Evolving Toward a Compromise of Disinformation

Evolving Toward a Compromise of Disinformation
by Kevin Wirth
ARN Director of Product Development
August 7, 2008

In a recent Washington Post article titled "Evolving Toward a Compromise" by Amy Binder and John H. Evans (Saturday, July 26, 2008, p. A15) [1] the authors make several assertions and claims about issues related to Intelligent Design and science education that are in dire need of reassessment.

First, they note that a proposal before the Texas Board of Education calls for the inclusion of "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, but then state that the proposal is "understood" by nearly everyone to be a "strategic effort to get around First Amendment restrictions on teaching religion in science class."

One wonders what Binder and Evans could possibly mean when they state that the effect of implementing the proposals before the Texas Board of Education could help promoters "get around" the First Amendment, and how it could possibly include "teaching religion in science class." The proposal before the Board clearly and unequivocally addresses improving science education, but does call for clarification and honesty about the issues related to evolution. Are Binder and Evans suggesting there is no need to address such concerns? If so, the majority of Americans would disagree with that assessment.[2] And, exactly how does the Texas proposal advocate teaching religion in our school science classes? Evans and Binder don't take the time to elaborate.

For one thing, the presentation of the evidence for speculative stories about historical evolution is in dire need of a much more forthright presentation. Students have been taught for decades now that all the evidence for the fact of historical evolution is clear and well established. However, anyone who bothers to read the books written by leading experts in paleontology, for example, will see plenty of cause for concern with promoting such a view. The degree and depth of controversy, and lack of consensus about how nearly every vertebrate evolved would provide any student (much less the rest of us) with a hefty dose of reasonable skepticism about any claim that historical evolution is well established. Reading those accounts provides insight into the futility most paleontologists and other scientists encounter as they imaginatively place round evidence into square holes while attempting to reconstruct how the various vertebrate groups evolved.

These accounts are nothing less than stunning in their admissions of ignorance. Is anyone reading this stuff? What about Binder and Evans?

From reading such books (PS - none of them were written by folks with a "religious" agenda), it's pretty clear that historical evolution is most firmly established in the imaginations of those who promote the idea (see the sample reading list at the end of this article). There are almost endless suggestions about the evolutionary history of the vertebrates, but far less consensus exists than the average American is led to believe by most staunch defenders of Darwinian views.

Reading these books reveals that we don't know who the first true bird was, we have no clue how the "land egg" developed, or where the jawed fishes came from, and we have no idea who the precursors of Trilobites (arguably the most numerous fossilized critter on the planet) were. And this is just for starters! A more thorough reading reveals the massive depth and extent of our collective ignorance concerning how, when, and where most vertebrates evolved. Like I said, taken all together, it's stunningly and incredibly clear how little we really know about the historical evolution of the vertebrates.

Surely such things are worth pointing out to students, and they just as surely have nothing at all to do with "religion." Is this what Binder and Evans suggest amounts to a "watering down" of evolution? I'd say there isn't much water to begin with (but plenty of hot air...), and it's worth noting that the advocates of Intelligent Design didn't write this stuff.

Next, Binder and Evans go on to say that a constant drubbing of Intelligent Design advocates may be counter productive, as "crushing one's opponents...can create feelings of persecution and solidarity among them and deepen their commitment to their cause." They go on to suggest that such an approach may not be the best tactic to "protect the science curriculum or the separation of church and state."

I find it interesting that many Darwinians expect us to accept historical evolution as fact when it is based on speculations built upon conjectures mixed with extrapolations - and admonish those of us who would dare be skeptical of such claims. They expect us all to agree with invisible evidence concocted from guesswork, but when there is a real issue to be dealt with (ie, discrimination against Darwin Doubters), they say it's just a figment of our imagination. Such as the suggestion that "feelings" of persecution are being generated by Darwin skeptics who are in fact losing their careers and are being summarily expunged from academia all across America.

These are not "feelings" of persecution - the very real persecution against Darwin skeptics is a widespread FACT that Binder and Evans for some reason seem unable to admit. I'll soon be publishing a book on this subject by Dr. Jerry Bergman called "Slaughter of the Dissidents"(due out in August, 2008)[3]. This book clearly documents what these alleged "feelings of persecution" actually look like in the real world case studies where degrees are denied and belief in evolution is required if you plan to keep your career in many fields of science. We're talking rampant and widespread discrimination, not just some allegations of hurt "feelings" from people with a need to bond with others who share the same persecution complex.

This is a real issue in dire need of being corrected in our culture if the "free exercise clause" of the First Amendment means anything at all. The practice of rejecting Darwin skeptics has been well documented for decades, but has only recently begun to percolate into the sphere of public consciousness.

"There are certainly a good number of scientists who now reject the concepts of evolution -- not on religious grounds, but on strictly scientific grounds. Most of them are keeping their own council. Outwardly they support evolution (so as to be in step with their peers) but inwardly they have second thoughts on the subject. It is not too easy to take a stand against the beliefs of the majority, and expose oneself to ridicule, especially when one's job and academic and professional prospects are on the line. It is only the very brave and those highly placed scientists whose standings are universally acknowledged (and thus, secure) that can afford to contradict the general trend." [4]

Finally, Binder and Evans make the rather lame claim that we should allow educators to explain to students that Evolution does not teach values, suggesting that "We are not asking teachers to discuss what morality should look like but, rather, to explain that morality does not logically flow from evolutionary theory."

Um... wrong again, and incredibly so. Naturalistic evolution when advocated as a fact beyond question (which is how it is typically presented to students today) cannot help BUT teach a moral view. That would include the notion that if life is the product of chance naturalistic and purposeless processes, then logically none of us have any reason to hold to ANY morals whatsoever, except those which we in a democracy deem necessary for civil co-existence. Whatever your views of morality might be, the notion of not having any moral accountability is significantly different from the implications one might reach if we consider the possibility of a moral accountability to, say, a Creator.

Besides, why should our schools teach as fact an unproven and unfalsifiable notion (like historical evolution) and thereby provide students with an excuse to reach the conclusions of ardent evolutionist Aldous Huxley, who based his life on the premise (fueled by evolutionary assumptions) that he had no moral accountability whatsoever:

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political." [5]

Binder and Evans provide us with a remarkably ignorant assessment of not only the facts, context, and meaning associated with the important issues surrounding this debate, but also offer us vacuous remedies which I hope my readers will recognize as sorely ill advised.

[1] Binder and Evans article can be found online at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/25/AR2008072502792.html?nav=rss_religion

[2] One-third of Americans think evolution is 'definitely false'; over half lean one way or another or aren't sure. Only 14% expressed unequivocal support for evolution. PLoS Biol 4(5): e167 - http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040167

[3] Bergman, Jerry. 2008. Slaughter of the Dissidents, Leafcutter Press, Port Orchard, WA. www.slaughterofthedissidents.com

[4] Cohen, I.L. 1984. Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. New Research Publications, Inc. New York, p.213-214.

[5] Huxley, Aldous. 1937. Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for their Realization. Harper and Brothers, New York, p.270.

***********************************************************
Some of the books that show the depth of how little scientists really know about the evolution of vertebrates include:
***********************************************************

Anderson, Jason S., and Hans-Dieter Sues. 2007. Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution. Indiana University Press

Feduccia, Alan. 1999. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press.

Stahl, Barbara. 1985. Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution. NY: Dover Publications.

Seattle area writer, publisher, and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is the editor and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com) He has investigated and researched issues related to the persecution of Darwin skeptics since 1982.