Intelligent Design and the Future Face of the Republican Party
The governor of Louisiana, Bobby Jindal, is said to be the great hope for the Republican Party. He is seen as the perfect conservative counterpoint to the power of Barack Obama's multicultural background. The son of immigrants from Punjab, Jindal was raised a Hindu and converted to Catholicism in his teens. Like Obama, his political rise has been meteoric. In 2004 he won his first congressional seat and by 2007 he was elected governor.
In spite of his rapidly rising star, Jindal's record of achievement is spotty at best. At a time when health care has again taken center stage in national politics, we must not forget Jindal's dismal record. When head of Louisiana's Department of Health, the state's health ranking dropped from 48 to 50. In his absence the rating climbed slowly back from the bottom, but one year into his governorship, the state slipped to last place again.
His positions are extreme even as he presents himself in more moderate terms. Jindal succeeded in his gubernatorial campaign in part by "giving testimony" in the highly conservative Baptist and Pentecostal churches of rural Louisiana. He opposes abortion with no exception for the life or age of the mother, incest or rape. Be clear about the meaning of that position. If a 12 year old girl raped by her father got pregnant, Jindal would prevent that sad victim from seeking an abortion. Like Bush, he opposes stem cell research, and supports off-shore drilling.
Perhaps most disturbing in broad policy terms is his support for teaching intelligent design in public school. Jindal's position on creationism and intelligent design reveals a colossal break with reason that we cannot accommodate again in our elected officials. Bush was a disaster we dare not repeat, but Jindal appears to be nothing but W with Indian ancestry. Denying the validity of evolution is no different than claiming atoms do not exist or that the DNA is not genetic code, or that al Qaeda was in Iraq before our invasion. Jindal's position is untenable.
That we still debate the obvious is one of religion's saddest legacies. Darwin's contribution to biology is monumental, essentially completing the Copernican revolution that displaced mankind from the center of the universe. Evolution has been proven beyond any doubt by paleontology, embryology, molecular biology, island biogeography, microbiology and cell physiology. Yet in spite of evolution's unprecedented success in explaining the living world, in spite of the fact that evolution is one of the greatest triumphs of science, creationism and intelligent design have crept into the mainstream of American thought and into public school curricula in several states. Jindal is now guilty of perpetuating that shameful descent into willful ignorance.
Jindal is playing to the lowest common denominator. A poll conducted by the People for the American Way Foundation showed that only 37% of the population believes evolution should be taught to the exclusion of creationism. A Gallup poll in 2001 showed that 40% of Catholics in the United States believe that God created human life in the past 10,000 years. These grim statistics would have even surprised Pope John Paul II, who way back in 1996 reaffirmed that the Church accepted evolution, although with some strong caveats, and about 500 years late.
If we fail to change course and overcome this reprehensible level of collective ignorance about creation, we will soon be forced to teach the "stork theory of reproduction" in schools as an alternative to the "theory of sexual reproduction." But why stop there? We could soon be teaching that the sun orbits around the earth as the Bible claims, as an alternative to the "theory of orbital mechanics." Only by understanding the fundamentals of evolution can we put an end to the madness of creationism and intelligent design, and regain a rational sense of our place in the universe.
Attempts to reconcile religion and science are futile and unproductive, and intelligent design is the worst example. Science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to "why" the world is as we know it. Science and religion can never be brought under one roof without sacrificing intellectual honesty. The two seek different answers to separate questions using fundamentally and inherently incompatible methods. Nothing can bring the two together. Yet the effort to reconcile continues. The latest example is the idea put forth by Richard Colling at Olivet Nazarene University, who writes that god "cares enough about creation to harness even the forces of (Darwinian) randomness." God used Darwin to implement his will! The bizarre logic behind this idea is that the facts of evolution do not "preclude" the existence of god. In fact, evolution and natural selection do indeed preclude the existence of god, according to the bible itself. We are told in Genesis that all life, everything that ever existed on earth, was created in six days. Evolution proves that wrong. The fossil record proves that wrong. Evolution in a Petri dish proves that wrong.
