Another academic makes a case for intelligent design

Transcript of today's show:

A professor of internal medicine at the University of Missouri-Columbia recently praised intelligent design theory to an audience of 100 colleagues. Professor John Marshall [pictured right] said that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwin's theory of evolution. Marshall's audience, for the most part, criticized his ideas. John O’Connor, a water consultant and retired chairman of the MU Department of Civil Engineering, said: "I think intelligent design is a code word for God. I think that there’s no reason for us to mince around and pretend that that’s not really what" intelligent design "is trying to propagate." [source: Columbia Tribune]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
As an evolutionary biologist, I feel obliged to correct Professor Marshall’s statement that intelligent design fits the evidence of biology better than Darwinian evolution. It is well known in the scientific community that intelligent design researchers have repeatedly sought to discredit accepted scientific theory. They have emphasized incomplete areas of scientific understanding as a proof of a hypothesis that an unseen Designer is the only way by which certain heretofore unexplained phenomena can be explained.

It appears that intelligent design seeks only to poke holes in science while deftly dodging any outright alternate suggestions. What makes ID such a threat to science is what if we had used (as some indeed did) intelligent design to explain lightning, meteors, or eclipses as too complex to be understood by science?

When a scientific explanation for natural phenomena is still unproven by experimentation and the scientific method, this simply means there is more to be learned, not more to be explained. In the case of meteors, until after the Civil War, scientists believed that meteors were a weather phenomenon -- which is why weathermen to this day are called meteorologists! Imagine if science had just given up and said, "we don’t know what those streaks in the sky are -- they’re too complex for us to understand. But rest assured in knowing that they’re intelligent designed."

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
It’s a far stretch of the imagination to equate intelligent design and religion. While some of its members are men and women of faith, the Discovery Institute and its research supporting intelligent design theory are in no way aligned with a religious group or practice. Their research is founded on sound scientific principles and methods. The fact that an increasing number of scientists from all disciplines are embracing intelligent design theory appears, unfortunately, to threaten die-hard Darwinists, who exhibit a characteristic orthodoxy not unlike the Vatican.

Atlas of Creation makes an academic splash in the US

Transcript of today's show:

In a follow-up to a previous story about a Muslim creationist coffee table book appearing in France earlier this year, US college professors are seeing the same Atlas of Creation in their mailboxes this week. The Atlas claims that evolutionists are responsible for fascism, communism and terrorism. Professors across America are wondering who financed the one hundred dollar 800 page book and why they received it? [source: New York Times]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
A letter to the author of Atlas of Creation:

Dear Mr. Harun Yahya,

Or shall I call you Adnan Oktar, which your web site tells me is your birth name. I also see that you have a very impressive CV. Many universities in America would likely confess interest in your education and background, except that it is hopelessly peppered with Islamic fundamentalist ideology, a relentless disgust of Darwin theory, and an unusual penchant for blaming Darwin theory for the world's social, political and economic ills. Our educational system at all levels tries to respect America's embrace of equal opportunity in employment, but I dare say there are some biases that you just couldn't get around or charm your way out of.

Not that your purpose in sending thousands of your big and very pretty books to our universities was to pick up a little work in the land of opportunity. You obviously don't need to. On the contrary, your gift appears to be a good will package designed to win some of us over to your side. A form of what we would call proselytizing, which can be effective, but frankly, you have to go after the ones who you think might have a teeny tiny chance of being open to your alternative viewpoints. I'm not sure you took time to research that, or perhaps you didn't care, or you have a self-confidence that would make Arnold Schwarzenegger look like a wallflower.

If I were you, I wouldn't expect a high return rate on your promotional effort. Look at France's weak response. We are just as stubborn and intractable as they are. And honestly, America does not need another variety of religious fundamentalism. The Christians are causing way too much trouble already. The introduction of Islamic fundamentalism into American society could potentially devastate our culture, educational system, and national mental health. I'm sure national cataclysm isn't what you had in mind when you took the time and expense to print and send all those books to the intellectual elite.

As a concerned American citizen, I beg you, please stay away from our children.

Sincerely yours,

S. Greene

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
As I noted when news of this book first appeared in April 2007, science cannot make faith go away. Where faith exists, secularism has no power nor sway. People of faith around the world indeed do not trust secularism because deep down inside people do not want to live in an atheistic, godless universe. I am not of the Muslim faith, yet I can understand their desire to offer the world a grander vision of life and our origins.

The Atlas of Creation is an inspiring work, and like the beauty of a cathedral, will lift the spirit of those who enter. Even those who aided and abetted the faithless in the Dover case grudgingly admitted The Atlas of Creation is truly a beautiful book. God works in mysterious ways!

