1027 Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Theory

On the way home from the coffee shop I was listening to NPR on the radio--a discussion of the current battles in Kansas. Apparently, some Kansians are worried they might look like rubes. I guess no one worries about how silly evolutionists look--they are running so scared and are so protective of their beliefs, that they've even renamed university departments of biology, see Ohio State.

Whole Wheat Blogger takes aim on May 6 at a recent article that blames ID-ers, and of course, President Bush, for our drop in science skills (everything that is wrong is Bush's fault--he's so powerful he made my stocks drop in 2000 before he became President). Bunk and blather, he says to that biology-biased author.

"It seems to me that Mr. Bice is suggesting that theists cannot be scientists. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in Electronics Engineering Technology. I've had classes in algebra, calculus, Laplace, physics, electronics theory, and digital systems (among many others). Not once did I have to apply evolutionary theory in any of my classes. Whether or not animal A evolved into animal B is irrelevant to an electron traveling through a transistor. I don't think that Isaac Newton was pondering his origins when he decided to create a new kind of math (with funny symbols, no less). I doubt he was pondering the origins of the apple that fell on his head as well.** I'm sure he was more concerned with the how and the why.

Mr. Bice also seems to be pushing biology as the be-all, end-all of public science education. He says, regarding science education, Such an education, despite the protestations of theocrats, requires comprehensive instruction in the central, unifying concept of modern biology: evolution. I think that many people would agree with me if I said that statement would be more accurate if instruction was replaced with indoctrination. When it gets right down to it, I think that's what it's about. It's about driving a wedge between parents and their children. People think that Christians are fanatic in their desire to have some alternate theory of origins taught in public schools, but evolutionists are just as fanatic in allowing only one option."

He then moves on to outline what is most likely the reason for the fall off of interest in science--inadequately prepared students, and the teaching of self-hate. You may not agree with all his points, but he makes more sense than Mr. Bice. It's not like there was a golden age of having more than one idea on origins in the last 50 years. I was in grade school over 50 years ago, and was never taught anything except evolutionary theory cum a little old fashioned paganism. I believe "Mother Nature" was the term used in the social sciences, and in the science classes we were treated to drawings of pre-humans and horses with toes. Of course, no fossil record, just drawings by textbook publishers. I could look around me and figure out there was a Creator, and take a closer look and see that everything aged and eventually fell apart. (I'm experiencing this personally.) This wouldn't be an approved class trip today, but they used to take us to the "state hospital" in Dixon where we stared at babies and children who were apparently going through some sort of "evolutionary" change, and it certainly wasn't for the better.

When I go to the doctor, I'm hoping s/he has warmer feelings for the Creator than for Darwin. My chances of solid, ethical care are much better!