Spring Break
Evolution is just as religious as Intelligent Design
AARON VANDENBOS
Guest Opinion
Issue date: 2/1/07 Section: Opinion
Whenever there arises a discussion on the origins issue (as in intelligent design versus evolution), Darwinian materialists invariably go to great lengths to frame the discussion as science versus religion, despite the scientific validity of opposing arguments and scientific credentials of those who propone them.
Any doubts raised about Darwinian evolution are automatically attributed to religious motivations that cannot possibly be rooted in fact. What is worse is that these doubts are dismissed without consideration and the scientist/teacher who raised them is blacklisted. You won’t see this on the nightly news, and the ACLU surely will turn a blind eye, but high school science teachers have been fired for assigning students material from mainline scientific journals that questioned aspects – mere aspects, not even the overarching theory – of evolution.
Why this academic intolerance? Why this – I can’t help myself, it’s the hot buzzword – hate of an opposing theory? If evolutionary theory was so patently established in true science and intelligent design theory was so patently established in pure religion, then why is it that treatment of this issue in the popular press betrays the deeply religious commitment that most evolutionists have to Darwin’s theory?
In my experience, IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. On the other hand, I have noticed that evolutionists tend to spend most of their time questioning their opponents’ credibility, belittling their opponents’ intelligence, demolishing straw men and then doing victory laps.
For instance, after writing an opinion piece about intelligent design pointing out common misconceptions I was rebuked in a subsequent response that I “had a poor understanding of what science is.” Now, I certainly do not claim to be an expert by any means, but as far as science is concerned, my GPA can’t get any higher. Does that count for anything? Apparently not, considering my origin’s views. Unfortunately this is the typical treatment for all dissenters from Darwinism. I am viewed as a poor scientist because I do not adhere to evolution and I do not adhere to evolution because I am a poor scientist. Interesting, isn’t it?
Evolutionists have won a great battle in the culture wars by defining science as it suits their purpose. Many people know that a literal interpretation of science is knowledge, yet the vast majority of evolutionists hold to a definition of science that presupposes purely naturalistic mechanisms, deliberately excluding non-naturalistic explanations.
In other words, the war is won by default before it has even begun.
Yet what if some supreme intelligence is the cause behind everything we see? What if God is the creator? If this were the case, the truth is a supernatural event, not a natural mechanism.
Thus, not only would the supposed conclusions of “science” be false, but they would be false by default because the assumptions that they are based on would be false also. I certainly don’t advocate the position of “I’m right no matter what science says!” but “science says” is not as black and white as it is made out to be.
We all live on the same earth; we all have the same raw data. The conclusions drawn from this data can be varied depending on the assumptions with which the data is viewed. We have all seen the detailed paintings of early man in National Geographic based on only the most rigorous science … a few bone fragments, actually. Hopefully no one seriously believes that arriving at fully-formed “missing links” from some small fossils is actually predicated on sound science. To be sure, the end result is influenced by ideology despite being published in a prestigious periodical.
In conclusion, all I’d like to see is a level playing field. It is slanderously misleading for materialistic evolutionists to claim that intelligent design is motivated purely by religion, but they themselves are unsullied by contemptuous philosophical leanings. Everyone is biased; everyone’s conclusions are influenced by his bias.
Aaron Vandenbos is a student at Boise State.
Any doubts raised about Darwinian evolution are automatically attributed to religious motivations that cannot possibly be rooted in fact. What is worse is that these doubts are dismissed without consideration and the scientist/teacher who raised them is blacklisted. You won’t see this on the nightly news, and the ACLU surely will turn a blind eye, but high school science teachers have been fired for assigning students material from mainline scientific journals that questioned aspects – mere aspects, not even the overarching theory – of evolution.
Why this academic intolerance? Why this – I can’t help myself, it’s the hot buzzword – hate of an opposing theory? If evolutionary theory was so patently established in true science and intelligent design theory was so patently established in pure religion, then why is it that treatment of this issue in the popular press betrays the deeply religious commitment that most evolutionists have to Darwin’s theory?
In my experience, IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. On the other hand, I have noticed that evolutionists tend to spend most of their time questioning their opponents’ credibility, belittling their opponents’ intelligence, demolishing straw men and then doing victory laps.