When public opinion in Turkey overwhelmingly supported the authority of the Islamic Holy Koran (with roots in the Old testament), the government brought their educational policies in line. Here in America, Christian believers must endlessly contend with the ACLU, atheistic scientists, and liberal judges like Judge John Jones, who turned a deaf ear to the voice of a growing majority, and in the process, turned his back on his own Christian faith.

The Bible meets biology in an Oregon classroom

Transcript of today's show:

After only eight days on the job, part-time teacher Kris Helphinstine was fired from Sisters High School in Oregon. In the biology class he taught, Helphinstine referred repeatedly to the Bible and gave a PowerPoint presentation that linked evolution, Nazi Germany, and Planned Parenthood. School officials were swift in his termination. In his defense, Helphinstine said, “My whole purpose was to give accurate information and get the students thinking.” [source: New West]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
The swift response of school officials at Sisters High School in Oregon reminds me of Judge Jones’ unequivocal response that intelligent design is indeed creationism in pseudo-scientific clothing. This tells us too, unfortunately, that classroom teachers need to be watched. The most unassuming new hire may have an agenda of zealotry lurking in their lesson plans. Our schools have by necessity become policed -- students are searched for drugs and hidden weapons; now it seems, teachers must be surveilled for surrepitious propaganda activities.

Those who think they can bring religious belief and dogma into the scientific climate of a biology classroom do know better. They know they're crossing a line, and they know where that line lies. Their intent and purpose are to push that line, and push and push, budging it ever more to their benefit. Their goal is nothing less than to confuse our understanding of science and, in the cacophony, infuse their Bible-based notions as equal or superior.

It would have been interesting to see the faces of Mr. Helphinstine's students when he presented slides of the Nazi cross dissolving into the Planned Parenthood logo. Are high school students sophisticated enough to know when propaganda is being thrust upon them? Let this event be a lesson to all about 1) the growing reach of religious zealotry into academia, 2) how innocuous it can appear to the unwary eye, and 3) how these educational hi jinx should be quickly and permanently dealt with. I wonder what Dembski and his friends at the Discovery Institute think when some lunatic claiming to be on “their side” stirs up a negative news story like this.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Although the appropriateness of his subject matter is questionable, Mr. Helphinstine is being quite obviously scape-goated. The information he presented -- albeit not suitable for such a young audience -- has basis in real events. Evolution theory has been an ideological cornerstone of those who favor eugenics. The nefarious Nazi philosophy was in fact based on Charles Darwin's survival of the fittest. This theory in and of itself is not villainous, but when applied by hateful atheists and those who do not believe in Christian love for one's neighbor, the theory can be twisted to diabolical ends. The Nazis erronneously believed that only they were the fittest, declaring themselves the UberMensch – the Super Race of Super Men. And did the Nazi’s control every aspect of the birthing process, killing thousands of innocent retarded and defective children? Yes, they did and they kept accurate records.

Just as critics of Mr. Helphinstine can claim him as a bizarre example of Bibilical creationism gone wild, the Nazi agenda of the Holocaust could be seen as evolutionary ideas taken to an ultimate perverted extreme. Let us be careful, in our outrage at Mr. Helphinstine, that we not gloss over the horrible history from which his ideas emerged. There are centuries of unjust, unloving, inhumane historical events that deserve our outrage. Let's put our criticism and anger where they rightly belong.

A typo gets the US Department of Education in hot water

Transcript of today's show:

A new education grant rewarding excellence in science has mysteriously omitted evolutionary biology from its list of eligible majors. Speculation is circulating that this demonstrates a deliberate bias against students in the evolutionary sciences, who apparently, need not apply. As for the Department of Education, who made the list, the omission has been blamed on a typographic error. This error was not intentional, just an honest mistake. [source: The Chronicle of Higher Education]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
What is the true nature of such coincidental and convenient errors? We may never know with certainty if this typographical was indeed an honest mistake, or if it was a sneaky little strategy of the Bush administration, done in the hope no one would notice. As with WMD, we can never know with these guys. They seem to be quite comfortable substituting fiction for fact when it suits their ideologic agenda.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Speculation is speculation and should be treated with requisite doubt. It is, of course, disappointing when an honest mistake can be so easily misconstrued. Naysayers delight in such circumstances, which feed their need to discredit those with whom they disagree.

Darwin’s drawings under suspicion

Transcript of today's show:

Darwin’s chief illustrator has been accused of producing fraudulent drawings in order to provide better evidence for Darwin’s arguments. Ernst Haeckel deliberately fudged his drawings to reveal similarities in embryonic development among species. An international team of experts recently compared Haeckel's drawings with actual embryos and have concluded that Haeckel's work is one of the most famous fakes in biology. In spite of this widespread discrediting, Haeckel's drawings still appear in many textbooks and are presented as fact. [source: Science magazine, Talk Origins]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
All textbooks containing Ernst Haeckel’s questionable drawings should be pulled from use and revised or replaced. I believe in a zero tolerance rule regarding fraudulent presentation of material. Haeckel’s frauds must be fully brought to light and expunged from all teaching materials.

