Friday, October 21, 2005

Far From 1920's Fundamentalists

Michael Powell has another article evaluating the Kitzmiller v. Dover case. The title gives the gist- "No Easy Victory Ensues in Legal Battle Over Evolution" with the sub-title "Intelligent Design Theorists Far From 1920s Fundamentalists."

It contains this acknowledgement:

The small band of scientists who publicly support intelligent design are able debaters, and, as became clear when Behe took the stand, they do not sound remotely like William Jennings Bryan, the lawyer who eight decades ago in Tennessee invoked biblical authority to decry evolution.

Behe began by rattling off the names of prominent scientists, many of whom are not advocates of intelligent design, who questioned key aspects of evolutionary theory and noted that there is scant evidence for large mutational leaps. Then he read aloud from a paper written by an evolutionary biologist, whose theorizing was peppered with "maybe" and "might have" and "probably."

The article also notes:

It has been hailed as another Scopes "Monkey Trial," in which the forces of science would again vanquish those who would inject religion into the science classroom. But as the trial in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg reached a midpoint this week, victory has proven elusive.

What appears clear from this article is that even the mainstream media are beginning to see that as responsible journalists, they can no longer discuss every public debate or hearing or trial in terms of the social dynamics of the Scopes trial, or the mythology of Inherit the Wind. This trial and most of the current debates are miles different from that trial in so many ways. Powell does not mention the biggest difference: it is the pro-Darwin lobbyists who are trying to suppress and censor free inquiry, subvert a free marketplace of ideas and ban a book. The ID folks just want kids to hear all the relevant facts and arguments. In the Dover case, we are only talking about students hearing a one minute invitation to do additional, optional personal study on their own, outside of regular classroom time.


At October 21, 2005 3:04 PM, Anonymous RA said...

Actually one minute is not enough to document even a survey course on all the science that says evoultion is impossible.

Its like socialism vs a free market. You can make a reasonable case for socialism in a couple of cleche'd paragraphs. To understand why the free market is far superior to socialism takes time and lots of documentation.

This is why young people get introduced to socialism and fall in love. Its not until they get a real job that they see the advantages of capitalism.

Equal time is fair. Total censorship and the promotion of lies like "Evolution is not a theory, its a fact" is immoral and very unscientific.

At October 22, 2005 11:32 AM, Blogger Bob Davis said...

Evolution and Intelligent Design are really just two sides of the same coin, easily reconciliable, mutually non-exclusive, and fundamentally irreparable. This is what must be understood by all children of the future in the United States for them to be able to grow up scientifically eligible for competition in the free world.

a modest experiment

At October 24, 2005 4:43 PM, Anonymous RA said...

Bob.... I'm affraid the the science we know today says evolution is statistically impossible. It is nothing more than a humanist statement of faith.

Our children need to be taught the scientific evidence that supports and refutes evolution. That is what children need to advance in science. Not humanist religion.


Post a Comment

<< Home