We have now heard the praises of both
”
those of faith
”
(Mel Tungate) and
”
those not of faith
”
(Dale Morejon) for the decision of Judge Jones in the Dover case
on Intelligent Design.
Editor,
We have now heard the praises of both “those of faith”(Mel Tungate) and “those not of faith” (Dale Morejon) for the decision of Judge Jones in the Dover case on Intelligent Design. And, again, these camps tell us that to attempt to show the evidential difficulties of evolution is to bring religion into the classroom.
Does anyone else wonder why they focus the discussion on religion when the subject is really good science education? In logic this is called a red herring. Perhaps they have forgotten how important it is to carefully define terms like religion and evolution. Perhaps it’s not forgetfulness. Let me state it again: at least most of us who favor including ID in the discussion of scientific origins do not want religion – be it Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Islam, Wiccan, New Age or whateverism! – anywhere near the science classroom. The discussion is not about concepts of God or gods, right and wrong, life after death, praying or meditating. None of that should be taught in science classrooms.
Science is the search for truth. Science, correctly executed, follows anywhere the evidence leads, just as does good criminal investigation. The conflict that arises over evolution is that naturalism – the claim that all causes must be natural – is being slipped in in place of science. There is no debate over the adaptation of finches or the mutating of this year’s flu virus or the rearrangement of bacterial DNA.
Peopled of faith have always championed true science. Many of the great mathematicians and scientists over the centuries (Da Vinci, Kepler, Bacon, Boyle, Newton, Linneaus, Faraday, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell and the others) have embraced a reality beyond, and its interaction with, the natural world. This does not mean that their science was done poorly or that it failed in giving us a more accurate understanding of the world.
Further, since naturalism is a clam that cannot be supported scientifically – what in the natural world or science lab shows us that the natural world is all there is? – it belongs in the category of philosophy not empirical science. Why is the philosophy given preference over those opposing it? I would expect these champions of academic freedom who oppose ‘religion’ in the classroom to oppose all unscientific philosophies.
A final challenge to the opponents of ID: Please provide your readers with one convincing fossil sequence that demonstrates Darwinian gradualism and one observed mechanism for adding new genetic information to the DNA of any living form. You’ll go a long way toward convincing us doubters if you can do that.
Edward Houston, Hollister
