<\/p>\n
What I found most remarkable about the book was how dishonest the supporters of Intelligent Design were. I knew from my past contact with Terry Mortenson<\/a> here on campus that some ID proponents are at least not entirely up-front, but now I am inclined to simply say that the movement, like young-earth creationism before it, is characterized by dishonesty<\/a> (pp.325-6), although there are exceptions<\/a>. The impression that I once had, that ID deserves to be distinguished from creationism, has been largely undermined (although once again there are exceptions). The court subpoenaed earlier drafts and published copies of the ID textbook Of Pandas and People<\/a>, and it was clear that after the 1987 court ruling that creationism could not be taught in schools, the publishers had simply gone through the book and replaced \u201ccreation\u201d with \u201cdesign\u201d throughout the book, leaving everthing else exactly the same. Yet they consistently claim that they are not merely a rehash of creationism, and that their enterprise can be separated from religious questions (p.200).<\/p>\n The problematic mindset of fundamentalism is heard on the lips of school board dictator Bill Buckingham, who says of the Bible \u201cIt\u2019s either all truth or it\u2019s all lies. There\u2019s no in-between\u2026.And I know it\u2019s truth.\u201d If one was forced to make this decision then one really would have to choose between one\u2019s heart and the experience of the divine, and one\u2019s mind which, if it looks at the evidence seriously, cannot claim that the Bible is all true in the sense of all scientifically and historically factual. But of course, this is a false antithesis, and precisely the rhetoric that drives people of faith to abandon their faith when they learn what science, history and other disciplines have to say and all the evidence they can muster in favor of their conclusions. To use an example I have used before, if I tell you about my own personal experience of God, I do not have to be infallible or even completely trustworthy for what I tell you to be important, significant, meaningful and true. All I have to do is be honest about that point. Then you can go and test it for yourself.<\/p>\n Interesting ironies of the creation-evolution culture war are highlighted in the book. Dover, Pennsylvania as well as Kansas provide some of the strongest paleontological evidence for evolution available (see e.g. pp.16-17). There is a fairly easy test that could help prove or disprove the ID argument about irreducible complexity, yet the proponents of ID, who claim they are doing scientific research, have not done it and have no interest in doing it; and even more ironically, one of Behe\u2019s own papers actually shows evolution to be plausible as an explanation of the paper\u2019s subject matter (pp.304-306). The school board in Dover, rather than listen to the science teachers, to the scientific community, to existing science standards, decided to push their own agenda, yet they didn\u2019t read the ID books either (pp.226-227). And yet they have the audacity after all is said and done to accuse the Republican judge of the case of being yet another \u2018activist judge\u2019 \u2013 Humes rightly calls this response the rant of \u201csore losers\u201d (p.344). The Discovery Institute has been active in misrepresenting the case (pp.343-344), while the school board members were shown to have lied under oath (pp.325-326). And (perhaps most amusingly) Behe admitted that, if the proposed ID definition of science were accepted, astrology would then be a science too (p.301).<\/p>\n In contrast, rather than redefining science as the proponents of ID would like, the theory of evolution makes predictions and they are consistently confirmed (see examples on pp.268-269, 341). There are, as in all areas of scientific inquiry, gaps in our knowledge, and new information sometimes demands that earlier assumptions and ideas be revised. The vast scientific literature on evolution shows evidence of all this. The biologists (with rare exceptions, in which the dishonesty is exposed not by creationist rhetoric, but by other scientists\u2019 further investigations) play by the rules, and their results are scientifically sound. Evolutionary biology is not about democracy, it is not about faith, it is about evidence and a wider theoretical framework to explain that evidence. That is why it works, why it fits the data, and why scientists continue to support it despite the ranting and raving of America\u2019s key proponents of pseudo-science.<\/p>\n Let me conclude by recommending once again the testimony of paleontologist Kevin Padian<\/a>, whose presentation has been made available by the NCSE<\/a>. It is too wonderful not to mention it again. The address is http:\/\/www.sciohost.org\/ncse\/kvd\/Padian\/Padian_transcript.html<\/a><\/p>\n I\u2019ve discussed more the substantive content of the book, but more than anything else Humes tells a story about real life that is a page-turner, and that may help those of us trying to play our part in promoting science education and a constructive interaction between science and religion to understand why there seem to be so many who adamantly oppose us and continue to do so even when shown that they don\u2019t have a good reason for doing so!<\/p>\n <\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/blue.butler.edu\/~jfmcgrat\/blog\/21bRHjzFxsL._SL160_.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.assoc-amazon.com\/e\/ir?t=jamefmcgrshom-20&l=as2&o=1&a=0060885491\")
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/blogger.googleusercontent.com\/tracker\/7622297540113836091-3580612323989153731?l=exploringourmatrix.blogspot.com\")
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"