Ball State University & Intelligent Design: My 7+ Disappointments

The decision by Ball Sate:

The following is the decision rendered by Dr. Jo Ann M. Gora regarding the case of Dr. Edward Hedin’s courses Inquiries in Physical Sciences and Astronomy 151 The Boundaries of Science where Dr. Hedin introduces Intelligent Design in an elective graduate honors course. I’ve written about this case before, including Materialists (Atheists) Challenge A Course at Ball State University Which Introduces Intelligent Design.

Dear Faculty and Staff,

This summer, the university has received significant media attention over the issue of teaching intelligent design in the science classroom. As we turn our attention to final preparations for a new academic year, I want to be clear about the university’s position on the questions these stories have raised. Let me emphasize that my comments are focused on what is appropriate in a public university classroom, not on the personal beliefs of faculty members.

Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory. Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses. The gravity of this issue and the level of concern among scientists are demonstrated by more than 80 national and state scientific societies’ independent statements that intelligent design and creation science do not qualify as science. The list includes societies such as the National Academy of Sciences , the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Astronomical Society, and the American Physical Society.

Discussions of intelligent design and creation science can have their place at Ball State in humanities or social science courses. However, even in such contexts, faculty must avoid endorsing one point of view over others. The American Academy of Religion draws this distinction most clearly:

Creation science and intelligent design represent worldviews that fall outside of the realm of science that is defined as (and limited to) a method of inquiry based on gathering observable and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. Creation science, intelligent design, and other worldviews that focus on speculation regarding the origins of life represent another important and relevant form of human inquiry that is appropriately studied in literature and social science courses. Such study, however, must include a diversity of worldviews representing a variety of religious and philosophical perspectives and must avoid privileging one view as more legitimate than others.

Teaching religious ideas in a science course is clearly not appropriate. Each professor has the responsibility to assign course materials and teach content in a manner consistent with the course description, curriculum, and relevant discipline. We are compelled to do so not only by the ethics of academic integrity but also by the best standards of our disciplines.

As this coverage has unfolded, some have asked if teaching intelligent design in a science course is a matter of academic freedom. On this point, I want to be very clear. Teaching intelligent design as a scientific theory is not a matter of academic freedom – it is an issue of academic integrity. As I noted, the scientific community has overwhelmingly rejected intelligent design as a scientific theory. Therefore, it does not represent the best standards of the discipline as determined by the scholars of those disciplines. Said simply, to allow intelligent design to be presented to science students as a valid scientific theory would violate the academic integrity of the course as it would fail to accurately represent the consensus of science scholars.

Courts that have considered intelligent design have concurred with the scientific community that it is a religious belief and not a scientific theory. As a public university, we have a constitutional obligation to maintain a clear separation between church and state. It is imperative that even when religious ideas are appropriately taught in humanities and social science courses, they must be discussed in comparison to each other, with no endorsement of one perspective over another.

These are extremely important issues. The trust and confidence of our students, the public, and the broader academic community are at stake. Our commitment to academic freedom is unflinching. However, it cannot be used as a shield to teach theories that have been rejected by the discipline under which a science course is taught. Our commitment to the best standards of each discipline being taught on this campus is equally unwavering. As I have said, this is an issue of academic integrity, not academic freedom. The best academic standards of the discipline must dictate course content.

Thank you for your attention to these important issues. Best wishes in your preparations for a new academic year. I look forward to seeing you at the fall convocation in just a few weeks.
Sincerely,

Jo Ann M. Gora, PhD
President

My 7+ Disappointments:

(My discussions will be quite lengthy, so I will summarize here, and provide detail later in this piece in hopes you will give it some consideration.) 

1. The decision by Dr. Gora ignores, censors and disrespects the foundational history of modern science.
2. The decision misrepresents Intelligent Design as a new movement designed with the intention of somehow sneaking “creationism” into the public square.
3. The decision grossly misrepresents and exaggerates the success of Neo-Darwinian and it’s evidence, while at the same time dismissing the challenges of Intelligent Design and Creation Science.
4. The decision  unnecessarily promotes an atheistic world view to students searching for answers and truth.
5. The decision totally closes out discussion and teaching of the history of science … even in the “humanities and social science courses.”
6. The decision continues the perversion of the 1’st Amendment to the Constitution.
7. The decision provides convenient cover and precedence for other academic institutions to follow suite.

