Evolution as God's Work

This letter by Julia Delegal was published today under the heading, “Evolution: Respect boundaries of religion.”

During college, I used to chuckle that Jacksonville was still debating whether the public schools should teach evolution. That was 20 years ago. Now our state senator, Steve Wise, wants intelligent design taught as an "alternative" to evolution in my children's schools. I am no longer chuckling. Instead, I want to scream. I'm no atheist; I'm a believer. My understanding of evolutionary principles in no way threatens my faith in God. Rather, I marvel that a series of events as extraordinary as human evolution could have been orchestrated by a Creator who works through all contingencies. The choice about whether to believe in God, in light of evolutionary science or in spite of it, however, is irrelevant to the question of whether intelligent design is a scientific theory. It is not. It is a belief built on faith-based assumptions - not on empirically proven phenomena that are explainable via theory. A George W. Bush-appointed federal judge, who decided the 2005 Kitzmiller case, agrees: intelligent design "cannot uncouple itself from its creationist and thus religious, antecedents." Our Deist forefathers descended from those who fled religious tyranny. They knew that investing religious groups with governmental power would interfere with the freedom of individuals to pursue their own spiritual quests. Wise received hate mail in reaction to a related bill that failed last year. Those letter writers should ask themselves if they would appreciate their own children being proselytized by someone of a religion different from their own. They should treat others as they wish to be treated. On this issue, the First Amendment to the Constitution demands no less. Denying or denigrating science in the name of religion won't inoculate children from atheism. But insisting, disingenuously, that religion is science risks driving them to a wholesale rejection of faith. Conjuring "alternatives" to evolutionary theory is not God's work; it's political fodder. Winning the hearts and minds of our young people necessitates that we honor their minds, especially if we believe those minds to be God-given. I challenge local religious leaders to demand that Wise withdraw the intelligent design bill, and get on with this year's real work: funding education.

My reaction to liberal religion is always mixed. In this case, I'm happy to see support for the teaching of evolution and sad to see an unwillingness to abandon faith after it's been rendered meaningless. It strikes me as very odd to “marvel that a series of events as extraordinary as human evolution could have been orchestrated by a Creator” when that series of events resulted in the extinction of more than ninety-nine percent of all species and a very imperfect design for our own bodies. And I certainly don't want to “inoculate” children from atheism or discourage a “wholesale rejection of faith”! Nevertheless, if fundamentalist believers adopted this author's viewpoint, science education and society as a whole would no doubt improve.

IDiocy

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.

UPDATES:

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.

Unwise Proposal

My local State Senator Stephen Wise recently introduced a bill which would require science teachers who teach evolution to also discuss intelligent design in their classes. I learned of it through a couple atheist and scientific blogs, but today I saw some local reaction in the newspaper.

• This letter by Jon Dehner was published today under the heading, “Evolution: Why stop there?”
  
• This letter by Robert M. Nied was published today under the heading, “Evolution: A burden on schools.”

I'd like to see Wise kicked out of office by the voters next election cycle, but I don't think that will happen. Wise represents a predominantly credulous and overwhelmingly Republican district and there's no good chance of someone even marginally more progressive being elected in the foreseeable future.

UPDATES:

• This letter by Patrick Nolan was published on February 16th under the heading, “Evolution: Going backward.”
  
• This letter by Deborah Courtney was published on February 18th under the heading, “Intelligent Design: Waste of time.”
  
• This letter by Bob Awtrey was published on February 20th under the heading, “Evolution: Not a religious matter.”
  
• This letter by Paul Cottle was published on February 23rd under the heading, “Intelligent design: Proposed bill misses mark.”

Theories & Ways of Knowing

The local debate over evolution and creationism still continues. This letter by Ed Brunson was published today under the headline, “Science: Evolution is a theory.”

The fact that the scientific theory of evolution is being debated in the same breath with the religious theory of creationism and intelligent design is appalling. In the 1920s, Tennessee was the scene of the famous Scopes monkey trial that debated the legitimacy of teaching evolution. Since that time, scientific evidence has continued to come in supporting the theories involved in natural selection and evolution. Recently, the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine published their updated edition of Science, Evolution & Creationism. In it, they state, quite succinctly, "The evidence for evolution can be fully compatible with religious faith. Science and religion are different ways of understanding the world. Needlessly placing them in opposition reduces the potential of each to contribute to a better future." Evolution is a scientific theory, testable, but not 100 percent provable. Isaac Newton's theories, including that of gravity, are theories. Not provable. But you don't need to prove gravity, because, when you try to deny it, you fall. Creationism, and intelligent design are not scientific theories; they are religious explanations for unknown happenings. The story of creationism is allegorical, nothing more, nothing less. The infusion of religious theory into scientific teaching is folly; it should have ended in the 1920s along with the Scopes monkey trial.

This letter in support of teaching only evolution in public schools is fairly standard and I would just like to comment on the texts written by other parties.

First, I find the heading printed by the newspaper misleading. Many detractors of evolution argue that it's “only a theory,” implying a lack of supporting evidence, but the author of this letter emphasized that a scientific theory is not something to be proved. Perhaps they could have written something like, “Evolution: Gravity is also only a theory.”

