Of Faith and Reason: 2005-10-30

November 2, 2005

by Pete Winn, associate editor

An expert on the origins of life speaks out about Intelligent Design, and the Dover trial.

For the last six weeks, the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover (Pa.) School District has focused on intelligent design — a theory which runs counter to Darwin's theory of evolution.

The suit came in response to the Dover school board voting a year ago to include a statement about intelligent design in classes about evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and contains numerous gaps.

The eight families that sued want intelligent design removed, arguing it's biblical creationism in disguise and therefore violates the separation of church and state.

Final arguments in the case are set for Nov. 4.

CitizenLink spoke with Focus on the Family Action Origins Analyst Mark Hartwig, Ph. D.

Q. Mark, you're an expert in intelligent design (ID) and the origins question. Were you surprised to learn that an article you did called, "Challenging Darwin's Myths," was actually cited in the Dover trial by an expert for the plaintiffs — the people who want to bar intelligent design from school classrooms? What was that about?

A. It was certainly surprising to see my article discussed in a court transcript —and referred to as "Exhibit 360." But I was not at all surprised at the way it was used.

The expert witness you mentioned, philosopher Barbara Forrest, is a longtime activist in the origins controversy. The bulk of her effort has gone toward trying to prove that ID is a "Trojan Horse" for sneaking fundamentalist religion into the public schools. Toward that end, she has been searching for any "incriminating" statements that ID proponents may have made at some point in their lives. Perhaps the most fitting term for this is "Borking."

That's where my article comes in. Her concern was not the substance of the article, which laid out the fundamentals of ID, but the way I described some of its major proponents. In some passages I referred to them as "Christians," "Evangelicals" or "creationists." And these were the "incriminating" passages Forrest highlighted for the court. Substance was apparently irrelevant.

Even worse, the article and the "incriminating" passages are taken out of context. Forrest claims that her work on ID is historical scholarship. But she missed things that should be no-brainers for genuine historians. For example, it never seemed to register that the article was written for a Christian magazine — a market that would naturally be interested in stories about Christians. And in fact, that was my assignment: to write about the latest trends in Christian thinking about origins.

My use of the term "creationist" should also be understood in its historical context. During that time, the ID movement was very much in flux. The movement as a whole was just coming to grips with the fact that ID was a whole new critter that didn't really fit in the creationist domain. In addition, new scholars and scientists were joining the ranks — most of whom would never have joined a "creationist" movement. As a result, our terminology went through a time of transition, where some folks used "creationism," others used "intelligent design" and many used both. But eventually, the term "intelligent design" took hold because it communicated the distinct nature of ID.

Because my article was written during that transition, it naturally reflected the language of the time. That language didn't change to mask a "sinister religious agenda," as Forrest claims. It was simply the result of new ideas taking root.

It would seem that the opponents of intelligent design are not just vehement in their opposition — they are out to eliminate it. You can see that in the Dover trial. They seem to be after all the marbles. Why? And what's at stake with this trial?

This is a make-or-break trial, or at least has that potential. If the Dover district wins — and especially if they win in the Supreme Court — then ID will sweep the country. This is what Darwinists themselves are saying, and they're horrified at the prospect.

If Dover loses, however, ID will be effectively banned from public-school science classrooms. Why? Because the ACLU is arguing that requiring students to learn about ID amounts to "coerced religious practice." This is blatantly false, but if the courts go for it, ID would likely be classed with school prayer and Bible reading.

Is it true that Darwinists and the mainstream scientific community are engaging in a politically correct campaign to silence proponents of intelligent design? If so, why?

It's absolutely true — and it's getting worse. You have cases like Richard Sternberg, a Smithsonian-based researcher who also edited a small, peer-reviewed biology journal. When he allowed a major pro-ID paper to be published, upon approval by three reviewers, his life turned into a nightmare. He was falsely accused of violating the journal's publication policies. His "friends" turned on him, brazenly taunting him to his face and spreading false rumors about him. His superiors questioned him about his religion and a federal investigation confirmed that they tried to drive him out of his job by denying him access to the space and resources he needed for his research.

You also have the University of Idaho, which has recently forbidden any mention of ID in science classes. The ban is clearly directed at Dr. Scott Minnich, a microbiologist and geneticist who is also a leading proponent of ID.

This kind of thing all is going on everywhere. In fact, there's an entire book on it that's still in manuscript. When it comes out, I think people will be amazed at how widespread the harassment is — and how mean.

The question of why is harder to judge, because we don't have access to anyone's mind but our own. But overall, there seems to be a kind of anti-religious hysteria sweeping some segments of our society. There's just a visceral fear and hatred of anything that even whiffs of Christianity.

I first noticed it during the last presidential campaign, and it seemed to surge after Bush's election, which was credited to his conservative Christian base. My best guess is that Bush's victory galvanized long-held anti-Christian stereotypes, causing many folks to drop all pretense of pluralism and join the battle in earnest. And I think it's particularly bad in origins because ID has been so spectacularly successful.

Mark, in simple terms for us laymen, can you explain intelligent design — and what it is?

Actually, there's not a whole lot to explain because it's a natural part of everyone's life. We use it every time we distinguish between things that "just happen" and things that happen "on purpose." It doesn't take an Einstein to tell us that the four faces carved on Mt. Rushmore were put there on purpose. Similarly, we don't need a multi-million dollar study to tell us that a tree-canopy shaped like a bust of Mickey Mouse — like they have at Disneyland — is a human artifact.

ID theory merely takes our natural reasoning and expresses it in more explicit, rigorous terms. It then seeks to apply it in such areas as genetics, cell biology, molecular biology and so on. Of course, that's the part that's got some folks wrapped around the axle, because living organisms were clearly not designed by humans. And if humans didn't make them, then who did? But that's not a problem with ID theory. The real "problem" is reality. Banning ID is simply shooting the messenger.

Look ahead to the future — are proponents of ID winning the debate, or losing it?

We're winning, no question. And I think ID will ultimately prevail — if debated on its merits. But that's exactly what our opponents want to avoid. If they can gain the backing of the judiciary, with its coercive power, then ID is in for hard times —not because it lost the debate, but because debate was outlawed.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
To learn more about Intelligent Design, we recommend Hartwig's article, "Missing Evidence."