2008 Woodie Awards
Origin debate frustrates student
Aaron Vandenbos
Guest Opinion
Issue date: 3/12/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 1
As a supporter of Intelligent Design, the most frustrating facet of the origins controversy is the insistence by materialists to always frame the debate as science vs. religion.
Such was the case last Wednesday night at the ACLU fundraiser debate between local conservative activist Bryan Fischer and ACLU attorney Vic Walczak, one of three attorneys to soundly win last year’s Dover court case about the teaching of ID in public schools.
Time after time, Walczak sidestepped every important point presented by Fischer by releasing the “creationist chestnut” countermeasures. I began to wonder if he had an obsessive pre-occupation with squirrels.
For instance, Fischer brought up the (late) famous paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, who published a paper in the late 1970s admitting that the absence of transitional fossils in the record was the “trade secret” of paleontology. Walczak’s incredibly intelligent response included interrupting Fischer to snidely proclaim “He’s dead! (no … really!?), and then dismiss the whole thing as just more “creationist chestnuts.” Admittedly, Gould published his findings almost 30 years ago, and there are fossils that are allegedly identified as “transitional” (such as archaeopteryx).
However, dissenters from Darwinism are right to be skeptical about the degree to which the fossil record supports common descent. Gould concedes in the same paper that the nodes and tips of the evolutionary tree are supported by fossils, but not the branches in between. This is a valid criticism, not a chestnut; besides, if indeed all life did arise from a common ancestor, no-one should be relying on National Geographic to reconstruct missing links from some chunks of bone; they should be numerous and self-evident. Amazingly, Walczak was also bold enough to assert that allowing ID into public schools would take science back to the dark ages. This would be news to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Kelvin, Boyle and Farraday, not to mention the majority of contemporary scientists whose research would go merrily on if evolution were discarded. (I know, I know, I have a poor understanding of what science really is.)
But, the real kicker, and the grand finale of the evening, came when Fischer read a quote from University of Minnesota Biology professor Paul Myers regarding ID that reads: “‘The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians.’ I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.” Just so everyone completely understands the situation, this Darwinist is calling for another inquisition, a new age of McCarthyism directed at proponents of ID.
The pro-ACLU crowd (which included some BSU biology professors) shocked me when they actually started clapping in support. Is this the face of tolerance and diversity? Is this the free exchange of ideas that is becoming of a metropolitan research university of distinction?
Ever the optimist, I see that the bright side of this little Darwinian sacrament was to prove beyond any doubt that the followers of Darwinism are themselves very religious, and very dogmatically opposed to any view other than their own. If it were conceded that ID is indeed religious, based on last Wednesday night no satisfactory argument could be offered that would demonstrate that evolutionists are any less so.
Aaron Vandenbos is a student at Boise State
Such was the case last Wednesday night at the ACLU fundraiser debate between local conservative activist Bryan Fischer and ACLU attorney Vic Walczak, one of three attorneys to soundly win last year’s Dover court case about the teaching of ID in public schools.
Time after time, Walczak sidestepped every important point presented by Fischer by releasing the “creationist chestnut” countermeasures. I began to wonder if he had an obsessive pre-occupation with squirrels.
For instance, Fischer brought up the (late) famous paleontologist Stephen J. Gould, who published a paper in the late 1970s admitting that the absence of transitional fossils in the record was the “trade secret” of paleontology. Walczak’s incredibly intelligent response included interrupting Fischer to snidely proclaim “He’s dead! (no … really!?), and then dismiss the whole thing as just more “creationist chestnuts.” Admittedly, Gould published his findings almost 30 years ago, and there are fossils that are allegedly identified as “transitional” (such as archaeopteryx).
However, dissenters from Darwinism are right to be skeptical about the degree to which the fossil record supports common descent. Gould concedes in the same paper that the nodes and tips of the evolutionary tree are supported by fossils, but not the branches in between. This is a valid criticism, not a chestnut; besides, if indeed all life did arise from a common ancestor, no-one should be relying on National Geographic to reconstruct missing links from some chunks of bone; they should be numerous and self-evident. Amazingly, Walczak was also bold enough to assert that allowing ID into public schools would take science back to the dark ages. This would be news to Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Kelvin, Boyle and Farraday, not to mention the majority of contemporary scientists whose research would go merrily on if evolution were discarded. (I know, I know, I have a poor understanding of what science really is.)
But, the real kicker, and the grand finale of the evening, came when Fischer read a quote from University of Minnesota Biology professor Paul Myers regarding ID that reads: “‘The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians.’ I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It’s time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots.” Just so everyone completely understands the situation, this Darwinist is calling for another inquisition, a new age of McCarthyism directed at proponents of ID.
The pro-ACLU crowd (which included some BSU biology professors) shocked me when they actually started clapping in support. Is this the face of tolerance and diversity? Is this the free exchange of ideas that is becoming of a metropolitan research university of distinction?
Ever the optimist, I see that the bright side of this little Darwinian sacrament was to prove beyond any doubt that the followers of Darwinism are themselves very religious, and very dogmatically opposed to any view other than their own. If it were conceded that ID is indeed religious, based on last Wednesday night no satisfactory argument could be offered that would demonstrate that evolutionists are any less so.
Aaron Vandenbos is a student at Boise State
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 28
Tim
posted 3/12/07 @ 2:49 AM MST
IS AARON VANDERBOS MISREPRESENTING STEPHEN JAY GOULD THROUGH "DESIGN OR STUPIDITY"?
Gould was infuriated at this misrepresentation, by Creationists, of his work and stated:
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists--whether though design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. (Continued…)
Joe Blough
posted 3/12/07 @ 3:20 AM MST
"As a supporter of Intelligent Design, the most frustrating facet of the origins controversy is the insistence by materialists to always frame the debate as science vs. (Continued…)
Tim
posted 3/12/07 @ 8:18 AM MST
I would be interested to know how ID is not religion when it is "just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory" according to leading ID-advocate William Dembski (who currently works at a small seminary). (Continued…)
Infidel57
posted 3/12/07 @ 9:05 AM MST
I can understand why Vandenbos would be frustrated. It's really galling when people won't buy into your falsehoods and aren't even very polite about it. (Continued…)
tim2
posted 3/12/07 @ 1:02 PM MST
Here's a quote from Francis Collins - Scientist, Christian, and head of the Human Genome Project:
"The evidence mounts every day to support the concept that we and all other organisms on this planet are descended from a common ancestor," . (Continued…)
Thinker
posted 3/12/07 @ 2:08 PM MST
Gotta love those peacful and tolerant ACLU supporters. Classic!
Jay Kanta
posted 3/12/07 @ 2:50 PM MST
If biologists began studying ID in conjunction with evolution, America would cease any chance it has to be on top of the technological advances. It would slowly dissolve as the scientists, engineers, good doctors and many others just packed up their stuff and moved away. (Continued…)
Jay Kanta
posted 3/12/07 @ 7:09 PM MST
Well Dave, I'm glad you asked, even if your tone was snide.
The modern antibiotic would not have been developed. Evolving AI systems that would never mathematically conclude without the theories of mutation, reproduction and cloning. (Continued…)
Scott Beach
posted 3/13/07 @ 12:13 AM MST
Intelligent design can be stated as a scientific hypothesis: Intelligent design is the assertion that an intelligent designer designed and created the universe. (Continued…)
Blah
posted 3/13/07 @ 2:27 AM MST
There is no scientifically testable theory of ID. That became apparent during the Dover trial. Hell, even Phillip Johnson, the father of the modern ID movement, admitted it in the Spring 2006 issue of the Berkeley Science Review:
"I also don't think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. (Continued…)
Post a Comment