Egyptian history going back to 3000 BC; they won't even be teaching that in schools five years from now.

I'm making a note of this so that I can have a good chuckle at your expense June 8, 2007.

332 posted on 06/08/2002 2:45:09 PM PDT by Junior
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies]

To: BMCDA
ba-ba-ba
Where's PH? ;-D
333 posted on 06/08/2002 2:46:09 PM PDT by BMCDA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: jennyp
You'll notice that these spams are all ink and no squid.
334 posted on 06/08/2002 2:46:53 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: Junior
The Great God Ra, whose shrine once covered acres
Now serves as filler for crossword puzzle makers.

Paraphrase from Keith Preston

335 posted on 06/08/2002 2:51:44 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
The oceans cover about 75% of the earth, which was created for Man, who has no gills.
336 posted on 06/08/2002 2:54:47 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 292 | View Replies]

To: medved; VadeRetro
Dynastic Egypt apparently starts somewhere around 900 or 1000 BC. Again, Sweeney's two books are the best place to start on this one.

Whatever the date of it's inception (and I'm OK with approx. 3000 BC), both modern Archaeology and the Bible both place a well-established Dynastic Egypt long before 1000 BC.

It would appear Sweeney is a rather ambitious "debunker."




337 posted on 06/08/2002 2:57:46 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 309 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
"all ink and no squid."

I'll be stealing that, thanks.




338 posted on 06/08/2002 2:59:24 PM PDT by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: gg188
Yet we (conservatives) know that these people who write and have written the "science" on "evolution" would never have been hired had they not passed the test of being socialist/communist.

Would you please show in writing where I passed such a test. Either that or apologize.

If all you can do is shout "communist" at those you disagree, why should one pay attention.

339 posted on 06/08/2002 3:01:02 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
You'll notice that these spams are all ink and no squid.

Maybe it was partly the Bear Ale (thank you, Scotland), but that just made me laugh out loud!

I think that to a real philosopher, nothing is more important than a good belly laugh!

340 posted on 06/08/2002 3:01:38 PM PDT by balrog666
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320321-340341-360 ... 681-697 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson