THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN
by Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.
published: 2006
.
Q: “Is it (primordial) soup yet?”
A: “No, son. And it never will be.”
.
The following Letter To The Editor written by a Mr. Kaiser and published in the May 29th 2004 edition of The Arizona Republic newspaper perfectly sums up the current scientific and political milieu:
.
“I was a science geek growing up. Like my friends, I believed what I was told in school about Evolution. In fact, for most of my life, evolution was a non-issue. Evolution was simply a fact -- a fact that nicely complemented my atheistic lifestyle.
.
“However, all this changed when I accepted a challenge to investigate evidence that was contrary to Evolution. Like you (no doubt), I fully expected to find a set of frivolous, pseudo-scientific arguments from religious zealots. What I found instead shook my worldview to the core.
.
“So why is only one side of this two-sided debate presented in our public schools? Is it, as we’re so often told, because religion has no place in the science classroom? No. The real reason is fear. Fear that if both sides of the debate are equally and fairly presented to our students, Evolution would lose -- hands down. Now that would be geeky.”
.
Like the other P.I.G.s that I have read, I found “THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT GUIDE TO DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN” to be well written and organized. I had already studied this subject sufficiently that my eyes (irreducibly complex organs that they are) were not newly opened, but the confidence in my intellectual position and the rightness of my stance was further strengthened.
.
I wholeheartedly recommend this P.I.G. to anyone who’s asking the questions, “Where did I come from?” and “Am I my monkey’s keeper?” While the book makes plain the controversy between Darwinism and Intelligent Design, and explains the arguments and counterarguments, their strengths and weaknesses, it was the heightened political situation that has arisen in recent years that was a little bit new to me. I was aware that there was a big feud that’s been brewing, but the volatile attitude that Darwinists now exhibit toward any scientist who even mentions the words “Intelligent Design” under his or her breath has developed into a white-hot intensity. (Well, at least Darwinists can now point to SOMETHING that has incontrovertibly “developed” in the name of Darwinism.) It’s really heated up in the nation’s science labs, and some of those Darwinists are now really hot under the collar. This is due, no doubt, to that other scientifically established fact: Global Warming. (Ha!-Ha!-Ha! Sorry. Sometimes I just crack me up.)
.
Yes, lots of facts and myths are explored and exploded in THE P.I.G. TO DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN. You really should read it. Although this P.I.G. is more up-to-date and explores the current bitter political situation that this debate has engendered, I believe my favorite book of this type remains the 1999 publication, TORNADO IN A JUNKYARD by James Perloff, as it is leavened with a trace more humor. But while there is obviously some overlap, I’d also say that one of these books should not be read in exclusion to the other, as they both explore some aspects of this debate which are unique unto themselves.
.
According to THE P.I.G. TO DARWINISM AND INTELLIGENT DESIGN, the Darwinian dogmatist, Biology professor Paul Z. Myers of the University of Minnesota, posted the following on his blog: “The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians ... It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.”
.
Hey, professor Myers! While I’m not and never will be a politician (thank you very much!), I’m definitely a “sleazy far-right lunatic”. So, why don’t you show them scientists how it’s done, professor? Why don’t you fold up your eyeglasses, cover your microscope, secure your pocket protector, and drag your (brass) knuckles out here to the desert and start with me? (Sheesh! Myers himself might actually be the best argument AGAINST “Intelligent” Design that I’ve ever encountered!)
.
"CAN WE ALL GET ALONG?”
~ Dr. Rodney King
.
~ Stephen T. McCarthy
.
Hi-Ho, Steverino!
ReplyDeleteI think what you're seeing is a morphing from science as an academic discipline where skepticism and differing theories of physical and natural phenomena are part of the game, to science as a religion, where those who disagree with what is now "settled science" (e.g. evolution, anthropocentric climate change) are branded as heretics, ignored, are stripped of their certifications and professional positions, and even threatened with physical harm.
The whole idea of "settled science" flies in the face of what science is all about. Science is NEVER settled. By its very nature every theory is open for debate and independent verification, including the theories of Darwin and Algore. To question whether the universe happened as a result of a massive explosion or because a Supreme Being willed it to happen is arguable and will always be a question whose answer is "I dunno." Might have been a Big Bang, might have been the scenario presented in Genesis, or it might have been a combination of the two or something totally different. We don't know for absolute certain, because we weren't around to see it happen. The best we can do is theorize based on what we can dig up (literally) and argue the case for what we believe is the explanation. Eventually it comes down to "what do you believe happened?" You look at the evidence for all the different theories and sorta-kinda decide one thing or another, knowing that something else might (and probably will) come along and cause you to re-evaluate and possibly change your mind. That's science: theories developed on observations and a continual refinement and adjustment in light of new evidence and new theories. And it's an understanding that those observations etc. are human observations and therefore subject to being wrong, either a little or a lot.
Being ordered to believe something under threat of death, banishment from society, or being sent somewhere to be "rehabilitated" runs counter to human nature. And we're getting close to that happening, by the very people who claim to be on the side of science. Heaven help us all.
Howdy, JOHN ~
DeleteExcellent comment! I am in total agreement with the way you defined science -- the objective analysis, the testing of theories, the refining of theories based on additional evidence. All of it.
And yes, we have no settled science today. (I know you got that musical reference.) The best we could say is: "Objectively speaking, based on the evidence we have at this point, 'Theory A' seems to be the best match... for now."
We find ourselves in a very peculiar epoch where so-called scientists demand that people accept their conclusions, regardless of whether those conclusions are the best match to the available evidence. Where people who claim to support diversity will physically fight someone to exclude their viewpoint from the general consensus. Where people calling themselves "Anti-Fascists" will riot and heap physical abuse on peaceful people to shut down their differing belief -- which of course is nothing less than fascist behavior.
For nearly my entire life, I've been a voracious reader of nonfiction, and as a result, beliefs I've held have often been challenged and overturned. I've found in the subjects I've extensively studied, that more often than not, the "common wisdom" or "settled viewpoint" is wrong or likely wrong.
One example that applies to this very topic is the age of the Earth. I assumed my teachers were teaching me truth based on facts when I was in school. Well...
One of many books I've read on this subject of Evolution is 'SCIENCE VS. EVOLUTION' -- a massive tome that, counting the Index, is over 1,000 pages long. To my own surprise, I finished that one having been convinced (believe it or not) that the preponderance of the real evidence indicates that the Earth is really only about 6,000 years old. Yeah, I know, that's loony tunes, tinfoil hat territory. But, hell, I'd already been convinced that no man has ever walked on the Moon and lived to tell about it. So either I'm very gullible, or else I'm able to objectively assess the best evidence and arrive at controversial conclusions, regardless of the damage to my reputation.
Again, excellent comment, JOHN!
~ D-FensDogG
'Loyal American Underground'
Al Bondigas here. Boy, these atheists sure get worked up easily, don't they? I like how atheists always claim that they've encountered so many intolerant Christians. There not even close in numbers to all the angry, hate filled intolerant athiests!!! That's my rulin'.
ReplyDeleteJUDGE AL, your rulin' be right on.
DeleteMost atheists, they express so much emotion over their atheism, and they wear their atheism on their sleeves to such a degree that it makes you wonder what they're hidin', huh? Ha!
No one is more transparent than a loud atheist.
Let us pray they get over their anger at God before the Clock runs down and Time runs out.
~ D-FensDogG
'Loyal American Underground'