The Ashford Zone Blog

Seriously, what is the matter with Kansas?

TOPEKA, Kan. – The Kansas Board of Education voted 6-4 Tuesday to include greater criticism of evolution in its school science standards, but it decided to send the standards to an outside academic for review before taking a final vote.

The Kansas school system was ridiculed around the country in 1999 when the board deleted most references to evolution. The system later reversed course, but the language favored by the board Tuesday comes from advocates of intelligent design.

The intelligent design concept holds that some features of the natural world are best explained by an unspecified intelligent cause. Evolution is a fundamental scientific theory that species evolved over millions of years through natural selection.

The standards are used in developing state tests for fourth, seventh and 10th-graders, though local schools have the final say on what is taught in their classrooms. Students will be tested on the new standards in the 2007-08 school year.

The board is expected to vote on final approval of the standards in October.

Now, what is there to criticize about evolution?  Bill Diamond at The Huffington Post offers some help:

Bill Diamond’s Criticisms of Evolution

1. What the hell happened to our tails, prehensile or otherwise? Seems to me a tail would be very helpful for balance, particularly among the elderly and people with new breast implants who might still be seeking their center of gravity.

2. What gives with the whole walking-on-two-feet thing? Walking on all-fours seems like it would be a lot more comfortable, particularly if you’re going to be spending the day at a place like Disneyland. Sure, we’d all have to shell out twice as much money given our sudden need for hand-shoes, but I suspect the significant decrease in chiropractor bills would more than make up for it.

3. Personally, I find the fact that Tay-Sachs disease afflicts mostly Jewish people to be kind of anti-Semitic. And just so I’m being clear here, it’s not that I wish the disease on other faiths. I’m just saying the fact that it wasn’t spread around more evenly among other faiths is, well, “suspicious” to say the least.

4. Is it just me or wouldn’t it be more efficient if we cried from our mouths rather than our eyes? That way, all the wet stuff would be located in one place and if you didn’t want someone to see you cry (like a schoolyard bully or a very macho dad who didn’t approve of you wanting to take flute lessons), you could just keep your mouth closed and swallow a lot.

5. Armpit hair? Armpit hair?!

Since I have been on a tear about "intelligent design" lately, and what a crock it is, I thought it might be time to post about "The Wedge Document".  The Wedge Document was authored by members of the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is a think tank based in Seattle, Washington, and is the most visible arm of the Intelligent Design movement.

Discovery Institute claims to be a non-sectarian research program investigating the appearance of design in nature. But the claim is total fiction and The Wedge Document, leaked in 1999, proves it the ulterior motive.  As you read, note that the purpose is not to advance science (as intelligent design proponents claim), but to set forth a political and social agenda.   Concepts like intelligent design do not exist as scientific truths, but to act as a "wedge" to create a culture which distances itself from (perceived) ungodly materialism.

CENTER FOR THE RENEWAL OF SCIENCE & CULTURE

INTRODUCTION

The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God is one of the bedrock principles on which Western civilization was built. Its influence can be detected in most, if not all, of the West’s greatest achievements, including representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences.

Yet a little over a century ago, this cardinal idea came under wholesale attack by intellectuals drawing on the discoveries of modern science. Debunking the traditional conceptions of both God and man, thinkers such as Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces and whose behavior and very thoughts were dictated by the unbending forces of biology, chemistry, and environment. This materialistic conception of reality eventually infected virtually every area of our culture, from politics and economics to literature and art

The cultural consequences of this triumph of materialism were devastating. Materialists denied the existence of objective moral standards, claiming that environment dictates our behavior and beliefs. Such moral relativism was uncritically adopted by much of the social sciences, and it still undergirds much of modern economics, political science, psychology and sociology.

Materialists also undermined personal responsibility by asserting that human thoughts and behaviors are dictated by our biology and environment. The results can be seen in modern approaches to criminal justice, product liability, and welfare. In the materialist scheme of things, everyone is a victim and no one can be held accountable for his or her actions.

Finally, materialism spawned a virulent strain of utopianism. Thinking they could engineer the perfect society through the application of scientific knowledge, materialist reformers advocated coercive government programs that falsely promised to create heaven on earth.

Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.

The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer. An Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College, Dr. Meyer holds a Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge University. He formerly worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company.

THE WEDGE STRATEGY

Phase I.

* Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity

Phase II.

* Publicity & Opinion-making

Phase III.

* Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

THE WEDGE PROJECTS

Phase I. Scientific Research, Writing & Publication

* Individual Research Fellowship Program

* Paleontology Research program (Dr. Paul Chien et al.)

* Molecular Biology Research Program (Dr. Douglas Axe et al.)

Phase II. Publicity & Opinion-making

* Book Publicity

* Opinion-Maker Conferences

* Apologetics Seminars

* Teacher Training Program

* Op-ed Fellow

* PBS (or other TV) Co-production

* Publicity Materials / Publications

Phase III. Cultural Confrontation & Renewal

* Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences

* Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training

* Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities

FIVE YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN SUMMARY

The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip ]ohnson’s critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe’s highly successful Darwin’s Black Box followed Johnson’s work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

The Wedge strategy can be divided into three distinct but interdependent phases, which are roughly but not strictly chronological. We believe that, with adequate support, we can accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003), and begin Phase III (See "Goals/ Five Year Objectives/Activities").

Phase I: Research, Writing and Publication

Phase II: Publicity and Opinion-making

Phase III: Cultural Confrontation and Renewal

Phase I is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital witting and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

Phase II. The pnmary purpose of Phase II is to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in pnnt and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being "merely academic." Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Chnstians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence’s that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture.

Phase III. Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences.

GOALS

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.

* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.

* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.

* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.

* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.

* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

FIVE YEAR OBJECTIVES

1. A major public debate between design theorists and Darwinists (by 2003)

2. Thirty published books on design and its cultural implications (sex, gender issues, medicine, law, and religion)

3. One hundred scientific, academic and technical articles by our fellows

4. Significant coverage in national media:

* Cover story on major news magazine such as Time or Newsweek

* PBS show such as Nova treating design theory fairly

* Regular press coverage on developments in design theory

* Favorable op-ed pieces and columns on the design movement by 3rd party media

5. Spiritual & cultural renewal:

* Mainline renewal movements begin to appropriate insights from design theory, and to repudiate theologies influenced by materialism

* Major Christian denomination(s) defend(s) traditional doctrine of creation & repudiate(s)

* Darwinism Seminaries increasingly recognize & repudiate naturalistic presuppositions

* Positive uptake in public opinion polls on issues such as sexuality, abortion and belief in God

6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

7. Scientific achievements:

* An active design movement in Israel, the UK and other influential countries outside the US

* Ten CRSC Fellows teaching at major universities

* Two universities where design theory has become the dominant view

* Design becomes a key concept in the social sciences Legal reform movements base legislative proposals on design theory

ACTVITIES

(1) Research Fellowship Program (for writing and publishing)

(2) Front line research funding at the "pressure points" (e.g., Daul Chien’s Chengjiang Cambrian Fossil Find in paleontology, and Doug Axe’s research laboratory in molecular biology)

(3) Teacher training

(4) Academic Conferences

(5) Opinion-maker Events & Conferences

(6) Alliance-building, recruitment of future scientists and leaders, and strategic partnerships with think tanks, social advocacy groups, educational organizations and institutions, churches, religious groups, foundations and media outlets

(7) Apologetics seminars and public speaking

(8) Op-ed and popular writing

(9) Documentaries and other media productions

(10) Academic debates

(11) Fund Raising and Development

(12) General Administrative support

THE WEDGE STRATEGY PROGRESS SUMMARY

Books

William Dembski and Paul Nelson, two CRSC Fellows, will very soon have books published by major secular university publishers, Cambridge University Press and The University of Chicago Press, respectively. (One critiques Darwinian materialism; the other offers a powerful altenative.)

Nelson’s book, On Common Descent, is the seventeenth book in the prestigious University of Chicago "Evolutionary Monographs" series and the first to critique neo-Dacwinism. Dembski’s book, The Design Inference, was back-ordered in June, two months prior to its release date.