Second, I have objections to the statement by the National Academy of Sciences. Evolution can be compatible with religious faith, but that depends entirely on what that religion teaches. It's not compatible with the belief that humans were miraculously created by God six thousand years ago. It's not compatible with the belief that humans have existed on earth for all eternity. It's not compatible with the belief that humans were brought here by space aliens. No one is placing science and religion in any more opposition than they actually are; some people just aren't willing to pretend that there's no contradiction when there actually is, radically change their religious beliefs, and sweep the issue under the rug. I don't object to changing one's religious beliefs and acknowledging that this change was made in the light of new evidence, but it's simply dishonest to strip a belief of its original meaning in order to save face, especially if while still claiming infallible certitude for this and other completely unsupported assertions. Science and religion aren't two different ways to understand the world because religion just isn't a way to understand the world. One might as well say that a magic eight-ball is yet a third way to understand the world since it's no less reliable than religion in ascertaining the truth.  Of the various ways to gain knowledge, only science offers consistent results and we shouldn't give religious dogma receive any more respect than any other variety of quackery.

Quackery in the Classroom

The local debate over evolution and creationism continues. This letter by Marjorie Ramseur was published today under the heading, “Science: Teach students the truth.”

The recent letter titled "Prohibit myths" in relation to science standards missed the point. People are not trying to have creation or intelligent design taught in the science classrooms of public schools. Good science is what is needed, and it must be taught objectively and truthfully. The theory of evolution is unproved. Its validity is being questioned by hundreds of scientists around the world. The fossil record does not show evolution. Microbiology does not show evolution. Embryology does not show evolution. Comparative anatomy does not show evolution, only similarities. Students must be able to distinguish the data of the Theory of Evolution; analyze and recognize its strengths and weaknesses, its assumptions and presumptions, along with its frauds and gaps. The scientific method used by experimental sciences stresses the testability and repeatability of a theory. The theory of evolution falls short since it has not been observed, cannot be tested and cannot be repeated. Evolutionary scientists may claim that evolution is the basic principle of biology, but the processes involved and the mechanisms needed are still the subject of much diligent research, discussion and, I might add, skepticism among the scientists themselves. As brought out in the 1925 Scopes trial, ACLU lawyer Clarence Darrow stated that it is the "height of bigotry to have only one theory of origins taught in our schools." This was when creation was the main view taught in public schools. Let us be intellectually honest and teach students the truth. After all, what we want is for our students to excel in their knowledge of science.

Despite what the author claims, people are trying to have creationism taught in schools. She even indicates her desire for this by presenting a quote from Darrow which condemns teaching only one view! The rest of her claims are equally untrue; the evidence overwhelmingly supports evolution and only a tiny portion of scientists even have questions about its validity. It's inappropriate to teach both views when the second view is held only by a fringe group with a clear political agenda using claims that simply aren't supported by the evidence. I doubt that Ms. Ramseur would support teaching the views in the history books that the moon landings were faked, that extraterrestrials actually crashed in Roswell, or that President Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks. I also doubt that she would support adding astrology, alchemy, or homeopathy to the science curriculum. Schools shouldn't make exceptions to teach anyone's favorite pseudoscience or conspiracy theory. Actually do research to support the objections and have them accepted by the scientific community before demanding that children learn them in school.

Intelligent Design is Myth-information

Outside of the prayer in public venues fiasco in October, it has been many months since I have commented on an editorial piece or letter to the editor appearing in the Florida Times-Union. It's time to start the new year with a fresh letter on an old debate. This letter by Tom Brady was published today under the heading, “Science standards: Prohibit myths.”

I was somewhat dismayed to see in a recent story that people were challenging Florida's current attempt to bring our education standards concerning science out of the realm of theology and into that of rational thought. Trying to equate "creationism" or "intelligent design" with the scientific approach to the evolution of the species is tantamount to comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. The first two are manifestations of a belief system; the third is a demonstration of the scientific method. If we are going to teach creation myths in our schools, then we should not limit those teachings to Judeo/Christian myths only. The Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Animists and even many American Indians have their own creation stories. If the school systems choose one myth over the others, they are making a choice to advance one religion over another, which violates the Constitution. For those who claim that the theory of evolution is not proved and is "just a theory," they obviously don't understand the definition of the scientific term. Since none of us knows, or can know, from whence the universe ultimately came, a discussion involving the possibility of an intelligent designer is perfectly appropriate. But this should be in a philosophy or theology class, not in a science classroom.

Since I don't read the entire paper, the article referenced in the letter had escaped my notice until today when I did a search. The original story was about a public hearing about a new public school curriculum which explicitly teaches evolution and the debate which took place over whether also to include material on intelligent design. I agree with everything that the author of the letter wrote, but there really isn't much new to say about this debate. Intelligent design simply isn't science and shouldn't be taught in a science classroom.

What I find remarkable is that the most valuable player of the National Football League has time to write letters to the editor in Jacksonville when one would expect him to be preparing to play the Jaguars this Saturday evening in Foxboro!

Intelligent Design: Theology, Not Science

The following is the fifth in a series of writings which I have composed previously. It is a letter to the editor of the local newspaper. It was written and published in May 2005.

Dear Editor,

The most relevant point to the discussion about intelligent design is that it simply is not science. ID is the argument from ignorance in its purest form. Evolution allegedly cannot offer a complete explanation for some phenomenon, therefore God must have done it. This offers no more insight than just saying it's magic - it contributes absolutely nothing to our understanding. If we are unable to explain something today, one is not justified in saying that we will never be able to explain it. ID is not science but rather surrender to ignorance.

We do not fully understand the nature of black holes, for example, but in the face of incomplete understanding, no one suggests that we chalk up their behavior to a supernatural act of God and stop searching for a physical explanation. The only reason that anyone does so with respect to evolution is that his worldview is threatened by a naturalistic explanation for life. The force behind ID is not scientific, but purely religious and political.

While ID theoretically could be correct about the origins of life, such a truth would remain outside the realm of science, which deals with the natural and not the supernatural. As such, ID is a theological idea which doesn't belong in a science classroom any more than the ideas of karma, atonement, or transubstantiation.

(name removed)

It received no direct responses from other readers.