Following is the response of a member of congress to the protesting
professors of Baylor. I predict most Americans will eventually react
similarly to attempts to dismiss ID as "creationism". So keep up the good
work Susan.
Bertvan
http://www.arn.org/docs/idushouse_700.htm
Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I received a letter that was written by
seven members of the biology department and one professor of psychology from
Baylor University in response to my co-hosting a recent conference on
intelligent design, the theory that an intelligent agency can be detected in
nature, sponsored by the Discovery Institute.
The professors denounced intelligent design as pseudo science and advocated
what is bluntly called the materialistic approach to science.
Mr. Speaker, I am appalled that any university seeking to discover truth, yet
alone a university that is a Baptist Christian school, could make the kinds
of statements that are contained in this letter. Is there position on
teaching about materialistic science so weak that it cannot withstand
scrutiny and debate?
Intelligent design theory is upheld by the same kind of data and analysis as
any other theory to determine whether an event is caused by natural or
intelligent causes; just as a detective relies on evidence to decide whether
a death was natural or murder, and an insurance company relies on evidence to
decide whether a fire is an accident or arson. A scientist looking at, say,
the structure of a DNA molecule goes through exactly the same reasoning to
decide whether the DNA code is the result of natural causes or an intelligent
agent.
Today, qualified scientists are reaching the conclusion that design theory
makes better sense of the data. Influential new books are coming out by
scientists like molecular biologist Behe, Darwin's Black Box, the Free Press,
and mathematician William Dembski, The Design Interference, Cambridge
University Press, which point out the problems with Darwinian evolution and
highlight evidence for intelligent design in the university.
The tone of the letter I received seems to suggest that my congressional
colleagues and I were unsuspecting honorary co-hosts in a conference on
intelligent design. That is not the case. My good friend, the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Canady), chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the
Constitution has considered holding a congressional hearing on the bias and
viewpoint discrimination in science and science education. Ideological bias
has no place in science and many of us in Congress do not want the government
to be party to it.
The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Canady) approached several people, including
the Discovery Institute, about plans for such a hearing. The people at
Discovery suggested that instead we allow them merely to put on a modest
informational briefing on intelligent design. That is exactly what happened,
and we regarded the result as very valuable.
Nevertheless, many of us continue to be concerned about the unreasoning
viewpoint discrimination in science. This letter dismisses those who do not
share the philosophy of science favored by the authors as frauds. It is
ironic, however, that the authors do not ever actually get around to
answering the substantive arguments put forward by people at the Discovery
Institute. The authors support a philosophy of science they call
materialistic science. The key phrase in the letter is that we cannot
consider God's role in the natural phenomenon we observe. Yet this assumption
is merely asserted without any argument.
How can the authors of this letter be so confident that God plays no role in
the observable world? Once we acknowledge that God exists, as these
professors presumably do since they teach as a Christian university, there is
no logical way to rule out the possibility that God may actually do something
within the universe He created.
In addition, the philosophy of science the authors talk about is just that, a
philosophy. It is not itself science, even according to the definition of
science put forward by the authors themselves. They state, for example, that
all observations must be explained through empirical observations. I am not
sure what that means but I do know this: This statement itself is not
verifiable by observation or by methods of scientific inquiry. It is rather a
philosophical statement.
If they prefer it to the alternative that they suppose it advanced by the
Discovery Institute folks, then the preference itself cannot be based on
science. It is a difference of philosophy, but they are biologists not
philosophers. They have no special authority in philosophy, even the
philosophy of science.
Even more egregiously, they say that God cannot be proved or disproved. Now
there is a philosophical statement for you. Of course many philosophers agree
with it, but there are philosophers of stature who disagree with it, too. Why
should the philosophical viewpoint of a group of biologists enjoy privileged
status?
And then there was Darwinism. This letter treats Darwinism as a
straightforwardly scientific position despite the criticism advanced by many
responsible, informed people that Darwinism itself rests not on demonstrable
facts but rather on controversial philosophical premises. In other words,
serious people make a case against Darwinism, precisely the case that
Baylor's biologists themselves are trying to make against intelligent design.
Yet the Baylor biologists simply ignore these criticisms. One senses here not
a defense of science but rather an effort to protect, by political means, a
privileged philosophical viewpoint against a serious challenge.
In digging into this matter further, it turns out that an international
conference related to this topic, the Nature of Nature, was held recently at
Baylor University. It was hosted by the Polanyi Center at Baylor and
sponsored by the Discovery Institute and the John Templeton Foundation. A
number of world-class scientists participated in the event, and contrary to
the assertions made in this letter, advocates of intelligent design, as well
as materialism, presented their ideas publicly. The authors of this letter
have been part of an intense effort to close down that center, which was
founded in part to explore these issues.
I would like to insert the rest of this statement in the Record, as well as
the letter from the professors at Baylor University.
I would like to reference the words of the Israeli statesman, Shimon Peres:
He said, "Science and lies cannot coexist. You don't have a scientific lie,
and you cannot lie scienifically. Science is basically the search of
truth--known, unknown, discovered, undiscovered--and a system that does not
permit the search for truth cannot be a scientific system. Then again,
science must operate in freedom. You cannot have free research in a society
that doesn't enjoy freedom. . . . So in a strange way, science carries with
it a color of transparency, of openness, which is the beginning of democracy
. . ."
Dr. Bruce Alberts, President of the National Academy of Sciences made a
recent speech where he said "Scientists, as practitioners, teach important
values. These include honesty, an eagerness for new ideas, the sharing of
knowledge for public benefit, and a respect for evidence that requires
verification by others. These 'behaviors of science' make science a catalyst
for democracy. Science and democracy promote similar freedoms. Science and
democracy accommodate, and are strengthened by, dissent. Science's
requirement of proof resembles democracy's system of justice. Democracy is
buttressed by science's values. And science is nurtured by democracy's
principles."
There seems to be a tension between science as democratic, welcoming new
ideas and dissent--and science as a lobby group, seeking to impose its
viewpoint upon others. As the Congress, it might be wise for us to question
whether the legitimate authority of science over scientific matters is being
misused by persons who wish to identify science with a philosophy they
prefer. Does the scientific community really welcome new ideas and dissent,
or does it merely pay lip service to them while imposing a materialist
orthodoxy?
Only a small percentage of Americans think the universe and life can be
explained adequately in purely materialistic terms. Even fewer think real
debate on the issue ought to be publicly suppressed.
I ask my colleagues to join with me in putting aside unfounded fears to
explore the evidence and truthfulness of the theories that are being
presented by those on both sides of this debate. I want to thank Philip
Johnson of the University of California at Berkeley, Robert * * * of
Princeton University, and others in drafting this response.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 12:57:36 EDT