These books follow hard on the heals of Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box (The Free Press) which is now in paperback after nine print runs in hard cover. So far it has been translated into six foreign languages. The success of his book has led to other secular publishers such as McGraw Hill requesting future titles from us. This is a breakthrough.

InterVarsity will publish our large anthology, Mere Creation (based upon the Mere Creation conference) this fall, and Zondervan is publishing Maker of Heaven and Earth: Three Views of the Creation-Evolution Contoversy, edited by fellows John Mark Reynolds and J.P. Moreland.

McGraw Hill solicited an expedited proposal from Meyer, Dembski and Nelson on their book Uncommmon Descent. Finally, Discovery Fellow Ed Larson has won the Pulitzer Prize for Summer for the Gods, his retelling of the Scopes Trial, and InterVarsity has just published his co-authored attack on assisted suicide, A Different Death.

Academic Articles

Our fellows recently have been featured or published articles in major sciendfic and academic journals in The Proceedings to the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, The Scientist, The American Biology Teacher, Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, Biochemirtry, Philosophy and Biology, Faith & Philosophy, American Philosophical Quarterly, Rhetoric & Public Affairs, Analysis, Book & Culture, Ethics & Medicine, Zygon, Perspectives on Science and the Christian Faith, Relgious Studies, Christian Scholars’ Review, The Southern Journal ofPhilosophy, and the Journal of Psychalogy and Theology. Many more such articles are now in press or awaiting review at major secular journals as a result of our first round of research fellowships. Our own journal, Origins & Design, continues to feature scholarly contribudons from CRSC Fellows and other scientists.

Television and Radio Appearances

During 1997 our fellows appeared on numerous radio programs (both Christian and secular) and five nationally televised programs, TechnoPolitics, Hardball with Chris Matthews, Inside the Law, Freedom Speaks, and Firing Line. The special edition of TechnoPolitics that we produced with PBS in November elicited such an unprecedented audience response that the producer Neil Freeman decided to air a second episode from the "out takes." His enthusiasm for our intellectual agenda helped stimulate a special edition of William F. Buckley’s Firing Line, featuring Phillip Johnson and two of our fellows, Michael Behe and David Berlinski. At Ed Atsinger’s invitation, Phil Johnson and Steve Meyer addressed Salem Communications’ Talk Show Host conference in Dallas last November. As a result, Phil and Steve have been interviewed several times on Salem talk shows across the country. For example, in ]uly Steve Meyer and Mike Behe were interviewed for two hours on the nationally broadcast radio show ]anet Parshall’s America. Canadian Public Radio (CBC) recently featured Steve Meyer on their Tapestry program. The episode, "God & the Scientists," has aired all across Canada. And in April, William Craig debated Oxford atheist Peter Atkins in Atlanta before a large audience (moderated by William F. Buckley), which was broadcast live via satellite link, local radio, and intenet "webcast."

Newspaper and Magazine Articles

The Firing Line debate generated positive press coverage for our movement in, of all places, The New York Times, as well as a column by Bill Buckley. In addition, our fellows have published recent articles & op-eds in both the secular and Christian press, including, for example, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Washington Times, National Review, Commentary, Touchstone, The Detroit News, The Boston Review, The Seattle Post-lntelligenter, Christianity Toady, Cosmic Pursuits and World. An op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells and Steve Meyer is awaiting publication in the Washington Post. Their article criticizes the National Academy of Science book Teaching about Evolution for its selective and ideological presentation of scientific evidence. Similar articles are in the works.

These are examples of why religion needs to be kept out of the public sphere.

It’s quite simple.  Once you allow religion in, then there is a fight about which religion should be at the forefront.

For example, the Carpetbagger Report tells us about this:

In Pleasant Grove, Utah, for example, a Ten Commandments memorial, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles in 1971, sits in a secluded area of city property that is intended to honor the city’s heritage. Pleasant Grove is now facing litigation about the display, not from civil libertarians, but from another religious group that wants equal treatment.

