“Evolution: The Anti-Science” or, Why ID is dangerous to teaching correct science

Disclaimer: The following article I quote from is from the young-Earth creationist think tank Answers in Genesis. It does not represent all Christians, religious scientists, or all versions of “theistic evolution.” Given that, the concepts in this article and AiG are in line with The Discovery Institute, which I also discuss below in the context of the infamous leaked “Wedge Document”.

I will quote excerpts from the AiG article, “Evolution: The Anti-Science,” because the actual article is too long to republish.

Here is the thesis of the article:

“… if evolution were true, the concept of science would not make sense. Science actually requires a biblical creation framework in order to be possible. Here’s why:”

Really? Science cannot make sense outside of a young-earth creation framework?? Tell me more! The rest of the article uses philosophical and semantic maneuvering to support this bizarre conclusion.

Science presupposes that the universe is logical and orderly and that it obeys mathematical laws that are consistent over time and space. Even though conditions in different regions of space and eras of time are quite diverse, there is nonetheless an underlying uniformity…The biblical creationist expects there to be order in the universe because God made all things (John 1:3) and has imposed order on the universe. Since the Bible teaches that God upholds all things by His power (Hebrews 1:3), the creationist expects that the universe would function in a logical, orderly, law-like fashion. Furthermore, God is consistent and omnipresent. Thus, the creationist expects that all regions of the universe will obey the same laws, even in regions where the physical conditions are quite different. The entire field of astronomy requires this important biblical principle.

So at this point, the author claims that science requires assumptions and preconceived notions to advance testing hypotheses (correct), but without God keeping all things in life consistent such assumptions are impossible (false). I’m not a student of philosophy or the nature of science, but I think that a scientist would take issue with that claim. We can take evidence of past phenomenon as predictors of the future. As experiments are conducted and hypotheses tested, theories that correctly predict outcomes are validated while those that do not are revised or rejected. If similar conditions exist, there should be a similar outcome. 

Under this assumption, we cannot assume gravity will hold us to the ground tomorrow just because it did today and in the known past. Such a claim would be obviously mocked by scientists. Even though we haven’t found a particle modulator for gravity, we have quantified its force components and documented its law-like behavior. Believing in Biblical creation is not required to assume that without cataclysmic changes to earth gravity will function the same tomorrow.

Ironically, this same think tank argues in separate articles that a 6,000 year-old earth is justified by saying atoms and nuclear decay worked differently at creation. How can the Bible be necessary to prove the law-like properties of the natural world and simultaneously claim atoms and decay worked differently 6,000 years ago???

Next, the author tries to claim all thoughts (not just the brain) are the product of divine intervention. 

In fact, if evolution were true, there wouldn’t be any rational reason to believe it! If life is the result of evolution, then it means that an evolutionist’s brain is simply the outworking of millions of years of random-chance processes. The brain would simply be a collection of chemical reactions that have been preserved because they had some sort of survival value in the past. If evolution were true, then all the evolutionist’s thoughts are merely the necessary result of chemistry acting over time. Therefore, an evolutionist must think and say that “evolution is true” not for rational reasons, but as a necessary consequence of blind chemistry.

This passage is utterly ridiculous because it tries to claim that our thoughts about evolution are the process of evolution so are only necessary for survival. Evolution, over time, resulted in the highly developed primate brain, which is capable of forming thoughts. The individual thought is not a product of evolution, but only the architecture that allowed it to form alongside millions of possible others. The reason we have different memories, thoughts, opinions, and personalities is that a common ancestral brain, modified by individual and familial genetic variations, interacts with experiences that change each persons neural connections.

“Okay, so the author of this article is a little absurd,” you might say, “but this doesn’t represent the mainstream ID or creationist movement, right?” Well, the problem is that individual creationists and ID supporters might not think this way, but the big think tanks like The Discovery Institute are pushing a literal-Biblical methodology in science classes as well as school in general and politics.

Back in 1999, The Discovery Institute’s internal policy papers nick-named “The Wedge Document” (Wikipedia coverage, original PDF document version) were leaked online by a former employee. In the opening goals of the document you can find their two biggest goals,

• “To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies”
• “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God“

Throughout the Wedge Document, its authors make the case for a religious renewal in the United States political, legal and educational systems, including outlawing abortion and gay marriage, along with undermining the secular college and university system.

“Well, they are only acting in line with their beliefs, and Intelligent Design doesn’t advocate any particular religion or deity, so what’s the big deal?” That is one of the greatest successes of the movement, that they have been able to convince a large number of people ID is fundamentally different than creationism. Let’s see some quotes from the document’s main author, Phillip E. Johnson.

Here is quote from a speech called “How the Evolution Debate Can Be Won” Johnson gave at the Reclaim America for Christ Conference in 1999. 

“To talk of a purposeful or guided evolution is not to talk about evolution at all. That is slow creation. When you understand it that way, you realize that the Darwinian theory of evolution contradicts not just the Book of Genesis, but every word in the Bible from beginning to end. It contradicts the idea that we are here because a creator brought about our existence for a purpose. That is the first thing I realized, and it carries tremendous meaning.” He goes on to state: “I have built an intellectual movement in the universities and churches that we call The Wedge, which is devoted to scholarship and writing that furthers this program of questioning the materialistic basis of science. One very famous book that’s come out of The Wedge is biochemist Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, which has had an enormous impact on the scientific world.” …”Now the way that I see the logic of our movement going is like this. The first thing you understand is that the Darwinian theory isn’t true. It’s falsified by all of the evidence and the logic is terrible. When you realize that, the next question that occurs to you is, well, where might you get the truth? When I preach from the Bible, as I often do at churches and on Sundays, I don’t start with Genesis. I start with John 1:1. In the beginning was the word. In the beginning was intelligence, purpose, and wisdom. The Bible had that right. And the materialist scientists are deluding themselves.”

In another quote, Johnson discusses how its necessary to strip the discussion of any references to the Bible or Christianity to make it seem more legitimate.

“So the question is: “How to win?” That’s when I began to develop what you now see full-fledged in the “wedge” strategy: “Stick with the most important thing” —the mechanism and the building up of information. Get the Bible and the Book of Genesis out of the debate because you do not want to raise the so-called Bible-science dichotomy. Phrase the argument in such a way that you can get it heard in the secular academy and in a way that tends to unify the religious dissenters. That means concentrating on, “Do you need a Creator to do the creating, or can nature do it on its own?” and refusing to get sidetracked onto other issues, which people are always trying to do.”

Clearly, it seems to me that the people behind the Intelligent Design movement don’t intend ID as a non-religious intellectual discussion, but as a way to radically redefine science and interject fundamentalist Christian precepts into schools, laws, and government. 

With this column I am not trying to say anyone who subscribes to ID or creationism is foolish or naive, but rather that the people who have shaped the movement have intentions different than a majority of the American population, and that is using ID as a trojan-horse to get a certain brand of theology into the culture.

This column is entitled “Why ID is dangerous to teaching correct science.” I think the evidence shows that ID is not an honest intellectual inquiry, but (1) an attempt to force science to include supernatural causality as a viable explanation for phenomenon and (2) to force Christianity into the school system and the American boy politik

Tags: evolution, intelligent design, ID, Science, Phillip Johnson, Discovery Institute, Answers in Genesis, AiG, Evolution: The Anti-science, trojan horse, Wedge Document