Now, what about Darwin? We do well to remember that Haeckel’s drawings were a post factum addition to Darwin’s published work. Haeckel’s embryo drawings did not appear until 1874, almost two decades after Darwin published the “Origin of the Species.” Haekel’s exaggerated drawings never influenced Darwin’s thinking nor formed a basis for his theories of natural selection and adaptation. Creationists and ID proponents rightly assail Haeckel’s utter lack of professional ethics, however, they go to far when they pin this on Darwin with the purpose of discounting his work altogether. The transgressions of Haeckel do not belong to Darwin.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
This travesty of scientific integrity points to a little-known political campaign that was waged in the years following Darwin’s publication of his controversial “Origin of the Species.” Colleagues of Darwin undertook a decades-long disinformation campaign to trump support for his bizarre and heretical theories (which were quite unpopular among the people of his day). Haeckel played a significant role in this political machine. He was a great embellisher of his observations, he had a comfortable genius for creating false proofs, and he expounded many outlandish theories of his own, which he often devised from thin air. And there are other Darwinists who, like Haekel, would do anything to make their theory seem believable to the public. This unethical approach of disinformation is exactly why state legislators are introducing bills that would allow other theories to be taught along side evolution. Darwin’s theory of natural selection is not gospel. There has been much sleight of hand and underhanded deception from the Darwinists. They must be questioned vigorously and unapologetically.

Scientists demand that schools teach the facts!

Today's story:
67 national science academies have signed a statement of protest. They’re outraged that evolution theory is being concealed, denied, or confused in many classrooms. The scientists don’t think children are getting an adequate science education. Worse, scientists say, if children don’t learn scientific inquiry, how are they going to learn to think for themselves? [source: BBC]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
What a disastrous state of affairs when scientists have to band together to defend the validity and legitimacy of science itself. Scientific method and understanding have produced most everything we enjoy and take advantage of in the living of our daily lives. I dearly hope this protest sends a signal to school board administrators that Biblical allegory is not equivalent to science and does not belong in our science classrooms.

Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
Half or more Americans -- spanning every religious denomination -- say they do not believe we have descended from apes. Our children want to know where they came from, where the world they live in came from. They ask these questions. Are our children in fact silently crying out for an alternative explanation to their own origin? Do they not deserve to hear other viewpoints and possibilities? Sadly, the scientists who make this protest, and others certainly, are satisfied to offer only one account of the origin of life on earth, and it is neither a compelling nor inspiring one.

A Flock of Dodos hits US theaters

Transcript of today's show:

Are scientists losing the battle for evolution? Randy Olson’s biting documentary, ‘Flock of Dodos,’ leads the audience to believe they are. Although he’s an evolutionary biologist, Olsen’s film portrays those in the Intelligent Design movement as organized, appealing and interesting. The scientists in the film, despite their expertise and evidence, communicate their information with a dull, dry and academic flavor. Even though US courts have upheld the teaching of evolution, ‘A Flock of Dodos’ predicts that this war of ideas has just begun. [source: Flock of Dodos.com]

Listen to the 1-minute broadcast of this story [mp3]

Sound Off: Science & Faith. Our point/counterpoint regulars Shelley (the voice of science) and Peter (the voice of faith), comment on the story.

The Voice of Science: Shelley Greene, Ph.D., comments:
I saw a private viewing of this documentary in Kansas last year. A gritty, honest film that chronicles Randy's open-minded investigation of the rise of intelligent design as a contending theory to Darwinian evolution. He focuses on the activities of intelligent design advocates, particularly in the realm of school board debates and policy-making, where they want to slip in to the science curriculum. Many of my scientific colleagues (who take themselves far too seriously), will not be amused to witness the abysmal social and communication skills of the scientists who are featured in the film. I hope for their sake, they take a good, long look at how the scientists come off relative to the smooth, sound-bite delivery of the intelligent designers and creationists. Olson's film has piqued my growing concern that the intelligent design folks will slip through the average board member's B.S. detector because of their polished eloquence and apparent coherence.

The Voice of Faith: Peter Williamson, M.Div., comments:
I must confess: with great satisfaction, I giggled and howled at the buffonery of the scientists in this film. I pitied them too. They have far too long been unfairly glorified as ivory tower demi-gods who can do no wrong. These are not gentlemen. What effect might that have on the science they produce -- the facts they interpret -- and are so willing publish as truth?