Interlock PrayerNet

INTELLIGENT DESIGN: The Latest Battle in a Long War by Larry Stout

About every ten or fifteen years or so, another controversy relating to the teaching of evolution comes up in the courts.  This time it is from Dover, Pennsylvania, a small town not far from the famous Gettysburg Battlefield site – and it appears that yet another conflict in this long-running war of ideas is on the way. 

The catalyst was a school board decision that required ninth grade teachers to read a brief statement about intelligent design to students before classes on evolution. It says Charles Darwin's theory is "not a fact" and has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook for more information.  As incredible as it seems, that is what all the hubbub is about.

I have had an interesting evolution of sorts in my intellectual quest to understand the science of origins.  It began during a General Science course required for liberal arts majors at Indiana University of Pennsylvania in 1971.  Dr. Fugett, an incredible teacher, walked into the class of about 100+ students and told us to look at the footnote on page 666 of our textbook. (I am not making that up!)  The footnote said, in effect, that evolution was no longer a theory but a proven fact, and that all credible scientists agreed on that point.  He simply asked for a show of hands, who disagreed with that statement.  I was the only person to raise my hand.

I was asked to defend my position and my total knowledge of creationism at that time consisted of the reading of one tract, so I pretty much referred to the design of nature as my evidence.  One by one, my fellow students ripped me to shreds.  It went on for the entire class period.  Mercifully, the bell sounded ending the class.  Dr. Fuget had not said a word outside of his original question at the beginning.  But as we were getting up to leave, he noted, “Well, this has been an interesting discussion today.  I just want you all to know that evolution is NOT a proven fact, and in fact, is not even a very good theory.”  Everyone was rather stunned, not the least of which was me.  Thanks a lot, I thought, for letting me get roasted for an hour. 

But now I sympathize with Dr. Fugett.  That was probably the furthest he could get away with challenging evolution.  In today’s public education system, both at the secondary level and in higher education, to question evolution is tantamount to intellectual suicide.  I remember hearing Dr. Gary Parker tell a story about a lecture he was giving on the fossil evidence against evolution at Fresno State University.  One student stood up to challenge him, “Dr. Parker, I have graduated from this university and I am currently in graduate studies.  I have studied science all my life, and this is the first time I have heard anything like this.  If it is true, why have I not been exposed to this before now?”

Dr. Parker answered, “Well, I am afraid that you have lived in the sheltered environment of state-run education. Others who attend more enlightened educational institutions, such as a Christian school or college, are well aware of what I have shared with you today.”  The student was not amused, but the point hit home. 

The reaction in the former Soviet Union was different.  They knew they had been deprived of new ideas and were very anxious to hear them.  I spoke in early 1992 at the Daugavpils Pedagogical University on Christian education, and a biology professor asked me specifically how the Bible could be viewed in light of evolution, and I presented a very brief overview of the creationist model.  After the lecture, the professor came up and invited me to speak to his class.  I realized I was in over my head, but accepted the invitation anyway.  Fortunately, I was scheduled the following week to attend a conference in England and hoped that I would be able to pick up some resources while there.  I saw a book that intrigued me in a pastor’s library and begged him to lend it to me.  My host mentioned that he knew the author of the book, Malcolm Bowden, and I was able to contact him by telephone. I invited him to take my place at Daugavpils, and surprisingly, he accepted.  What I did not know until later was that Malcolm had been praying about going to Eastern Europe for some time and was only waiting for the chance.  He spoke for two days, and the impact was so great that a creationist society was birthed out of the talks. 

The battle is America is different, however.  Creationism has two strikes against it; it is viewed as deriving from a biblical base (not empirically derived, hence not scientific), and since it agrees with the Bible, it appears to violate the perceived notion that evolution is the only theory that can properly be taught due to the separation of church and state in the American system.  

Intelligent-design, however, is not as easy a target for the evolutionist camp as traditional creationism has been in the past.  The ID idea did come from the Christian camp, but was largely birthed from one Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. (It is fun to note that the ‘birth’ of Intelligent Design came out of Bethlehem…)  His book written in 1998, Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution, was a scathing critique of evolution.  Behe presents a brilliant analysis that at the molecular level, evolution is quite simply impossible - and it is at this level where everything really exists.  Behe’s challenge is unique because he not only questions evolutionary assumptions, but actually has a theory to take its place.  ID makes no claim to know anything about who the Designer is, just that there must be one somewhere. 

At the same time, evolutionary theory has not been standing still over the past few years either.  An entire generation of scientists owes their very academic lives to this theory, and certainly will not surrender quietly. 

But the real issue is not science here, but philosophy.  It is quite simple, really.  Evolutionary theory removed the need for a Creator.  Man was finally free to view himself as a product of time and chance.  He did not need any allegiance to a Higher Power.  However, if there is an Intelligent Designer, then this implies a Creator again. 

This is why anyone simply following news accounts of the Dover case would be amazed at the attention it is drawing.  A Google News search I did in preparation for this article revealed almost nothing positive about Intelligent Design.  I am not surprised.  If accepted as valid, it changes everything – which is why one small group of ninth graders hearing that there are two possibilities for life’s origins is such a threat.  It is a crack in the door, but if opened it would be more like a crack in a dike.  

But it does make a difference.  As C. S. Lewis wrote, “The Christian and the materialist hold different views about the universe.  They can’t both be right.  The one who is wrong will act in a way which simply doesn’t fit the real universe.  Consequently, with the best will in the world, he will be helping his fellow creatures to their destruction.”