On The Seventh Day, America Went to Court

The following is an interaction between yours truly and journalist Paul Harris. His part comes from selected portions of an article on a UK news website. The original can be found by following the link above. Paul's remarks are in italics, mine are not.

A bitter struggle is unfolding in the US about the most basic of issues: the origins of life. Scientists are rallying to the banner of Darwin - but their foes are growing in confidence.

Notice from the start that the author separates the scientists from their "foes." This reveals an ignorance as to who is bringing Intelligent Design to light - namely, a group of scientists. This debate is not between the scientists and the common folks (or preachers or theologians or whatever), but it is actually a debate between scientists.

Paul Harris reports from Pennsylvania Sunday October 2, 2005 The Observer.

This is the author of the article and a link to the website.

The American Museum of Natural History in New York will open the most far-reaching exhibition in its history on Charles Darwin, the father of evolution, next month. In most countries such a display by one of the world's top museums would not be the stuff of heated controversy.

But not in America. Not in 2005.

The author seems to think that America is backwards and slow compared to other nations. This seems ridiculous compared to the amount of solid science and invention that streams regularly from the USA. I think this is actually an admission that in "most countries" there is a closed-minded, threatened stance on a theory that has many holes at best.

As the rest of the world looks on in amazement at a debate that seemed to have been settled long ago, America is now gripped by a raging battle between evolution and creationism. The museum's Darwin exhibition will be just the latest battle in the continuing fight.

At the centre of it is the concept of intelligent design, which critics call 'creationism lite'. This theory holds that evolution is not a proven fact and nature is so complex that it betrays the existence of 'a designer'. Without being explicit there is little doubt the designer is intended to be God.

No, the debate was not at all settled long ago. And no, the debate is not between evolution and creationism. This reveals a deep ignorance of what is being debated. Creationism BEGINS with God. That is not in any court room. Intelligent Design BEGINS with observations and collections of data and postulates from a scientific standpoint that it appears many natural phenomenon were in fact designed. The last sentence of this paragraph is a rude assumption. It is putting words into the mouths of the scientists who hold to ID. No, indeed, they do not (within the realms of their scientific discipline) postulate that the designer is intended to be God. They simply posulate the probability of a designer, who's nature is past the bounds of the purpose of science.

The exhibition will tackle this theory head on by trying to point out the difference between science and religion. Intelligent design will be explicitly mentioned. 'We expect that in some corners the show will be controversial. We are prepared for that,' said Michael Novacek, provost of the museum.

People who I have heard trying to "point out the difference between science and religion" seemed to misunderstand one or the other or both. This is clear based on their definitions. They seem to believe that religion is based on faith that requires no evidence, which is incorrect. And they assume science cannot possible gather data that existence outside the closed natural realm, a definition of science that actually kills true scientific research, given the possibility that such supernatural phenomenon might exist. Actually, it is clear to anyone with their eyes opened, that Darwinists are committed to their position as an assumption apart from evidence, and that is why they will not even allow the ID theory to be called science. If they were so sure they were right, however, they would welcome the challenge and debate, knowing they would win.

Promoting evolution to the American public, however, is not always easy, even in the 21st century. Religious think-tanks and other bodies are seeking to push intelligent design into American public life. In particular they want it taught in school science classes. Advocates of the theory say they do not want to stop evolution being taught - they just want other theories mentioned too. Critics say this approach gives the illusion of a scientific debate between evolution and rival theories when in reality there is no genuine argument left to have.

He uses the word "push" as if Darwinians did not do the same thing. By the way, an interesting point that I have not heard made in this debate is that ID is not necessarily opposed to evolution per se. By this, I mean, ID scientists do not say that evolution did not occur, they are simply saying that much data points to a designer, whether it evolved or not. I am sure that ID scientists disagree about evolution and to what extent it might have actually happened. So again, this writer is revealing a profound ignorance of the debate (as most in the mainstream media do). It is not about whether species evolved or not, but rather whether they began by accident or by design. Speaking now of ID in the Dover classroom, Paul says...

...That appalled many scientists and civil liberties lawyers who thought the decision fundamentally undermined one of the central tenets of modern science.

Across the world Darwin's theories of the development of life have stood up to more than a century of scientific examination and now form the bedrock of all the biological sciences.
The critics say intelligent design is fundamentally untestable and unprovable, as it relies on inserting a supernatural force - called God or a designer - into a scientific theory. For them, those pushing for intelligent design to be taught in science classes, rather than in religious studies lessons, are taking America back into the Middle Ages.

Here Paul is basically admitting to the underlying naturalistic presupposition of so-called "mainstream scientists." They hold to this "bedrock" and thus they are blind to the evidence of a designer (or any contrary evidence for that matter). It is amazing how blind we can be when we except something as true at a prior time. By the way, anybody who is reading the literature of the ID scientists knows that, again, the "critics" mentioned here are speaking in total ignorance when he says ID is "fundamentally untestable and unprovable." Sure there are many difficulties in the testing process, but no more than Darwinists themselves face, that is for sure. As to the last sentence in this paragraph, let us remember that ID is a scientific theory based upon scientific evidence. In my Sunday School class we teach Genesis 1-2 Creationism as the truth - which it is. ID is a push forward, not backward. It is an accepting of the evidence as it stands instead of a prior commitment to Naturalism.