The fundamental randomness of evolution through natural selection creates a terminal problem for any hand of god. If god is all knowing, he knew everything from the beginning of the universe, including every animal that would ever exist. That would preclude any animals evolving from random processes, since if truly random, god could not then have known about them beforehand, meaning he would not be all-knowing. Yet if he in fact did know about all animals past and future, then that is not evolution, which is random by definition. Natural selection and evolution are inherently incompatible with the existence of god. The two cannot coexist.
But religion has taken such a stranglehold on American thought, that believers will go through extreme contortions to incorporate the indisputable facts of evolution into a belief system that is fully undermined by the mechanisms of natural selection. Jindal is squarely in that group. The rest of the world beyond the insular borders of the United States understands that evolution is the most thoroughly tested, documented, proven scientific fact ever put forth. To debate evolution is to question that the earth is round. To question the reality of evolution is absurd. Science is not a lawsuit open to arbitration and mediation, where the difference can be split between opposing parties. Evolution is a truth that cannot be offset by some compromised alternative to the facts of nature.
Animosity toward evolution, rather than abating in the face of greater human knowledge, is being attacked in an ocean of ignorance. The Creation Museum in Kentucky proudly states its purpose as countering "evolutionary natural history museums that a turn countless minds against Christ and Scripture." That we are still having this discussion is a depressing testament to the serious degradation of our public school system. We are failing to teach our population even the most basic aspects of elementary science, in an era where science and technology are ever more critical to our national security. This is the legacy that Jindal wishes to perpetuate.
Unless we conquer this growing threat of scientific illiteracy, our nation is doomed. While we engage in a debate from the 15th century, the rest of the world is teaching children the knowledge necessary to survive in the 21st. We will become a second-rate nation behind in stem cell research, high energy physics, biology, and medicine. Our infrastructure will continue to crumble with no progress in materials science. We will be poorly equipped to fight the growing technological prowess of our adversaries. We must stop this ridiculous "debate" about evolution and get on with the business of protecting ourselves in the new century. We will not if Jindal becomes the face of the Republican Party.
Follow Jeff Schweitzer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JeffSchweitzer
So what has science to fear? The principal objection to ID is that it might confer religious thought, and that scriptural accounts might be added, plainly not empirically based evidence of biologic origins. But design inferences are empirical, not scriptural, and don't necessarily point to an overseeing deity. If design can be inferred by observation (which it can), why exclude it based simply of the former objection?
ID need only be mentioned as tentative (a hypothesis) at this juncture, as there is evidence to support it. We're safe from religion (Aguillard et al), and if ID as an interventionary hypothesis fails substantiation, no harm done, it will fall by the wayside.
Setting science standards for intermediate grades is incumbent upon us. But to not allow the 'design hypothesis' in, based solely on a fear of religious dogma, constitutes fascism.
Intelligent Design is a theory as well. Why can't both be taught? Even if you just wanted to teach evolution, how do you explain where the matter came from that everything evolved from? Food for thought and a catalyst for informed and lively dialog in our schools. Where there is no proof, there will always be just belief? So let's let the kids form their own opinion.
To say that evolution is "proven beyond any doubt" fits fine as opinion, but lacks credulity. Nothing in science is hard fact. You can say, however, that the theory of evolution is *supported* by facts.
That said, the evidence for phylogenetic progression is replete with examples that fit the predictions made. But the hypothesis of natural selection to account for 'novelty and complexity' is still tentative; not a proven 'fact'.
For adaptive changes, yes. Novelty and complexity beyond selection from *available* phenotypic coding, no. Selection from junk mutations produces just that.
"Attempts to reconcile religion and science are futile and unproductive, and intelligent design is the worst example."
Sorry, but ID, properly defined, is neither religion, nor a bad example of logic.
"Science searches for mechanisms and the answer to "how" the universe functions."
But if intervention has occurred, then certain evolutionary gaps will remain so, since branding all novelty occurrences as naturalistic will fail to adequately explain those occurrences.
One of the extreme faults of evolutionary theory is that while common descent has been verified, its mechanism(s), in toto, have not. Defining the entire process as the result of natural selection doesn't make it so, since complexity and novelty formation (macroevolution) by natural selection has not yet been confirmed by empirical methods.