  +    The decision encourages a spirit of
         condescension and incivility towards
         people of faith.

* * * *

1.   The decision by Dr. Gora ignores, censors and disrespects the foundational history of modern science.

“Intelligent design is overwhelmingly deemed by the scientific community as a religious belief and not a scientific theory. Therefore, intelligent design is not appropriate content for science courses.”

The very foundation and origin of much of what is called modern science began with Bible believing Christian creationists. This science originated primarily in Europe in the 17’th, 18’th and 19’th centuries, well before Charles Darwin came on the scene. I base this position to a large extent on the following works, and encourage you to peruse them:

Christian Philosophy and the Origin of Science  at: http://www.allaboutworldview.org/christian-philosophy-and-the-origin-of-science-faq.htm  and:

The Origin of Science at  http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

And the book:  Men of Science Men of God by Henry Morris.

The contributions of these scientific pioneers are impressive as shown below :

DISIPLINE	SCIENTIST
Antiseptic Surgery	Joseph Lister (1827-1912)
Bacteriology	Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Calculus	Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Celestial Mechanics	Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Chemistry	Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Comparative Anatomy	Georges Cuvier (1769-1832)
Computer Science	Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
Dimensional Analysis	Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Dynamics	Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Electronics	John Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
Electrodynamics	James Clark Maxwell (1831-1879)
Electromagnetics	Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Energetics	Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Entomology of Living Insects	Henri Fabre (1823-1915)
Field Theory	Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Fluid Mechanics	George Stokes (1819-1903)
Galactic Astronomy	William Herschel (1738-1822)
Gas Dynamics	Robert Boyle (1627-1691)
Genetics	Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Glacial Geology	Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Gynecology	James Simpson (1811-1870)
Hydraulics	Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Hydrography	Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Hydrostatics	Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Ichthyology	Louis Agassiz (1807-1873)
Isotopic Chemistry	William Ramsay (1852-1916)
Model Analysis	Lord Rayleigh (1842-1919)
Natural History	John Ray (1627-1705)
Non-Euclidian Geometry	Bernhard Riemann (1826-1866)
Oceanography	Matthew Maury (1806-1873)
Optical Mineralogy	David Brewster (1781-1868)
Paleontology	John Woodward (1655-1728)
Pathology	Ralph Virchow (1821-1902)
Physical Astronomy	Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Reversible Thermodynamics	James Joule (1818-1889)
Statistical Thermodynamics	James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879)
Stratigraphy	Nicholas Steno (1631-1686)
Systematic Biology	Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
Thermodynamics	Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Thermo kinetics	Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
Vertebrate Paleontology	George Cuvier (1769-1832)

And pay attention here to some notable inventions, discoveries, or developments by Bible-Believing scientists:

CONTRIBUTIONS	SCIENTIST
Absolute Temperature Scale	Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Actuarial Tables	Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
Barometer	Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Biogenesis Law	Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Calculating Machine	Charles Babbage (1792-1871)
Chloroform	James Simpson (1811-1870)
Classification System	Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778)
Double Stars	William Herschel (1738-1822)
Electric Generator	Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Electric Motor	Joseph Henry (1797-1878)
Ephemeris Tables	Johann Kepler (1571-1630)
Fermentation Control	Lois Pasteur (1822-1895)
Galvanometer	Joseph Henry (1797-1878)
Global Star Catalog	John Herschel (1792-1891)
Inert Gases	William Ramsay (1852-1916)
Kaleidoscope	David Brewster (1781-1868)
Law of Gravity	Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Mine Safety Lamp	Humphrey Davy (1778-1829)
Pasteurization	Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Reflecting Telescope	Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
Scientific Method	Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
Self Induction	Joseph Henry
Telegraph	Samuel F. B. Morse (1791-1872)
Thermionic Valve	Ambrose Fleming (1849-1945)
Transatlantic Cable	Lord Kelvin (1824-1907)
Vaccination & Immunization	Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)

And from the paper Christian Philosophy and the Origin of Science we see:

An examination of the history of modern science reaffirms the supernaturalist’s premise that science is not hostile to the Christian position. Modern science was founded by those who viewed the world from a Christian perspective. Francis Schaeffer writes, “Since the world had been created by a reasonable God, [scientists] were not surprised to find a correlation between themselves as observers and the thing observed—that is, between subject and object. . . . Without this foundation, modern Western science would not have been born.”¹
Christianity was “the mother of modern science.”² Norman L. Geisler and J. Kerby Anderson’s Origin Science contains a chapter titled “The Supernatural Roots of Modern Science.” Both Alfred North Whitehead and J. Robert Oppenheimer defended this view. Philosopher and historian of science Stanley L. Jaki notes that historically the belief in creation and the Creator was the moment of truth for science: “This belief formed the bedrock on which science rose.”³ Jaki powerfully defends this position in the Origin of Science and the Savior of Science. Rodney Stark comes to the same conclusion.

This shows that the modern Creation Science movement as founded by Henry Morris at the Institute for Creation Research, and the Intelligent Design (ID) movement as exemplified by the Discovery Institute are following the scientific tradition of those great scientists listed above.

Note also that  a fundamental ID premise is that intelligence can be inferred and discovered  without a dependence on religious texts such as the Bible.  

* * * *

2. The decision misrepresents Intelligent Design as a new movement designed with the intention of somehow sneaking “creationism” into the public square.

I add to my argument in the previous ‘disappointment’ the following from the paper The Origin of Science: “How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only in the Christian West?”

…as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos)

To the popular mind, science is completely inimical to religion: science embraces facts and evidence while religion professes blind faith. Like many simplistic popular notions, this view is mistaken. Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. This is not to say that the Bible is a science textbook that contains raw scientific truths, as some evangelical Christians would have us believe. The Christian faith contains deeper truths– truths with philosophical consequences that make conceivable the mind’s exploration of nature: man’s place in God’s creation, who God is and how he freely created a cosmos.

In large part, the modern mind thinks little of these notions in much the same way that the last thing on a fish’s mind is the water it breathes. It is difficult for those raised in a scientific world to appreciate the plight of the ancient mind trapped within an eternal and arbitrary world. It is difficult for those raised in a post-Christian world to appreciate the radical novelty and liberation Christian ideas presented to the ancient mind.

I would add to this my own speculative question …  Would the modern Neo-Darwinian Atheists have accomplished anywhere near what those Christians listed above accomplished? 

Again I say, this shows that the modern Creation Science movement as founded by Henry Morris at the Institute for Creation Research, and the Intelligent Design (ID) movement as exemplified by the Discovery Institute are following the scientific tradition of those great scientists listed above.

* * * *

3.  The decision grossly misrepresents and exaggerates the success of Neo-Darwinian and it’s evidence, while at the same time dismissing the challenges of Intelligent Design and Creation Science.

We often hear of the ‘overwhelming’ evidence supporting Neo-Darwinian science, but when you start looking for it you see that it is to a large degree smoke and mirrors.

Example: Richard Dawkins book ‘The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design.’ I’ve looked for the evidence, and have found it to be the atheistic musings and philosophy in the mind of Dawkins; nothing more.

Example: Recent DNA studies show that at least 80% have functional value (predicted by ID) and are not ‘Junk DNA’ previously claimed as evolutionary evidence of natural selection discards.

Example: Scientists have recently loaded and retrieved the equivalent of 1,000,000 DVDs (music, and text) onto a small piece of DNA, showing the extreme complexity and information capability of DNA. Dawkins’ response: ‘Given infinite time, or infinite opportunities, anything is possible.’ Stephen Hawking’s response:  an undiscovered and undiscoverable multiverse offering an infinite combination of physical laws and constants, which ultimately and invariably will create DNA. 

This DNA, by the way, is not just a collection of information, but carries with it the very plans, and even the mechanisms for constructing a large variety of life forms. Plans and mechanisms that for example will direct particular cells, at the proper times, to become; bone, skin, brain,muscle etc. Darwinists have no clue as to how or why this occurs, only the vague hope that someday science will provide the answers.

ID proponents and Creationists on the other hand attribute this amazing device to be the product of ‘mind.’

