Paul Weyrich
Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2005
Many Americans are focused on what should be taught in the schools
regarding our universe and the Earth – how life as we know it has come
to be. This has become a hot-button issue, igniting controversy in
Kansas over what should be taught in the public schools and in
Pennsylvania, where a high-profile trial is taking place over a local
school board decision. Newsweek featured Charles Darwin on its cover and
the current Smithsonian prints a story on Charles Darwin. The
controversy is unlikely to fade soon, in large measure because a new
school of thought is gaining increasing acceptance within scientific and
academic circles.
Intelligent Design holds that nature shows more "design" than many
academics in the sciences, education and philosophy are willing to
acknowledge. Neo-Darwinists view changes in life forms as happenstance,
dictated as much by changes in environment as serendipity.
A PBS television series, "Evolution," asserted that "all known
scientific evidence supports [Darwinian] evolution" and that the
scientific community was four-square in support of his theories. No
doubt many scientists hold firm to their belief in Darwin, but it cannot
be asserted credibly that there is only one school of thought –
evolution – accepted by the scientific profession.
Many scientists are breaking from Darwinian orthodoxy. The Discovery
Institute, a Seattle-based think tank, issued "A Scientific Dissent From
Darwinism" several years ago featuring this statement: "We are skeptical
of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to
account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence
for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
Four hundred scientists now have expressed support for this
statement, including Dr. Stanley Salthe, Visiting Scientist in
Biological Sciences at Binghamton University and Associate Researcher
for the Center for the Philosophy of Nature and Science Studies of the
University of Copenhagen. Dr. Salthe had specialized in Darwinian
evolutionary theory and now criticizes its reductionism, which
essentially claims that all changes derive from the effects of
competition.
Salthe does not appear to be a conventional conservative thinker. He
states: "My opposition to [Darwinian evolutionary theory] is
fundamentally to its sole reliance on competition as an explanatory
principle (in a background of chance). Aside from being a bit thin in
the face of complex systems, it has the disadvantage, in the
mythological context of explaining where we come from, of reducing all
evolution to the effects of competition." Salthe considers this to be a
"myth" that is morally destructive but "congenial to capitalism."
Salthe is not the only scientist who takes exception to the
no-questions-asked treatment of Darwinism. So does quantum chemist Henry
Schaefer at the University of Georgia, a Nobel Prize nominee and
recipient of prestigious scientific awards. Dr. Schaefer is a fellow at
the Discovery Institute. Biochemist Michael Behe of Lehigh University,
microbiologist Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho and
mathematician William Dembski of Baylor University are other prominent
supporters of Intelligent Design theory.
Dr. John G. West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and
Culture at the Discovery Institute, commented this summer that "The fact
is that a significant number of scientists are extremely skeptical that
Darwinian evolution can explain the origins of life. We expect that as
scientists engage in the wider debate over materialist evolutionary
theories, this list will continue to grow, and grow at an even more
rapid pace than we've seen this past year."
The doubters of Darwinism are not confined to the scientific
community.
Dr. Antony Flew, a famous philosopher who adhered to atheism, in his
later years has come to accept the likelihood of Intelligent Design. He
counts himself as a supporter of Darwinism in general but he sees
something more compelling behind the creation of the universe. Flew, now
more of a Deist, does not acknowledge God as having created the
universe, but sees intelligence behind its formation. He is quoted in
the Winter 2005 issue of Philosophia Christi (a publication of Biola
University, in California): "It now seems to me that the findings of
more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new
and enormously powerful argument to design."
What is Intelligent Design?
Intelligent Design holds that the universe and its living things are
not simply the product of random chance; an intelligent cause is behind
their existence. Intelligent Design does not conflict with Darwinism's
belief in evolution – that living organisms will change over time. It
does run counter to the new school of Darwinism that holds random
selection drives evolution. Chance mutations occur without reason.
Intelligent Design challenges this direction head-on based upon its
belief that changes occur due to a reason.
One useful definition of Intelligent Design can be found in the book
"Darwinism, Design, and Public Education," edited by Stephen C. Meyer
and John Angus Campbell. The definition presented in this book holds
that Intelligent Design is "the theory that certain features of the
physical universe and/or biological systems can be best explained by
reference to an intelligent cause (that is, the conscious action of an
intelligent agent), rather than an undirected natural process or a
material mechanism."
It is too easy for undiscerning critics to lump Intelligent Design
in with creationism. Analysts such as Charles Krauthammer, undoubtedly
brilliant, have made that mistake. Krauthammer asserted that Intelligent
Design is "today's tarted-up version of creationism." There is a
significant difference. Creationists view the Bible's word to be the
equivalent of scientific text. Believers in Intelligent Design come to
their conclusion by the evidence they find in nature. They understand
the complexity of the cell; they see the vastness of the universe.
Belief in Intelligent Design stems from reason, not revelation.
Christians can hold true to belief in God and Intelligent Design.
The King James Bible in Romans 1:20 says: "For the invisible things of
him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by
the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that
they are without excuse." Intelligent Design can be accepted by an
Antony Flew, who is not a believer in the Christian God.
Creationism has not been taught in most, possibly all, the public
schools since the 1987 Supreme Court ruling in Edwards v. Aguillard. The
decision held that creationism was not science and therefore had no
place in the curriculums of public schools. Intelligent Design is quite
different in that it is gaining increasing acceptance by scientists who
view Darwinism as an insufficient explanation for how our universe was
created and how life on Earth started and has developed.
The Discovery Institute takes an interesting position on what should
be taught in the public schools. It advised the Dover School Board, now
the focus of the court case in Pennsylvania, not to push the teaching of
Intelligent Design. Discovery Institute maintains that it is more
important that Intelligent Design gain acceptance within the scientific
community and academia first.
The Institute argues that schools need to present a full picture of
Darwinism, treating it as theory – one with noted flaws – rather than
established fact. That is starting to occur, and if it continues,
Intelligent Design should earn respectful treatment in school curricula.
It is not mixing apples and oranges to note the vituperation of the
Darwinists who cannot stand having a competing theory discussed. One
professor at the University of Kansas called Intelligent Design
"mythology." The overheated reactions remind me of the slings and arrows
faced by conservatives as we fought to have our ideas, the importance of
traditional social values and a strong defense that included a
space-based missile defense system, gain ascendancy in the late 1970s
and early 1980s.
We prevailed in many cases based upon our persistence and the
soundness of our ideas. Intelligent Design can stand on its merits
despite the attempt by Darwin's true believers to label it as sheer
creationism. Many scientists who study the universe or cellular biology
are increasingly intrigued by their complex processes. It takes more
than chance to create such complex systems. Remember it was Einstein who
said, "God does not play dice with the universe."
Paul M. Weyrich is Chairman and CEO of the Free Congress
Foundation.
|