The ID Report

The False Duality Argument Debunked
© 2006 by Kevin Wirth
Word count: 7500
Revised 02/25/06
You may freely circulate this report as long as you do not charge a fee and keep all text intact.

DOVER DISCLAIMER LAUNDRY LIST

"In summary, the disclaimer singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a scientific resource, and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead seek out religious instruction elsewhere. Furthermore, as Drs Alters and Miller testified, introducing ID necessarily invites religion into the science classroom and it sets up what will be perceived by students a “God-friendly” science, the one that explicitly mentions an intelligent designer, and that the “other science,” evolution, takes no position on religion (14:144-45 Alters). Dr. Miller testified that a false duality is produced: It “tells students…quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science”. (2:54-55(Miller). Introducing such a religious conflict into the classroom is “very dangerous” because it forces students to “choose between God and science,” not a choice that schools should be forcing on them.”

This statement is what I call the Dover Disclaimer Laundry List, and it comes directly from the Kitzmiller Opinion.

The courts that have ruled on such matters accuse IDers and creationists of establishing what they call a ‘false duality’, in short, the idea that the debate about the origin and development of life is “either-or”, e.g., in simple terms, there are only two explanations for biological complexity - either life evolved or it was created. Both the McLean and now the Kitzmiller courts have accused the defendants in this matter (the Dover School Board) of making this up or lying about it (the McLean court referred to this issue as a “contrived dualism”). In any event, this idea really isn’t original with IDers, and besides, plenty of people agree with this concept anyway – whether they believe in a creator or not (and I document this extensively in the better portion of this essay). SO the bottom line here is: I say this notion isn’t contrived at all, as the McLean and Kitzmiller courts maintain.

At this point I want to call attention to and comment on just one remark by Dr. Ken Miller from the ‘Laundry List’ above.

Dr. Miller testified that a false duality is produced: It “tells students…quite explicitly, choose God on the side of intelligent design or choose atheism on the side of science”. (2:54-55(Miller)).

Yet this is precisely what some scientists actually seek to do: denigrate or eradicate the influence of ‘religious’ views wherever they are found, not just in the science classroom. The view clearly promoted by many Darwinists is

“if you are a person of faith, you can’t do science, in fact, you aren’t even capable or qualified to do scientific work. If you don’t believe in Darwinism, we can’t give you a degree in science or publish any paper you have written in one of our scientific journals. You can’t be both a person of faith and a good scientist.“

Such sentiments are almost ubiquitous in academia and in the scientific community. They may not be the personal views of Dr. Miller, but they are the views that many scientists and students encounter all the time.

Why then. is there such a hue and cry for the protection of students against the alleged improper or harmful influence of ID, when there seems to be absolutely zero consideration for the hostile influence of Darwinists and their blatant acts of antagonism and discrimination against anyone who fails to believe as they do? False duality? I don’t think so. Only a blind or ignorant person would make such a claim.

James Watson – a very educated man by nearly everyone’s assessment - also makes no bones about his hostility towards matters of faith, and posits his dislike in the context of either revelation or science:

James Watson (co-discoverer of the DNA code) stopped by California Institute of Technology… and had an informal chat onstage with David Baltimore (Nobel laureate in DNA research, current Caltech president). The discussion, held before a packed auditorium, was just reported in Caltech’s latest issue of its magazine Engineering and Science (LXVI:2, pp. 19-25). Jane Dietrich’s report is entitled, “A Conversation with Jim Watson.” In their unrehearsed remarks, they touched on many subjects: the history of Watson and Crick’s discovery, computational biology, the minimum genome for life, the ethics of genetic screening, pseudogenes, cloning, aging, the brain, ethics, politics, science policy, religion, and what it means to be human. For example:

…Watson’s response was that he finds it troubling that our society is indifferent to continued genetic disease. “There is a conflict between truth by revelation and truth by observation and experiment. I think the big fight eventually in our country is not going to be between Republicans and Democrats, but between those who think secularly and those who think in a fundamentalist way.”

Incidentally, Crick and Watson were reported as using the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their discovery of the structure of DNA (in 2003) as an opportunity “to mount an attack on religion”.

Many would argue that the religious beliefs of these and other scientists are not germane because science and religion are two different “magisteria”. Oh really? Then why doesn’t that argument hold up when the IDer mentions it? Ah, that’s because the concept of ID, we are told, is inherently religious. But actually, that’s a contrived and false argument also. So where does that leave us?

No doubt it is possible to separate Darwinism in the classroom from the anti-religious zealotry in which it often arises. In the same way, presumably, intelligent design theory or objections to Darwinism can also be taught without the religious views in which they often arise.

Dr. Ken Miller’s Flawed Notion of a ‘False’ Duality
In its opinion, the Kitzmiller court rests heavily on the testimony of Dr. Ken Miller in reaching it’s conclusion about the notion of a “false duality”. For that reason, it’s important to take a close look at what Dr. Miller had to say. My contention is, contrary to Dr. Miller’s sworn testimony in Kitzmiller, that such a duality not only exists, but is widely accepted and understood among many people in the general population of the USA, and is also particularly known and accepted by many people in the scientific, philosophic, and academic communities. I further maintain that Dr. Miller twists the facts in his testimony, thus rendering his arguments impotent.

Here is some of his sworn testimony:

(to read the rest of this article, please click here)