Culture

This was the Darwin Day video podcast from ID The Future yesterday, but I thought it would be good to highlight it for regular ENV visitors as well. Display content from www.discovery.org Click here to display content from www.discovery.org. Always display content from www.discovery.org Open content directly This special video episode of ID the Future celebrates Darwin Day with a look back at the man and his theory by three scientists and scholars who join in the scientific dissent from evolution. Biologist Jonathan Wells, author and M.D. Geoffrey Simmons, and molecular biologist Douglas Axe shed light on the problems with Darwin’s theory as they share what led each of them to their skepticism. Jonathan Wells first became skeptical of Darwin’s Read More ›

We’re happy to announce the winners of the 2009 Academic Freedom Day Video and Essay Contest. We had lots of great entries, but the judges have narrowed it down and finally selected a Grand Prize overall winner ($500 award), and a 1st place winner ($250 award) in each category. Grand Prize Overall Winner: Joshua Owens, Forth Worth, TX (read the essay here).1st Place Essay Winner: Jaron Daniel Schoone, Amsterdam, The Netherlands (read the essay here).1st Place Video Winner: David Daudelin, Hackettstown, NJ (watch the video here).Essay honorable mention: Sarah Horton, Grove City, PA (read the essay here).Video honorable mention: Brian Miller, Amy Ingermanson, Michael Curtain and Aubrey Burd, Battleground, WA (watch the video here).

The number of fawning pieces about Charles Darwin of late have been overwhelming, to say the least. Likewise the celebrations at biology departments across the country are in full swing today with cake eating contests, Darwin carols, game shows, honorary operas, and even the minting of new money with his likeness in the UK. But there are some over takes on Darwin and his legacy, including a number of articles we’re happy to highlight for your Darwin Day reading pleasure. Enjoy.

Dr. Steven Novella recently took issue with an essay I wrote for Forbes.com. Forbes has a fair survey of differing opinions on Darwin’s theory, which, of course, has angered Darwinists, who realize that the continued viability of Darwin’s theory depends on its insulation from criticism. They censor criticism of Darwinism in schools, and they aren’t happy to see the weaknesses of Darwinism discussed in the public forum, along with its strengths.

In my essay, I reviewed some of the scientific problems with Darwin’s theory, and I pointed out that Darwinism is itself a religious ideology. Darwin’s theory is the creation myth of atheism.

Dr. Novella begins:

From the new Zogby poll this week:

QUESTION: Would you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree that teachers and students should have the academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory?
Strongly agree 54%
Somewhat agree 26%
Total Agree 80%
Somewhat disagree 6%
Strongly disagree 11%
Total Disagree 16%
Not sure 4%

A large majority of respondents (80%) agree that teachers and students should have academic freedom to discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution as a scientific theory, with more than half (54%) saying they strongly agree. Only 16% disagree.

Although the media consistently portray support for the freedom to discuss both sides of the evolution debate as coming primarily from conservative Christians, these poll results show something far different and will shatter some preconceptions about who supports letting students hear a balanced presentation on Darwinian evolution. It turns out that:

Darwinist Dr. Jerry Coyne, in his New Republic article “Seeing and Believing; The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail,” quotes the National Academy of Sciences on the reconciliation of religion and science. The NAS statement is worth a post on its own.

Dr. Coyne notes:

The National Academy of Sciences, America’s most prestigious scientific body, issued a pamphlet assuring us that we can have our faith and Darwin, too:

“Science and religion address separate aspects of human experience. Many scientists have written eloquently about how their scientific studies of biological evolution have enhanced rather than lessened their religious faith. And many religious people and denominations accept the scientific evidence for evolution.”

Science and religion don’t address entirely separate aspects of human experience. There is one truth about the world. The truth about the natural world is obviously a part of metaphysical truth. Science addresses the truth about the natural world, and religion addresses the deeper metaphysical truth. There are no separate magesteria, despite Stephen J. Gould’s spin. If God made the world, then intelligent design is true, assuming that the artifacts of His designing intelligence can be recognized as such. If there is no God, and the world just came to be, then Darwinism is true, because ID and Darwinism are just the affirmative and the negative answer to the same question: is there evidence for design in biology?

This is clear: metaphysical truth determines scientific truth. If there is a designer (metaphysical truth), then intelligent design is true (scientific truth). If there is no designer (metaphysical truth), then Darwinism is true (scientific truth).

From the new Zogby poll this week:

QUESTION: I am going to read you two statements about Biology teachers teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution. Please tell me which statement comes closest to your own point of view–Statement A or Statement B?

Statement A: Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it.
Statement B: Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it.
Statement A 14%
Statement B 78%
Neither 5%
Other/Not sure 2%

A large majority (78%) say Statement B, “Biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it,” comes closest to their point of view, while 14% say Statement A, “Biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it” comes closest to theirs.

The majority supporting teaching both sides of the evolution debate jumped by 9 points since 2006, when this question was last asked:

Results from Zogby nationwide poll in 2006
Statement A 21%
Statement B 69%
Neither/Other/Not sure 10%
Random sample of 1,004 likely voters. Conducted by Zogby International on Feb.27-Mar. 2, 2006. Margin of error +/-3.2%.

This morning the Washington Post’s “On Faith” blog picked up the news about the national Darwin Day poll making waves for teaching evolution, even paying us a nice compliment or two while re-imagining history (for the record, DI’s ed policy has always been to teach the controversy). But the really interesting thing is that they wanted an “expert” opinion on the poll (besides the professionals at Zogby) and so they turned to — who else? — Richard Dawkins:

As their birthday gift to Charles Darwin, yesterday many PBS stations apparently re-aired the “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” movie that they first released in November, 2007. The “documentary” purports to re-tell the story of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, but it portrays an extremely inaccurate, biased, and one-sided view of the case. In this regard, below are some links to responses to the “Judgment Day” that Discovery Institute produced when it first came out in 2007: 

Darwinist Dr. Jerry Coyne, in his New Republic article Seeing and Believing; The never-ending attempt to reconcile science and religion, and why it is doomed to fail”, asks if religion and science can be reconciled. He notes:

…[T]here are religious scientists and Darwinian churchgoers. But this does not mean that faith and science are compatible, except in the trivial sense that both attitudes can be simultaneously embraced by a single human mind. (It is like saying that marriage and adultery are compatible because some married people are adulterers. ) It is also true that some of the tensions disappear when the literal reading of the Bible is renounced, as it is by all but the most primitive of JudeoChristian sensibilities. But tension remains. The real question is whether there is a philosophical incompatibility between religion and science. Does the empirical nature of science contradict the revelatory nature of faith? Are the gaps between them so great that the two institutions must be considered essentially antagonistic? The incessant stream of books dealing with this question suggests that the answer is not straightforward.

Dr. Coyne’ s description of the beliefs of many Christians of the literal truth of the Bible as “the most primitive of JudeoChristian sensibilities” is a perplexing slur. I disagree with young-earth creationists on the time-frame of history and biology, but I don’t believe that their beliefs are “primitive.” They understand Christianity differently than I do, but on the really important question — ‘is there teleology in biology and in the natural world’ — they are exactly right, in my view. I reserve the appellation “primitive” for the utterly unsubstantiated Darwinist belief that human beings arose literally from mud by a random process of ‘survival of survivors.’ Unlike Darwinists, young-earth creationists get the important part — the obvious evidence for design in life — right.

That aside, Dr. Coyne’s sloppy use of the terms ‘religion’ ‘faith,’ ‘science,’ and ‘revelation’ muddle the real issues.