And a religious watchdog group is upset that the "bible study" course being flogged in Texas public schools are going to be too fundamentalist:

The [watchdog group] asked Mark A. Chancey, a professor and biblical scholar at Southern Methodist University, to review the council’s curriculum. He was not paid for his work…

Dr. Chancey’s review found that the Bible is characterized as inspired by God, discussions of science are based on the claims of biblical creationists, Jesus is referred to as fulfilling Old Testament prophecy, and archaeological findings are erroneously used to support claims of the Bible’s historical accuracy. He said the course suggests that the Bible, instead of the Constitution, be considered the nation’s founding document.

All of those points may be acceptable to some religions, but not to others, Dr. Chancey said.

It’s even become a problem with some faith-based initiatives (where government money is given to assist private religious-based organizations who perform charitable community services):

A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency’s "Statement of Faith."

Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year.

"It has been our understanding that Catholicism does not agree with our Statement of Faith," Bethany’s state director Karen Stewart wrote. "Our practice to not accept applications from Catholics was an effort to be good stewards of an adoptive applicant’s time, money and emotional energy."

So here we have a religious organization receiving government money (from license plate fees), and applying that money in a way that discriminates against certain religions!

Digby addresses this in far more detail than me, and he came up with the pun that I not-so-graciously stole for this post.  So I’ll let him have the final analysis:

People think "what’s the harm in putting up the 10 commandments on a courthouse?" Who cares? Truly, not a whole lot of people do. But as you can see by the the various legal challenges being mounted on behalf of minority religions and the stirrings of sectarian confrontation among Christian faiths, it would have been better if the government had just made it clear from the beginning that it can’t take sides. People would understand that, even most majority Christians.

The government should stay out of it, period. Let everybody believe what they will in perfect freedom. But it should be on private property funded by private money. The principle isn’t all that tough. Sadly, it appears that we are now going to have to painfully illustrate step by step, through court cases and endless fighting for who knows how long, why it is better for religion for the government to stay out of its sphere. (The battle for secularism for its own sake has been lost for the time being.) I guess we just have to relearn these lessons over and over again.

I hasten to add that the pioneers who settled this country were often of a "minority religion" too.  That’s often why they came here — to escape religious persecution that was held by the majority/government in their native land.  I wonder if the fundamental religious right think of this when they invoke the "Founding Fathers" as their excuse for foisting their religious views over those of minority religious views.

Dr. Roy Spencer.  He’s a doctor, so you have to put the "Dr." in front of his name.  Makes his opinion on matters sound weighty and important.  I guess that’s why the folks at Tech Central Station gave him the chance to write an article entitled "Faith-Based Evolution", in which Dr. Spencer defends intelligent design.  Let’s take a closer look.

Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years.

What the good "doctor" doesn’t mention is that he received in PhD in meteorology, which has about as much to do with evolutionary studies as, oh, vulcanology.  It’s also interesting that he was studying intelligent design twenty years ago, since the term itself is only fourteen years old, roughly.  But no matter, right?

And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as "fact," I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism.

In the scientific community, I am not alone. There are many fine books out there on the subject. Curiously, most of the books are written by scientists who lost faith in evolution as adults, after they learned how to apply the analytical tools they were taught in college.

"Scientists" who are glorified weathermen climatologists like Dr. Spencer?  I don’t know.  He doesn’t give examples.  I guess we’ll just have to take him at his word.

UPDATE:  I found a list of scientists who (supposedly) "doubt Darwinism".  Like Spencer, most of them are not even in the field.  I mean, "Benjamin Vowels, M.D. Dermatology, University of Pennsylvania"?  "John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. General Linguistics, University of Rochester, New York"? In fact, many of the listed "scientists" are admittedly NOT scientists at all!

You might wonder how scientists who are taught to apply disciplined observation and experimentation and to search for natural explanations for what is observed in nature can come to such a conclusion?

Ummmm . . . because they didn’t search for natural explanations in that field?

For those of you who consider themselves open-minded, I will try to explain.

Open-minded?  Hey, he’s talking about me!  Now, I have to agree with him, lest I be considered "close-minded"!

True evolution, in the macro-sense, has never been observed, only inferred.

I’ll defer to Jesse at Pandagon.  He writes "Shorter Dumbass: It’s not evolution if they evolve, only if they evolve."