Example: The known laws of physics and the 230+ physical/chemical constants point to a universe fine tuned to support life. Darwinian response: again, a multi-verse where anything can and will happen; no evidence, but plenty of theory.

Example: The fruit fly has been that subject of intense study for over 1oo years, primarily because they are relatively simple and have very short generational life cycles allowing study across many generations. The poor creature has suffered numerous experiments in attempts to study Darwinian mutations.  To date, 100% of these chemical, radiation and genetic manipulations have produced … defective fruit flies. I’m sure there have been (perhaps many) valid scientific discoveries and benefits from this 100+ years of study, but they have not produced an improved fruit fly, let alone a new species. 

A great irony (at least in my mind) is that Professor Jerry Coyne, one of the most vocal proponents of Darwinism and one of the leading critics of Intelligent Design, has dedicated much of his own life in studying these little creatures; might he be continuing the efforts to positively demonstrate the power of Darwinism in creating a new species? Captain Ahab comes to mind.

Example: Could the eye have evolved by natural selection in a geological blink?

The link above is a refutation of the Darwinian claim that the eye could have evolved by Natural Selection and I will let it speak for itself. Now let’s complete the picture and show that the eye is but one important part of a very complex machine called the human body that exhibits the qualities of design that allow, for example, the execution of  the complex double-play in baseball. So let us for a moment consider only the head and its array of complex instruments.

My understanding is that the vision experience is a distributed process, distributed between the eye, the optic nerves, and the brain. At what point did the primitive creature decide it needed to distribute his vision? But did the eye, the optic nerves and the corresponding brain cells, along with the containing scull and controlling muscles evolve concurrently? In order to produce the fully functional vision experience the whole system most certainly would have to have been in synchronous evolution.

The paper referenced above speaks of an incremental series of evolutionary steps improving the eye from a flat photosensitive spot to a full functioning eye such as you and I have, but makes no mention of the complete visual system … only the eye.

At what point and how did the primitive creature decide it needed stereoscopic sight, a nice addition but not really necessary?

And did the paper address address the various kinds of vision that the visual system processes? Items such as color differentiation, motion in all directions and speeds; intensity of the light?

The evolutionary development of the visual experience can certainly be imagined, but the claim that a fully-developed vertebrate eye could have developed from a simple light-sensitive spot by a process of unguided natural selection, in “less than 364,000 years” is speculation and imagination, not part of the supposed “overwhelming mountain of evidence” supporting Darwinian evolution. 

Might not the visual experience be more likely the result of an intelligent design?

I won’t go into as much detail for the other data gathering instruments and data processing systems contained within the human scull; the ears, the nose, taste, the strap-down inertial reference system within the inner ear providing a sense of three-dimensional place and attitude (i.e. up/down, east/west/north/south, all axis acceleration). Then there is the brain itself which makes sense out of all of this input creating a near complete multi-sensual experience we call life.

As scientists discover more and more about the characteristics of DNA, we are seeing that it contains the detailed plans for all this stuff inside our scull. Furthermore, we are seeing that DNA actually contains the mechanisms for constructing this amazing array of instrumentation within our scull. This is indeed an “ahh hah!” moment.

Might not all of this be more likely the result of an intelligent design?

 

* * * *

4.  The decision  unnecessarily promotes an atheistic world view to students searching for answers.

Once you have damaged or destroyed a students faith in a divine creation as depicted in Genesis, Psalms, the Gospel of John and elsewhere, it opens up fertile ground for a full frontal attack on all the alleged evils of religion (read: Christianity and Judaism).  And this attack leaves little room for examination of the very real and remarkable positive contributions of Christianity and Judaism to civilization:

This excerpt from Dr. D. James Kennedy’s book: What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?

