Here is an op-ed piece by Jonathan Wells, one of the ID movement's
leaders, reporting on a round-table discussion between ID advocates
and Darwinists.
That the discussion even took place is remarkable, given the scientific
naturalists prejudice against all forms of `creationism', and it shows the
steady progress that ID is making in becoming accepted as a legitimate
area of scientific investigation.
Note that contrary to Chris's recent claim, "Darwinian evolution" (whether
in its pure form or not) *is* claimed to be "the consensus of the scientific
community".
Steve
=====================================================
http://www.cjonline.com/stories/112199/opi_science.shtml
Topeka Capital-Journal
Opinions Tuesday, 23-Nov-99 15:28:38
[...]
All forms of science designed for discussion
Since Darwin's theory has as many religious implications as the theory of
intelligent design, it is not possible to demarcate the two on the grounds
that one is science and the other is religion.
By JONATHAN WELLS
Special to The Capital-Journal
An event of national significance took place Nov. 4 at Washburn
University. Scientists, philosophers, lawyers and educators met to discuss
one of the most controversial topics in America today -- how state-
supported schools should teach Darwinian evolution.
The event was remarkable because -- despite a highly charged atmosphere
dominated by media misrepresentations and dire warnings from the
academic community -- opposing views in the controversy were given
equal time in an academic forum. This was largely the achievement of
Washburn University President Jerry Farley, Topeka trial lawyer Pedro
Luis Irigonegaray and Washburn University staff member Bob Stoller, all
of whom are committed to free speech under the First Amendment. Most
people might be surprised to learn that open discussions on this topic are
rare in American educational institutions. On Nov. 4, Washburn University
showed how it can be done.
The roundtable discussion was hard-hitting, but civil. One party maintained
that evolution is so well-established that it may be called a scientific fact,
and that its critics are biblical fundamentalists who want to replace
empirical science with religious dogma. Another party maintained that
Darwin's theory is really an anti-religious philosophy masquerading as
science, and that the evidence is more consistent with the scientific theory
of intelligent design.
The defenders of Darwinian evolution argued that their view is the
consensus of the scientific community, and claimed that there is no
substantial evidence against it. They criticized the Kansas State Board of
Education for ignoring the recommendation of its own 27-member
committee by adopting science standards that did not include
macroevolution -- the theory that all living things originated through the
Darwinian process of random variations and natural selection. They also
maintained that intelligent design is a religious "Trojan horse" that would
open the door to all sorts of bizarre beliefs.
The advocates of intelligent design countered that the biological evidence
presents serious problems for macroevolution. For example, all the major
types of animals appeared at the same time in the fossil record, with no
evidence of common ancestry -- a pattern inconsistent with Darwin's
theory.
They also argued that complex organs that cannot function without all their
parts provide evidence for intelligent design. Speculations about the nature
of the designer, however, go beyond the realm of science, and defenders of
intelligent design insisted they are not proposing to teach religion in the
science classroom.
Finally, Darwin's theory has religious implications. The textbook used to
teach evolutionary biology at the University of Kansas claims that
"biological phenomena, including those seemingly designed, can be
explained by purely material causes, rather than by divine creation." Since
Darwin's theory has as many religious implications as the theory of
intelligent design, it is not possible to demarcate the two on the grounds
that one is science and the other is religion.
Everyone agreed that the First Amendment prohibits the state from
establishing one religious viewpoint to the exclusion of others, and that it
guarantees freedom of speech.
The Darwinians argued that the "establishment clause" rules out intelligent
design as an alternative theory of origins because of its religious
implications. But the intelligent design advocates argued that the privileged
status of Darwinism in state-supported schools, together with its anti-
religious implications, make it an established religion. Furthermore, since
both Darwinism and intelligent design have religious implications, the "free
speech clause" makes the exclusion of intelligent design a form of
unconstitutional "viewpoint discrimination." The only proper course is to
"teach the controversy" by exposing students to both sides.
By the end of the evening, it was clear that the controversy was not about
defending empirical science from biblical fundamentalism. Scientifically,
what little evidence was presented challenged Darwinian evolution and
favored intelligent design; philosophically, Darwinian evolution was shown
to have as many implications for religion as intelligent design; and legally,
teaching Darwinism while excluding other views in state-supported schools
could not be justified on First Amendment grounds.
Ignoring these considerations, a panelist who had the last word concluded
that Darwinian evolution deserves its privileged status because it is the
consensus of biologists. This struck many people in the audience as odd,
because I was the only biologist on the panel, and I had argued that the
evidence does not support Darwin's theory. (The scientist on the pro-
Darwin side was a psychologist.)
I later learned that Washburn University biologists had been invited to
participate, but declined because they didn't want to provide a platform for
creationism. They thereby reflected a nationwide tendency among
Darwinians to demonize their critics rather than deal with the issues.
They also made it clear that a "consensus" exists only because Darwinians
refuse to tolerate any dissent.
As the Washburn roundtable discussion showed, however, the strategy of
sweeping the controversy under the rug is not working. The public clearly
saw that there are important unanswered questions here. First, is the
biological evidence more consistent with Darwinian evolution or intelligent
design? If the latter, is it proper for Darwinians to decide the matter in their
favor by redefining "science" to exclude design? Second, does Darwinian
evolution have religious implications? If so, are state-supported institutions
acting unconstitutionally when they teach Darwinism to the exclusion of
other views? These are serious questions for empirical science and
constitutional government. Pretending they do not exist will not make them
go away.
The Washburn University roundtable discussion can serve as an example
for all American high schools and colleges. Students should be taught the
controversy and encouraged to discuss the issues. No dogma, scientific or
religious, belongs in a science classroom. Instead of being indoctrinated in
Darwinism, as they are now, students should be provided with the
resources to think critically about it. The result will be better scientists and
better citizens.
Jonathan Wells is a post-doctoral biologist in the Department of Molecular
and Cell Biology, University of California, Berkeley, and a senior fellow in
the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, Discovery Institute,
Seattle.
[...]
=====================================================
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"To say that there is a *complete consensus among scientists that evolution
has occurred* does not mean there is complete understanding of the
underlying mechanisms, or ways, in which evolution has occurred. Far
from it. While evolution is a fact, how it occurs will always be the subject
of debate. This is the fascination of science. To put it another way, there is
no dispute about the *fact* that evolution has occurred but there is dispute
among scientists about *how* it has occurred." (Price B., "The Creation
Science Controversy", Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8. Emphasis in
original.)
Stephen E. Jones | sejones@iinet.net.au | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------