A population of moths that changes from light to dark based upon environmental pressures is not evolution — they are still moths. A population of bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics does not illustrate evolution — they are still bacteria.

And the good doctor’s seeming ability to write sentences does not illustrate that he actually has a brain.  It’s merely an inference that he has one, folks.

I’m not name-calling here and/or suggesting that Dr. Spencer is brainless.  I’m suggesting that Dr. Spencer’s logic — roughly, "you must observe it in order to have absolute proof of its certainty" — is fundamentally flawed.

In the biological realm, natural selection (which is operating in these examples) is supposedly the mechanism by which evolution advances, and intelligent design theory certainly does not deny its existence. While natural selection can indeed preserve the stronger and more resilient members of a gene pool, intelligent design maintains that it cannot explain entirely new kinds of life — and that is what evolution is.

Well, no it’s not what evolution is, Doctor.  Let’s go to Douglas Futuyma, from his book Evolutionary Biology:

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution … is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

So already, the good doctor has admitted the truth of natural selection, and that evolution (as properly defined) has been observed.  Keep this in mind, because I have a funny feeling he’s going to position himself in the gaps of what we don’t know about evolution, and try to tell you that there are nothing but gaps….

Possibly the most critical distinction between the two theories (or better, "models") of origins is this: While similarities between different but "related" species have been attributed by evolutionism to common ancestry, intelligent design explains the similarities based upon common design. An Audi and a Ford each have four wheels, a transmission, an engine, a gas tank, fuel injection systems … but no one would claim that they both naturally evolved from a common ancestor.

What happens if an Audi and Ford mate and share their genetic . . . oh, forget it.  File this one in the "stupid analogy" cabinet.

Common ancestry requires transitional forms of life to have existed through the millions of years of supposed biological evolution. Yet the fossil record, our only source of the history of life on Earth, is almost (if not totally) devoid of transitional forms of life that would connect the supposed evolution of amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, etc.

Umm, well, yes, the fossil record is incomplete in places, but . . . here’s a reptile-bird.  Here’s some interesting reptile-mammals (not to mention the duck-billed platypus, pictured at the right).  And here’s an example of a fish-amphibian.  For more on transitional species, see here.

This is why Stephen Jay Gould, possibly the leading evolutionist of our time, advanced his "punctuated equilibria" theory. In this theory, evolution leading to new kinds of organisms occurs over such brief periods of time that it was not captured in the fossil record. Upon reflection, one cannot help but notice that this is not arguing based upon the evidence — but instead from the lack of evidence.

Sadly, Stephen Jay Gould was not an "evolutionist".  And Spencer here is invoking a tried-and-disproved myth — denied by Gould himself — that punctuated equilibria is based on "lack of evidence".  Gould and his partner, Niles Eldgridge, based their sub-theory after excruciating examination of two separate lines of, you know, existing evidence (one involving pulmonate gastropods, the other one involving Phacopsid trilobites).  Read more here.

One finally comes to the conclusion that, despite vigorous protests, belief in evolution and intelligent design are matters of faith.

To Spencer, EVERYTHING scientific that he disagrees with is a "matter of faith".  In the linked article, Spencer argues that scientists who believe in global warming are simply acting on faith.  That’s Spencer’s M.O. — if scientists can’t demonstrate 100% verifiable proof of some phenomenon, Spencer spotlights the hole, announces that the entire theory is a matter of "faith", and then fills the gap with his own "faith" — i.e., intelligent design, global cooling, etc.

Even some evolutionists have admitted as much in their writings.

But Spencer won’t name them.

Modern biology does not "fall apart" without evolution, as some will claim. Maybe the theories of the origins of forms of life fall apart, or theories of the origin of capabilities that those life forms exhibit, or the supposed ancestral relationships between them fall apart. But these are merely intellectual curiosities, serving only to stimulate discussion and teach the next generation of students the same beliefs. From a practical point of view, the intelligent design paradigm is just as useful to biology, and I believe, more satisfying from an intellectual point of view.

In what way is the intelligent design paradigm "useful to biology"?  He doesn’t say.

