This letter by David Ramseur was published today under the heading, “Intelligent Design: Give children the facts.”

This is in response to letters regarding Sen. Steve Wise's proposed bill to require teachers who teach evolution to also be open to discuss intelligent design. It is so easy to see intelligent design in the laws that govern these mysterious forces of our universe. The great scientists of the past built their studies on the fact that intelligent design was evident in their successfully tested experiments and not products left to chance. Even the famous British atheist scientist, Richard Dawkins (as stated in the Expelled movie), believes in the possibility that there is an intelligent designer somewhere. Moreover, the teaching of Darwinian evolution in the classroom is the same as actually teaching the religion of atheism, which violates the First Amendment. Finally, in the 1925 Scopes monkey trial, attorney Clarence Darrow, who represented the teacher, rightly stated that we should teach all ideas about origins and let the children decide for themselves.
First, according to article referenced by this letter, the bill doesn't just allow the discussion of intelligent design, it requires it. Second, science doesn't advance by assuming intelligent design, it advances by assuming the opposite through methodological naturalism. Third, I have no idea what Dawkins said in Expelled, but it's irrelevant. Fourth, atheism is not in any sense a religion and teaching how life changes without any reference to the supernatural is not in any sense atheistic. Fifth, you can teach children any and all ideas at school, but non-scientific ideas should not be taught in science class. We're not denying children any facts because intelligent design has no facts, just a fear of finding its god irrelevant.


This letter by Richard Bohler was published on February 21st under the heading, “The faith of atheists.”
Atheists who hyperventilate over intelligent design should first consider themselves. It takes great faith to espouse the belief that there is no God, when there is absolutely no evidence to support that contention. Indeed, the idea of the necessity of a first cause must be a real conundrum to them. Intelligent Design simply presents the logical idea that an intelligence must have started the whole ball rolling. Evolution of life forms in no way conflicts with the designs of the Prime Mover; it could simply be part of the plan.
First, only strong atheists believe that no gods exist. Second, it's no less reasonable to believe that gods don't exist than to believe that that leprechauns don't exist. Third, if he thinks atheists are at all troubled by the cosmological argument, he's obviously never talked to an atheist. Fourth, the idea that an eternal, omnipresent, disembodied intelligence is necessary for the genesis and evolution of single-cell organisms over billions of years is not at all logical; it's completely absurd.

This letter by Julia Braza was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Present the debate.”
I am responding to a recent letter that was critical of Sen. Steve Wise's proposal to introduce the teaching of intelligent design. It is important to remember that intelligent design is not creationism, nor does it contradict evolution. If intelligent design were taught in the classroom, the teacher would not read the book of Genesis aloud and then say "end of discussion." The theory of intelligent design merely states that there is an intelligent force behind certain aspects and patterns of the universe, as opposed to complete randomness. The idea could be presented to students in such a way as to say that many in the scientific community believe that evolution and natural selection are undirected processes, while others in the scientific community believe that there is an intelligent force directing or instigating these processes. Presenting the idea of intelligent design is not teaching religion to students any more than presenting the fundamental tenants [sic] of Islam; it's simply making them aware of different beliefs and outlooks in our world. If we become so afraid of mentioning God (or even an "intelligent force") under the false auspices of not wanting to push our religion on anyone, then we have in effect pushed atheism on everyone. Let's keep the discussion open-ended instead. I think our kids can handle it.
First, intelligent design most certainly is a form of creationism and most certainly does contradict evolution. It claims that an intelligence created life because it's too complex to have evolved, and the only way to teach it is to criticize evolutionary theory. Contrary to the author's assertion, it's not about some mystical force directing events throughout the universe. Second, there's no dispute in the scientific community, so the idea shouldn't be introduced into science class. Third, the example of teaching the basic tenets of Islam is awkward since the author probably wouldn't want them taught in science class, just like I don't want intelligent design taught in science class. Fourth, neutrality toward religion does not equate with promoting atheism. Would the author argue that math class promotes atheism because it doesn't mention gods in the discussion of the processes of addition, subtraction, multiplication and division?

This letter by John Campbell was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Science as dogma.”
I find it interesting that Sen. Steve Wise is criticized for trying to inject his religion into the science classroom. The real story is that evolution is the chief doctrine of the secular humanists, a religion as defined by the U. S. Supreme Court. They want no competition of ideas in this area and certainly don't want things like irreducible complexity or the evolution of the eye openly discussed in the classroom. And they certainly don't want students to ask the whereabouts of all those billions and billions of transitional species fossils that don't exist. No, the real religious dogma is coming from the secular humanists, not Wise.
First, secular humanism has not been defined as a religion by SCOTUS. It was mentioned in a non-authoritative footnote of Torcaso v. Watkins as the functional equivalent of a non-theistic religion. Second, even if it were a chief doctrine of a religion, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't teach it; if something is supported by evidence, we should teach it, and evolution is supported by literally mountains of evidence. Third, I suspect the author has never taken a class on evolution because they most certainly do talk about the eye and how it's evolved many separate times, and they show plenty of transitional fossils. Fourth, the competition of ideas should happen in scientific research, not in scientific eduction. No, we don't want the absurdly false propaganda of creationists in science classrooms.



C Woods said...

In the 2005 Dover, PA case, it was proven, because of poor editing, that the "intelligent design" supporters had copied text directly from a "creationists" publication ---so that silly argument that intelligent design and creationism was shot down in court.

In his ruling, Judge Jones (a George W. Bush appointee, no less) stated: “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”

My post about the Dover case includes links to more information about it:

Anonymous said...

reaPlease reread this article of yours again. A lot of your retaliatory comments on the letters are actually rather blatantly incorrect and stupidly ignorant of the points made in what you're criticizing. Why did you pen this? Is this a form of self-assurance for your elected religious beliefs? Is this how you've chosen to spend your life, hating and criticizing the proponents of what is your past? Is there anything wrong with coexisting peacefully with those who now believe differently from you? You are not going to change anyone's mind by writing such a piece; you have actually rendered my own beliefs on the subject even stronger. Now. Should I thank you for that?