'They want a theistic science. If they are successful in this project it would turn us back to an earlier era, a pre-Enlightenment era,' said Robert Pennock, a professor of philosophy and science at Michigan State University.

Intelligent design advocates, such as scientists at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, reply that they are not pushing God into science and that detecting the presence of 'intelligence' in nature is a scientific method.

'The scientific theory of intelligent design does not attempt to address religious belief questions such as the nature and identity of the designer, and thus it avoids untestable assertions,' said the institute's Casey Luskin, who runs a scheme to encourage students to set up clubs to 'investigate evolution' at schools and colleges.

As you begin to read this section, you might say, wow, at least and at long last, the author of the article is going to let the ID scientists speak for themselves. But then he makes a biased judgment of the work of one such ID institution and calls it a "scheme" as if Darwinists and Planned Parenthood advocates have not engage in many similar tactics to get the word out on their positions.

Creationism may be scientific nonsense, but it is certainly popular. Proponents of intelligent design and more extreme creationists, such as those who believe in the literal account of the Bible, reflect majority opinion in America. Surveys repeatedly show that most Americans do indeed prefer creationist versions of the development of life rather than scientific ones. Several 'creationist' museums have been built with displays of humans existing with dinosaurs and exhibits depicting Noah and the flood.

Really, is this person saying that America, the best educated, most prolific society in the world is somehow lacking the intelligence to understand the truth of this matter? I think the reason the "majority" of American hold to Creationism over Naturalism is because it makes much better sense of the data.

The echoes of the first Victorian-era reaction to Darwin's theories may seem surreal but it is a powerful political force. President Bush has even weighed in, saying he believes intelligent design should be taught as part of science. 'I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought,' Bush said.

Such comments horrify the scientific establishment but they are good politics. Behind much of the push to get intelligent design taught in schools is a powerful movement of Christian conservatives who make up much of the Republican party base. It was their immense organisational abilities and large turnout as voters that helped propel Bush to win a second term in the White House last November.

I cannot believe that they are "horrified." Really, if they think their position is sound, they should simply be content with that, work to promote it as "truth", and relax. I am not horrified at their position, even though I see how deeply in error they are. I have no reason to be horrified, because whether my view becomes mainstream or not, I have good reason to believe that it is true. Their horror betrays their lack of confidence in their position, in my opinion. To use an analogy, they believe that the sun rotates around the earth (and not vice versa) according to their theory, and no matter what new evidence comes to bear, they are not going to change their position. Face it, Darwinism is outdated. This is the truth, not politics.

However, away from the politics and the religion, American scientists are left baffled by having even to address the theory. 'With our show we are not posing it as a debate,' said Novacek, of the Natural History Museum. 'I don't see it as a debate in my own mind since Darwin is so fundamental to modern science.'

Again, we see the presupposition that Darwin, not observed data, must be right at all costs. Darwinian scientists are killing the scientific enterprise by their biases.

That was repeated again and again by scientists appearing in the witness box in Harrisburg last week. 'Every single scientific society in the United States that has taken a position on this issue has taken a position against intelligent design and for evolutionary theory,' said Professor Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University, Rhode Island.

Milions of Nazi loyalists believed Hitler was right. Neither he nor they were correct. A large number and a strong consensus does not make a position right. What does the evidence say? That is the question to ask and answer, not who holds to which position.

And for the record, well over 400 credintialed and respected scientists have made a stance on ID. People who graduated from Yale and Harvard and other major instiutions make up that list. What follows now is a list of poll numbers meant to imply that Americans are stupid.

The American world view
64 per cent of people questioned for a recent poll said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution in schools, while 38 per cent favoured replacing evolution with creationism.

40 per cent of Americans believe God will eventually intervene in human affairs and bring about an end to life on Earth, according to a survey carried out in 2002. Of those believers, almost half thought this would occur in their lifetime with a return of Jesus from heaven.

1 adult American in five believes that the Sun revolves around Earth, according to one study carried out last summer.

80 per cent of Americans surveyed by the CNN TV news network believe that their government is hiding evidence of the existence of space aliens.

70 per cent believe it likely that Saddam Hussein was involved personally in the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

I am not sure where Paul got these numbers or the accuracy of them since he does not cite his source (except on the CNN survey) and since surveys are so often twisted to make the point of the author. But upon close examination, I do not believe these numbers prove Americans to be stupid or behind the times. Obviously, as I have shown, the desire to teach ID (not necessarily Creationism) is not stupid, but rather is wise considering the evidence. About God and the coming of Jesus, many people believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, which can be proven to be a rational belief (see Alvin Plantiga), thus this does not betray a lack of intelligence. I can't believe that 1 out of 5 Americans believe the sun rotates around the earth, but if those numbers are accurate, that is only 20% (a minority) and furthermore (if those numbers are accurate), I bet other countries have a comparible number here (especially among the uneduated peoples of each nation). I make the same comment about the CNN survey. About Hussein, the average person makes connections between all terroists groups in his or her mind. The experts and news folks undertand many of the distinctions between various terroists organizations and governments, but the average working American sees Hussein as connected with the "bad guys." Again, that survey does not prove that Americans are dumb or behind the times.

I hope you learned something by working through these issues with me. My summary: Many in the media are painting a grossly inaccuarate picture of the nature and goal of Intelligent Design. Lets be sure we hold the media accountable to get the story right!