Intelligent design can be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs, which in the West are usually traceable to the first book of the Bible, Genesis. Just as someone can recognize and study some machine of unknown purpose built by another company, country (or alien intelligence?), one can also examine the natural world and ask the question: did this machine arise by semi-random natural physical processes, or could it have been designed by a higher power? Indeed, I was convinced of the intelligent design arguments based upon the science alone.

What IS the science of ID?  Talk about theories formed under the lack of evidence!

Of course, ultimately, one must confront the origin of that higher power, which will logically lead to the possibility of an original, uncaused, First Cause.

So, contrary to what he said a moment ago, intelligent design can’t be studied and taught without resorting to human creation traditions and beliefs.  Make up your mind, doctor.

But then we would be firmly in the religious realm.

You think?

All naturalistic cosmological theories of origins must invent physics that have never been observed by science — because the "Big Bang" can’t be explained based upon current physics. A naturalistic origin of the universe violates either the First or Second Laws of thermodynamics — or both. So, is this science? Or faith?

Science.  Just a new kind of science.  It’s like when we discovered atoms — it opened up a whole range of scientific endeavors, and even new language.  However, if we couldn’t explain everything about atomic properties, did we deny the existance of atoms?  Hell, no.

It is already legal to teach intelligent design in public schools.

Ah.  The law.  Now we are in my area of expertise, doctor.

What is not currently legal is to mandate its teaching.

What a shame.

The Supreme Court has ruled that this would violate the First Amendment’s establishment of religion clause.

And what you have written is a flat-out lie.  Back in 1987 (before the advent of the phrase "intelligent design"), the Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard ruled that a Louisana law, which required "creation science" to be taught alongside evolution, was unconstitutional . . . because the purpose of the law was to further a religious point of view.

If intelligent design was truly a scientific theory, then nothing about the Edwards case bars its use in the public education system.  But the problem is this: ID is not science.  It is (as Spencer tacitly admits) itself a matter of faith.

But I have some questions relating to this: Does not classical evolutionism, based almost entirely upon faith, violate the same clause?

No.  Because classical evolutionism is not "based almost entirely on faith".  Even Dr. Spencer admits that evolution is observable on the micro-level (moths, bacteria, etc.).  And, but for some small gaps in the fossil record (much of which is attributable to the fact that it gets harder to find fossils from the earliest periods of the earth’s formation), there is overwhelming evidence of evolution.  "Based on faith"?  Is he kidding?

See what I meant before about how Spencer would position himself to "live in the gap"?

More importantly, what about the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which states that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion?

So let me get this straight.  Evolution is a matter of faith; therefore, it is a religion; and therefore, teaching evolution violates the Establishment Clause.

Is that what you’ve wasted my time for?

If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design? (There is, by the way, no third theory of origins that anyone has ever been able to determine.) At the very least, school textbooks should acknowledge that evolution is a theory of origins, it has not been proved, and that many scientists do not accept it.

I have no problem with the teaching of intelligent design in public schools.  It can be taught in a religion/philosophy survey class, right along with the Indo-Aryan texts that repeatedly affirm that the Earth is supported by a serpent.  Or the Hindu belief that the Earth is held by 4 pillars, held by an elephant seated on a big tortoise.  But not in a science class.

Whether intelligent design is ever taught in school is probably not as important as the freedom that we have in a free society to discuss, and study, such issues. And for that, I am thankful.

For once, I agree.  And I’ve enjoyed discussing this with you, Dr. Spencer.

BONUS DUMB COMMENTARY:  Utah State Sen. D. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan — also not a scientist — writes an op-ed in USA Today:

The trouble with the "missing link" is that it is still missing! In fact, the whole fossil chain that could link apes to man is also missing! The theory of evolution, which states that man evolved from some other species, has more holes in it than a crocheted bathtub.

I realize that is a dramatic statement, so to be clear, let me restate: There is zero scientific fossil evidence that demonstrates organic evolutionary linkage between primates and man.

Uh, Senator?  Pick from any of these hominid fossils:

Or, if the Latin freaks you out, maybe you should just watch more educational television.