****************************************************
ASLA
00-12 Evolution Opponents Hold Congressional Briefing
****************************************************
On May
10th, a House Judiciary Committee hearing room was the site of a three-hour
briefing on paleontology, biology, and cosmology. Although presentations were
at times quite technical, the speakers were not there to discuss the latest
research in these fields. They were on Capitol Hill to promote intelligent
design (ID) theory, to debunk Darwinian evolutionary theory, and to expose the
negative social impact of Darwinism. Entitled "Scientific Evidence of
Intelligent Design and its Implications for Public Policy and Education,"
the briefing was sponsored by the Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think
tank (http://www.discovery.org), and its Center for the Renewal of Science and
Culture. The afternoon briefing was preceded by a private luncheon in the U.S.
Capitol for Members of Congress and was followed by an evening reception.
Until
now, the creation-evolution debate has primarily been active at the state and
local level, but this event may represent the start of a new effort to involve
Congress in efforts to oppose the teaching of evolution. Whether by chance or
by design, the briefing took place as the Senate entered its second week of
debate on overhauling federal K-12 education programs. Both houses are expected
to work throughout the summer on reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act. More information on that subject is on the AGI website at
http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis106/ike106.html.
***
Creationist and Congressional Heavy Hitters ***
The
briefing featured a number of the leading lights in the ID movement, including
Lehigh University biology professor Michael Behe, author of "Darwin's
Black Box;" Whitworth College philosophy professor Stephen Meyer, who
directs the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture and is a former ARCO
geophysicist; Discovery Institute Fellow Nancy Pearcey, co-author with Chuck
Colson of "How Now Shall We Live?;" and Berkeley law professor
Phillip Johnson, author of "Darwin on Trial." Behe and Meyer spoke
first, focusing on a scientific explanation of ID theory and discussion of the
weaknesses of Darwinian theory. The second two speakers, Pearcey and Johnson,
focused on social and political implications of the competing worldviews
represented by these two theories.
Approximately
50 people attended the briefing, including a handful of congressional staff and
several Members of Congress. The chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee
on the Constitution, Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL), provided the room. Senator Sam
Brownback (R-KS) made remarks comparing the current Kansas social controversy
over evolution to the one spawned by abolitionist John Brown. More significant
was the appearance of Rep. Tom Petri (R-WI), who warmly introduced several of
the speakers. Petri is slated to become chairman of the House Education and the
Workforce Committee in January, replacing retiring chairman Bill Goodling
(R-PA). Other congressional co-hosts listed on the press release included House
Science Committee members Roscoe Bartlett (R-MD) and Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX),
and Education Committee member Mark Souder (R-IN).
***
Empirical Evidence for Design ***
Despite
the presence of congressional heavy hitters, Johnson disavowed any intention of
playing the Washington power game (something he accused scientists of doing)
and emphasized that he and his colleagues were there only to open minds which
had been kept closed by an elite scientific priesthood. All of the speakers
emphasized that this was a debate among scientists, not between science and
religion. They stressed that the idea of design is entirely empirical, that we
recognize it all the time in everyday life and can make the conclusion of
design based wholly on the physical evidence. However, they also recognized
that intelligent design theory has theistic implications.
Unlike
some other creationists, ID supporters accept deep time and indeed argue that
the cosmological big bang is evidence for the existence of something beyond
nature. Like other creationists, however, they argue that the diversity and
complexity of life could not have come about through undirected processes of
natural selection.
Behe
and Meyer emphasized two keystones of ID theory: (1) that an intelligent
designer is the only way to explain irreducibly complex natural systems, which
defy explanation by Darwinian processes; and (2) that information is a third
fundamental entity separate from matter and energy, and information can only
come from a mind. Meyer used this second concept to link ID theory to the new
knowledge-based economy where value comes from information not material
resources. Nearly all the speakers cited a quote by Bill Gates equating DNA
with extremely complex computer code.
The
speakers portrayed ID theory as the logical outcome of the advancement of
science. Both Behe and Meyer repeatedly noted that scientists have been
enormously surprised by the complexity they find in nature -- whereas Darwinism
may have worked within the limited scope of 19th-century scientific
understanding, it cannot handle the much greater complexity that scientists now
recognize.
***
Confronting the Darwinian Worldview ***
Nancy
Pearcey spoke on the worldview implications of Darwinism, noting that many
people apply Darwinism to every walk of life. She cited the book A Natural
History of Rape, which portrayed rape as an evolutionary adaptation strategy
rather than a pathology. She found this example helpful in spelling out the
logical consequences of Darwinism. The key battleground is education, which in
the hands of Darwinists is no longer a search for truth. Instead, ideas are now
merely problem-solving tools.
