The ID Update

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

The math prof makes a design inference

British physicist asks, is there no freedom to criticize evolutionary theory? (Well, no, not if you know a good reason why materialist views are wrong.)

Expelled, its critics, and the theatre managers - knock me over with a feather, the legacy media critics didn't like the film but audiences apparently did

What percentage of scientists support current evolution theory? A better question: In the age of zealous Darwin lobbies, what percentage can afford reasonable dissent?

Who was Ernst Haeckel? Phenomenon? Flawed? Faker? All three, maybe.

Just what IS a design inference? 9-11 provides a clue.

Higher Ed is higher on WHAT, exactly?: Prof sues disbelieving students. Apparently, they disputed her theories about science ...

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Several US States are considering academic freedom bills to protect teachers and students from charges of being ideologically motivated if they encourage critical evaluation of origins theories. For example, the text before the Missouri House is:

"teachers shall be permitted to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of theories of biological and chemical evolution."

Such bills are justified because Darwinists recognise that their theory is being threatened and they have an evangelical zeal for protecting it from being undermined. The need for critical appraisal is demonstrated every time someone claims an example of natural selection as evidence for "evolution" - whether the phenomenon is antibiotic resistance or morphological change in lizards. Not surprisingly, many educators want to be able to discuss the evidence freely: what it demonstrates and what it does not demonstrate. Yet Darwinists are so sensitive about their theory that they portray critical scrutiny as subversive to science. They claim that framing the issue in terms of academic freedom is a cloak for teaching creationism.

Educators need to be able to discuss the cracks in Darwinism without fear of their professionalism being questioned.

The film Expelled! has crystallised thinking for many. Sad to say, dissent over the fundamentals appears not to be an option if you want to stay within the science community. There are too many cases of good scientists who have been excluded because they dared question the 'unquestionable'. These scientists have been treated shabbily by some colleagues who have openly declared that they are unfit to teach or practise science. Their academic freedom is being denied.

Unfortunately, the latest issue of Science perpetuates these problems. Yudhijit Bhattacharjee starts with the comment:

"If creationism is a mutating virus, as many educators believe, then its latest guise is legislation to protect "academic freedom." Politicians in five U.S. states are pushing bills to enable educators to teach alternatives to evolution by protecting their "right" to discuss with students the idea of intelligent design (ID)."

Clearly, the intent in this article is to suggest that "academic freedom" is a cloak for injecting religion into the classroom. The presenter of Expelled!, Ben Stein, is said to have "helped intelligent design proponents in their efforts to dethrone Darwin". Not a word here about the reality of intolerance within the scientific community. There is no recognition that many scientists have scientific concerns about the way evolutionary theory is taught. How can science be healthy when issues like this cannot be openly explored!

The same issue of Science has two letters commenting on a palaeontologist's journey from young-earth creationism to acceptance of evolution (published in a previous issue). The first illustrates the intolerance documented in Expelled!:

"Science magazine is not the place to give even a hint of respectability to those who would deny the fundamental fact of evolution. There is too much at stake, for our children and our society, to give any credence to those promoting unscientific nonsense (creationism or intelligent design) and justifying irrational beliefs under the guise of religion."

The second letter comes from an advocate of Gould's NOMA approach to science and faith issues:

"We within the scientific community must continue to present the demonstrable evidence from the physical realm and clearly express how that evidence supports our current interpretations. This effort is not served well at all by dogmatic pronouncements such as "Evolution is fact," even if such statements are accurate. Furthermore, for members of the scientific community to make theological statements in the name of science is philosophically illegitimate, and destructive in our truth-seeking efforts."

This correspondent objects to evolutionists claiming, for example, that Darwinism has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. Nevertheless, he wants to appear humble by not being dogmatic about "Evolution is a fact" even though he thinks it is. The missing contribution of this letter is the recognition that the "scientific community" includes ID advocates and also creationists. Were he to acknowledge this, he might usefully suggest that a dialogue within science over these issues is much needed. However, on present showing, this would result in himself being ostracised because he would be making it easier for the opposition to get a hearing.

Faced with such intransigence from the leaders of the scientific community, there should be no surprise when the public shows disquiet about science itself. But this would be in no-one's interest - for the real argument is not with science, but with ideologically-minded scientists who are trying to use science as a tool to further their own agendas. This point is important, because there are a growing number of young people who are alarmed at what they see in the scientific community: a dogmatism about a materialistic worldview that is equated with science. Some are being turned away. This is one message that champions of the 'public understanding of science' appear to have totally missed!

States Push Academic Freedom Bills
Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
Science 320, 9 May 2008: 731.

See also:

Missouri House of Representatives' Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education bill.

Stevens, C.W. Evolution and Faith: Empathy Is Misplaced, Science, 320, 9 May 2008, 745 | DOI: 10.1126/science.320.5877.745b

Whipple, A. Evolution and Faith: Empathy Is Crucial, Science, 320, 9 May 2008, 745 | DOI: 10.1126/science.320.5877.745c

Connor, K. It May Be 2008 at Home, But in the Academy It's 1984, Townhall.com, Sunday, May 11, 2008