• Hospitals, which essentially began during the Middle Ages.
• Universities, which also began during the Middle Ages. In addition, most of the world’s greatest universities were started by Christians for Christian purposes.
• Literacy and education for the masses.
• Capitalism and free-enterprise.
• Representative government, particularly as it has been seen in the American experiment.
• The separation of political powers.
• Civil liberties.
• The abolition of slavery, both in antiquity and in more modern times.
• Modern science.
• The discovery of the New World by Christopher Columbus.
• The elevation of women.
• Benevolence and charity; the good Samaritan ethic.
• Higher standards of justice.
• The elevation of the common man.
• The condemnation of adultery, homosexuality, and other sexual perversions. This has helped to preserve the human race, and has spared many from heartache.
• High regard for human life.
• The civilization of many barbarian and primitive cultures.
• The codifying and setting to writing of many of the world’s languages.
• Greater development of art and music. The inspiration for the greatest works of art.
• The countless changed lives transformed from liabilities into assets to society because of the gospel.
• The eternal salvation of countless souls.

And this excerpt from Dr. D. James Kennedy’s book: What If The Bible Had Never Been Written?

“When a young lady who was not a Christian heard about this book, ‘What If The Bible Had Never Been Written?’, she immediately said, “Oh the Bible has been nothing but oppressive towards women.” This sentiment is often repeated in our biblically illiterate times. The truth is, the Bible has improved the treatment of women. Show me a country where women are treated well where the Bible has not gone first. You can’t because it doesn’t exist. In fact, chivalry — where women became protected and cherished – was started by the Church in the Middle Ages. When hundreds of men on the Titanic voluntarily gave up their lives so that women and children could use the lifeboats, they were following a centuries-old, cultural norm that the Bible had established. However, since the Bible has lost sway among many people in our culture today, I daresay if the Titanic were to sink now, I doubt if most men would so readily give up on trying to get into a lifeboat.

The young lady’s opposition to the Bible (which she had never bothered to read) is far to typical today. I comes from the school of ignorant thought that says Christianity is sexist, homophobic, racist, anti-science, anti-progress, and several other negative things.

What if the Bible had never been written? Consider the implications of such a scenario. There would be no salvation, no Salvation Army, no YMCA, virtually no charity, no modern science, no Red Cross. There would likely be no hospitals, for hospitals as we know them were born in the Christian era, and Christians have build hundreds of hospitals all over the globe. There would probably be no universities; they were created in the Middle Ages in order to reconcile Christian theology with the writings of Aristotle. There would probably be no capitalism, no accounting, no free enterprise. Millions of people would have been killed off by STDs (sexually transmitted diseases) – without any kind of inhibition against sexual promiscuity. Literacy and education might well have been the exclusive domain of the elite. Many of the languages around the world would never have been written down because there would have been no motive to do so. Many of the barbarians of the world over would never have been civilized. Cannibalism and human sacrifice and the abandonment of children would still be widespread, even as abortion and infanticide plague us as we continue to move away from the Bible. Slavery might still be practiced, as it is in pockets of the world where the Bible is forbidden. And we might not even be in the New World – as Columbus clearly stated it was the Lord who inspired him to make his historic voyage. If the Bible had never been written, there would be no Mother Teresas, no David Livingstones, no Isaac Newtons, no William Wilberforces, no George Washingtons, no Lincolns, no Dantes, no Miltons, no Shakespears, no Dickensons. Above all, if the Bible had never been written, we would be cut off from God, groping in darkness without hope.

But the Bible has been written, and we can embrace its wonderful message of the love of God, which is so great that He gave His only begotten Son that we may have eternal life. Because the Bible has been written, the wonderful story of how Jesus came to seek and save the lost has gone out into all the world and has transformed millions of lives and scores of cultures and nations.”

* * * *

5.  The decision continues the perversion of the 1’st Amendment to the Constitution.

The so called “separation of church and state” is often abused and in fact does not appear in the 1’st Amendment which reads in part:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof … “

A more historically accurate paraphrase would be “separation of church from the state.” Rendering in this fashion captures the founders intention of keeping the national government out of the business of the church, while at the same time allowing the state to be influenced by the church.

Further, it is indeed a tortured  stretch to claim that Congress has somehow stepped into a classroom in Muncie Indiana and established a state religion there.

* * * *

6. The decision totally closes out discussion and teaching of the history of science … even in the “humanities and social science courses.”

Dr. Gora’s missive to Faculty and Staff states forcefully:

“ … It is imperative that even when religious ideas are appropriately taught in humanities and social science courses, they must be discussed in comparison to each other, with no endorsement of one perspective over another.”