Pearcey
asked what this means for religion, answering that for the Darwinists, god
becomes merely an idea that appears in the human mind. For Darwinists, religion
must give way to a new science-based cosmic myth with the power to bind humans
together in a new world order. She then asked what this means for morality and
argued that people were right to be concerned that all the above would undercut
morality. She cited a recent popular song urging that "you and me, baby,
ain't nothing but mammals so let's do it like they do on the Discovery
Channel."
Pearcey
went on to explain that the US legal system is based on moral principles and
that the only way to have ultimate moral grounding for law is to have an unjudged
judge, an uncreated creator. Nothing else can take his place. All else can be
challenged in a grand "says who?" She pointed to arguments made by
Michael Sandel of Harvard in his book Democracy's Discontent in which modern
society is portrayed as a struggle between those who think morality is up for
grabs and those who view it as given.
***
Creation Myths and Priesthoods ***
Phillip
Johnson explained that Darwinism is not so much a scientific theory as a
creation story. Every culture has a creation story jealously guarded by a
priesthood. The triumph of Darwinism is the replacement of one priesthood --
the clergy -- with another of scientists and intellectuals, a process now
complete in Europe but still being contested in the US. According to Johnson,
the Darwinian creation story finds its essential support in certain
philosophical rules, the main one being that natural selection has enormous
creative power from bacteria to redwood trees to people. He called it a
marvelous story but asked what it has been seen to do? Change the size of some
finch beaks in the Galapagos Islands? He argued that it has never been seen to
create anything.
Johnson
argued that the scientific priesthood has banished god from allowable
discussion, leaving Darwinism as the only game in town. Intelligent design
cannot be considered because it includes an unevolved intelligence. For the
scientists, it is an offensive thought crime to suggest something other than
Darwinism. Johnson quotes from an ABA Journal article that "to consider ID
in biology would be as blasphemous as Satan worship in church." A curious
repeated theme among the speakers was their surprise at the receptivity in
official Chinese media to ID theory. The point was then made that in China one
can question Darwinism but not the government, whereas in the US one can
question the government but not Darwinism.
Johnson
argued that in order to have an open discussion about the logic of Darwinism,
the question needed to be redefined in order to get beyond the stereotype of
biblical literalists; a genuine intellectual issue needed to be articulated. As
Johnson sees it, the problem is that there are two definitions of science in
our culture: (1) science is unbiased empirical testing and observations that
follow the evidence wherever it leads without prejudice; and (2) science is
applied materialist philosophy which, like Marxism or Freudianism, is willing
to impose its authority.
In
Johnson's view, scientists get public support because they wrap themselves in
the first definition. Supporters of ID theory need to flush out the scientists
true colors by identifying situations where their philosophy of materialism
says one thing but the evidence tells a different story. Once that is on the
table, then the scientists' game is over.
***
What About Religion? ***
All
four speakers were exceedingly cautious in responding to questions about how ID
theory relates to religion. Meyer emphasized that the issue is about two
different scientific theories with large implications for theistic and
naturalistic worldviews. When asked if he was being too tentative about ID
theory not being a proof of god, Meyer replied that using the principle of
uniformitarianism -- that the present is the key to past -- naturalism is
insufficient, and a designer is thus needed. Johnson added that we cannot
conclude from scientific inquiry whether the intelligent designer is indeed the
God of the Bible. The speakers repeatedly emphasized that ID theory is a big
tent that includes Jews and agnostics but all united by the belief that there
is objective truth.
Asked
if there was a critical mass yet of ID supporters among scientists at
universities, Johnson stated that you do not convince the priesthood but
generationally replace them. He argued that demographics are on ID's side --
polls show skepticism about Darwinism so the public at large is sympathetic but
has been disabled by the stereotypes and mind games of the scientific elite.
The people need to be empowered and that is what is happening with the Internet
and talk radio, which takes away control from the scientific gatekeepers.
Johnson's stated objective was to get thousands of young people in the
classroom asking questions of dogmatic professors, and he said that it is
already happening.
AGU's
position statement on the teaching of evolution can be found on AGU's Science
& Policy web page at http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/sci_pol.html.
--------------------
Contributed
by David Applegate, Director, AGI Government Affairs Program
Questions
or comments about ASLA? Need to change
your e-mail address? Contact
pfolger@agu.org