For instance, after writing an opinion piece about intelligent design pointing out common misconceptions I was rebuked in a subsequent response that I “had a poor understanding of what science is.” Now, I certainly do not claim to be an expert by any means, but as far as science is concerned, my GPA can’t get any higher. Does that count for anything? Apparently not, considering my origin’s views. Unfortunately this is the typical treatment for all dissenters from Darwinism. I am viewed as a poor scientist because I do not adhere to evolution and I do not adhere to evolution because I am a poor scientist. Interesting, isn’t it?
Evolutionists have won a great battle in the culture wars by defining science as it suits their purpose. Many people know that a literal interpretation of science is knowledge, yet the vast majority of evolutionists hold to a definition of science that presupposes purely naturalistic mechanisms, deliberately excluding non-naturalistic explanations.
In other words, the war is won by default before it has even begun.
Yet what if some supreme intelligence is the cause behind everything we see? What if God is the creator? If this were the case, the truth is a supernatural event, not a natural mechanism.
Thus, not only would the supposed conclusions of “science” be false, but they would be false by default because the assumptions that they are based on would be false also. I certainly don’t advocate the position of “I’m right no matter what science says!” but “science says” is not as black and white as it is made out to be.
We all live on the same earth; we all have the same raw data. The conclusions drawn from this data can be varied depending on the assumptions with which the data is viewed. We have all seen the detailed paintings of early man in National Geographic based on only the most rigorous science … a few bone fragments, actually. Hopefully no one seriously believes that arriving at fully-formed “missing links” from some small fossils is actually predicated on sound science. To be sure, the end result is influenced by ideology despite being published in a prestigious periodical.
In conclusion, all I’d like to see is a level playing field. It is slanderously misleading for materialistic evolutionists to claim that intelligent design is motivated purely by religion, but they themselves are unsullied by contemptuous philosophical leanings. Everyone is biased; everyone’s conclusions are influenced by his bias.
Aaron Vandenbos is a student at Boise State.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 48
Kevin
posted 1/31/07 @ 10:15 PM MST
First thing is first, the current theory of evolution does not take a stance on what created the first life on earth. Therfore, evolution and intelligent design are compatible. (Continued…)
B-Rad
posted 1/31/07 @ 10:29 PM MST
Stay in school and quit repeating the same tired claptrap that comes out of the Discovery Institute.
You say, "IDists, knowing that they are the underdog, are careful to be objective and factual. (Continued…)
Scooter the mighty
Scooter the Mighty
posted 2/01/07 @ 8:35 AM MST
Your article is just a bunch of unsupported rightwing nonsense. Where is your evidence for any of your claims? What teachers have been fired for questioning evolution? What scientific data supports ID?
You complain about being viewed as a poor scientist, and yet you think that the test of a good scientist is GPA. (Continued…)
derdag
posted 2/01/07 @ 10:17 AM MST
That is derdagianism. And, You are 100% right about that.
Thank You
Shadowin
Shadowin
posted 2/01/07 @ 10:45 AM MST
The author of this article likes to bemoan that he's considered a bad scientist despite his GPA. He then goes on to show his ignorance of science, proving the point of his naysayers. (Continued…)
Inez
posted 2/01/07 @ 12:46 PM MST
I've read about a Jillion of these whining articles about how ID is being suppressed, but never a one that includes actual evidence in support of ID. Why is it that the vast "Darwinism" conspiricy is able to crush all the evidence against evolution, but not any of the articles exposing their conspiricy? It really is curious. (Continued…)
Vanessa
posted 2/01/07 @ 1:23 PM MST
WOW, you're right! And while we're at it, why do academics keep insisting that the earth is round, and that gravity exists? Gravity is just a theory, after all. (Continued…)
Paul
posted 2/01/07 @ 2:32 PM MST
All of these comments have just proven what the author has written about, in the few articles posted there has been only a few real arguments in the midst of an Ad Hominem mess. (Continued…)
Kevin
posted 2/01/07 @ 3:59 PM MST
When people are arguing, it should be known that there can be several levels of reason being employed. For example, there are arguments that don't cite needed evidence; arguments that are not of a valid form--hence even if all of the premises are true the conclusion can still be false; separate arguments by the same person, some of which are sound while others are not--don't think because someone has a few good arguments, the rest are good; and of course, arguments that are based on faulty evidence. (Continued…)
Kevin
posted 2/01/07 @ 4:15 PM MST
The reader of arguments like the ones found here should be aware of a few basics of logic before coming to any conclusions. So, here are some things to be aware of:
Find out if an argument's premises fully support its conclusion. (Continued…)
Post a Comment