Natural selection of random mutations (RM/NS) DOES, however, fit evolutions's 'adaptational' function, i.e. enhanced bacterial resistance, lengthening beaks, and other minor morphologic changes. To this extent, evolution works on its own. In fact, it could well be a 'designed in' process, to aid in species survival.
"If we fail to change course and overcome this reprehensible level of collective ignorance about creation, we will soon be forced to teach the "stork theory of reproduction"
Only in your dreams, my friend.
But regarding the class room, since ID is not a 'tested theory' at this juncture, it could NOT be 'taught' in science class, but merely 'presented'. Presenting ID as a competing 'hypothesis' to natural selection is viable, should be allowed. The who and why would not be discussed.
But is ID religion? By its very definition, it is not. It proposes no religious conclusions, does not emanate from scriptural texts, or embrace dogma, rituals, or fixed tenets, as do real religions. The fact that some religionists have 'co-opted' the ID term for religious purposes has nothing to do with ID's premise, which is that certain biologic features are too complex to have arrived at by purely natural processes.
Finally, the wording of the bill will not allow religion per se to be taught, nor any 'junk science', i.e. untested and unscientific fields, such as astrology. The hypothesis of ID as causative in the evolutionary process is viable to consider, however.
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/streamdocument.asp?did=503483
"Perhaps most disturbing in broad policy terms is his support for teaching intelligent design in public school. Jindal's position on creationism and intelligent design reveals a colossal break with reason that we cannot accommodate again in our elected officials"
I somewhat disagree. He did, however, make these comments on Face the Nation:
" ... I don't think students learn by us withholding information from them. Some want only to teach intelligent design, some only want to teach evolution. I think both views are wrong, as a parent."
Asked to elaborate on that position, he stated:
"As a parent, when my kids go to schools, when they go to public schools, I want them to be presented with the best thinking. I want them to see the best data. "
"I personally think that the life, human life and the world we live in wasn't created accidentally. I do think that there's a creator. I'm a Christian. I do think that God played a role in creating not only earth, but mankind. "
"Now, the way that he did it, I'd certainly want my kids to be exposed to the very best science. I don't want them to be-I don't want any facts or theories or explanations to be withheld from them because of political correctness."
In fairness, he didn't advocate teaching 'Creationism', the Biblical literalist position. He also stated that he only wanted "facts and theories" presented. So the question now becomes, is ID a theory?
If this country doesn't get it together with regard to science and math educational policies, we are going to find ourselves farther and farther behind the rest of the world. It is just plain sad to witness such a decline and know there is no good reason for it.
Allow the kids to decide for themselves which, if either, are correct.
People make too much out of nothing.
So, to wrap up, teaching personal opinion and calling it proven scientific fact is misrepresentation of the highest order. You want to learn about God? Go to church.
"These grim statistics would have even surprised Pope John Paul II, who way back in 1996 reaffirmed that the Church accepted evolution, although with some strong caveats, and about 500 years late."
Evolution arose as a serious and controversial theory in the 1800's. The "500 years late" probably refers to the John Paul II's official change of position toward Galileo Galelei, another welcome position change, yet "350 years late" is a better figure regarding Galileo.
The religious right will NEVER accept science, as it might damn their souls. Eternal damnation is a powerful "learning" tool and one that is nigh impossible to overcome, and that is what we are up against here. When people view God as the great blackmailer in the sky, then I honestly don't know what can be done to counter that except to keep their candidates out of office.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_EWwzFwUOxA
1) You have accused Jindal of being an extremist, which might be true. But everything in your article seems to indicate that you are just as much of an extremist, albeit from the other side of the spectrum.
2) You talked about how evolution precludes the existence of God, your argument being that evolution is random, meaning that God couldn't know what would happen next etc (9th paragraph). But you are perpetuating a myth. Evolution is not a random phenomenon, it is very deliberate. The trait that will be selected for may be random but evolution itself is not
You write as if religion and evolution are mutually exclusive, and it is obvious where you stand. But given that the foundation for your thoughts is incorrect, your argument is flawed
I suggest you look in places other than youtube for scientific information.
to keep the issue in the forefront.