But this, along with the  previous ruling regarding science classes, places the University, faculty and students in a untenable box. That box being … how is the ‘History of Science’ to be taught?

It can’t be taught accurately as a science course because Kepler (1571-1630) stated that he was merely “thinking Gods thoughts after Him,” a motto adopted by many believing scientists of the day.

Or Francis Bacon (1561`-1626)., considered to be the man primarily responsible for the formulation and establishment of the so-called “scientific method.” He wrote “There are two books laid out before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then the volume of the Creatures, which express His power.”

There are other such testimonies of the men listed in the tables above, but I’m afraid their stories can’t be told with any accuracy at Ball State University.

You see, they were Intelligent Design proponents who believed mind … the mind of God … intelligent design … was behind what they saw around them in the world, and above them in the heavens. The mind of God, and his power and intelligence is what motivated these scientists.

So … out goes History of Science, at least in the science curriculum.

Well then, that leaves “humanities and social science courses,” as long it is ”discussed in comparison to each other, with no endorsement of one perspective over another.”

But, here is the problem:

How is it that science became a self-sustaining enterprise only in the Christian West?

…as Whitehead pointed out, it is no coincidence that science sprang, not from Ionian metaphysics, not from the Brahmin-Buddhist-Taoist East, not from the Egyptian-Mayan astrological South, but from the heart of the Christian West, that although Galileo fell out with the Church, he would hardly have taken so much trouble studying Jupiter and dropping objects from towers if the reality and value and order of things had not first been conferred by belief in the Incarnation. (Walker Percy, Lost in the Cosmos)

Thus we arrive at  the box (or cave) containing Ball State University.

It would seem the History of Science can only be taught at BSU by being Politically Correct with regard to non-European, and non-Christian civilizations. This could be accomplished easily in one of two ways; by referring to Newton and others as simply members of the human family with no further discriminators; or by teaching that science began with the arrival of Charles Darwin. 

* * * *

7. The decision provides convenient cover and precedence for other academic institutions to follow suite.

No comment necessary.

+  The decision encourages a spirit of condescension and incivility towards people of faith.

Here’s an example of what Dr. Jerry Coyne, an atheist and honorary board member of the atheistic Freedom From Religion Foundation; the leader in this action against Ball State, has to say:

“ … If what makes you you is a belief in delusions, like your redemption through the execution of a Palestinian carpenter, or the notion that a cracker and wine literally—literally—become the body and blood of that carpenter, then you’re fair game for criticism. And plenty of people think the core of their being rests on belief in the Genesis story of creation and a young earth, the idea of psychic phenomena, or their imagined abduction by aliens. Are we to coddle them as well?

None of these ideas deserve dignity. And the same Church that provides Stanley with compassion and friendship also marginalizes women, prohibits abortion, divorce, and gay behavior, terrorizes children with thoughts of hell, sanctions and protects child rape, and deliberately spreads AIDS in Africa by denying its adherents birth control. Are we to remain silent on these, too?”

I have been following the sort of comments generated by readers of Dr. Coyne’s web site Why Evolution is True, and other sites, and they are truly full of condescension and incivility towards people of faith.  And, dissenting comments such as mine, are trashed and never appear.

I have put my oar in the water in places like the Huffington Post which have generated responses such as:  

“quibbling with the educated”, “don’t EVER quote … It just makes your ignorance clear”, “grow up”, “ridiculous rhetoric.”,”believing in an imaginary friend”, “Ridiculous ideas deserve ridicule”, “your statements are so ridiculous they deserve ridicule”, “utterly ridiculous”, “I’m assuming your[sic] just a little educated”, “to get more money out of your wallet “, “your comment again deserves complete ridicule”, “I hire and fire code monkeys “, “you are lacking education … you are ignorant”, “These are evil, immoral and dishonest men”, “then you too are an evil, immoral and dishonest man. Period”, and more.

I can imagine what a university student faces. Presented with only the atheistic materialistic/naturalistic  world view with little or no contrary point of view, is there a fair amount of brow beating and condescension going on? My own experience has been that in the American culture, including college,  there is a fog of pervasive evolutionary thought. Counter it at your own peril.

Don Johnson – August 2013