Responses to What to think?:

Haught’s review is baseless and confused. He is arguing against a straw man. I have not the time to go into this now, but Haught’s confusion regarding the role of worldview in scientific inquiry and in analysis of the results obtained by the scientific method are astounding. -Shane Coley

I usually enjoy your articles, but the lead-in comments about "ID proponents" in this latest emailing merely perpetuate stereotypes of the ID movement, and cause me to doubt that any of you have spent time actually reading the work of the major ID proponents like William Dembski, Michael Behe, or David Berlinsky. Perhaps ID proponents insist that ID does not *necessarily* promote belief in God, because prominent ID proponents like David Berlinsky and others are agnostics. ID proponents do not "equate evolution ... with atheistic evolutionism." I challenge you to find one published ID proponent who makes such an unnuanced assertion. ID proponents do not want biology teachers teaching religion. Where did you even come up with that? Apparently, To the Source believes, along with most of the rest of society, that in the case of proponents of ID, it is not necessary to get their arguments right or accurately characterize their positions. ID proponents are second class citizens who can be dismissed in a cavalier manner through contempt and caricatures. Sincerely, -John Bergsma

Editor's note: Regarding teaching religion in biology classes: In Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, the public school district required that a statement be read aloud in ninth-grade science class including, “Intelligent design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view.” According to the Discovery Institute, Intelligent Design promotes belief that “certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.”  Only a supernatural deity can be the intelligent cause of the natural universe and its living things. Behe has suggested that aliens could have seeded life on earth, but does anyone think the Discovery Institute was formed and funded to promote belief in extraterrestrials?  Regarding ID Advocates promoting belief in God: Discovery Institute Vice President Stephen Meyers does not want science’s “wing’s clipped to keep them in the naturalist’s yard, when the truth is elsewhere.  God, after all, may not have been away on other business when life originated, or humankind came to be.”  Dembski believes that ID theory “can in the end only be located in Christ.” Berlinski (your best example) is a secular Jew, but his work encourages one’s belief in God against the onslaught of exclusive materialism. Why else would so many Christians read him?  His recent book, The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions is not only a must read, but a sustained attack on the atheistic obsession of “scientism”. Instead of pretending it is not their aim, Intelligent Design advocates should be proud of the wonderful job they are doing promoting belief in God. Regarding ID advocates equating evolution with atheistic evolutionism: Read Behe’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette interview, February 8, 2001. Question: You were originally a believer in evolution {a theory that dates back to the Greeks}. What changed your mind? Behe: I was taught Darwin's theory {evolution based solely on unguided events, mutations and selections} from grade school through college and, though I had vague suspicions about its validity, I had no reason to doubt my instructors. I became skeptical of the theory in the late 1980s after reading a book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" by an Australian geneticist named Michael Denton.

If Dr. Haught thinks that there is no good reason to see Expelled – No Intelligence Allowed he has missed the entire point of the documentary and indeed from his writing it is evident that he has missed it. In the first place it is not about ID or Darwinism. It is plainly about scholastic freedom and integrity. Darwinism is and always has been a religion. ID is not only good science it is science at its best. The pulpit of the Darwinist in the school room has too long gone unchallenged. Because of this it is not hard to see that the private schools are not far from the same fate of the home school families of California. The juxtapositions in the film with the Berlin wall and Germany of WWII are purposeful indicators of the direction of that chosen path. Anyone who cannot see past the tool of Darwinism being used to control a culture is, in my humble opinion, in real danger of loosing everything on which this country was established. Click to read more -William W. Lumry, II

Thank you for your great site. I had to comment on the current issue. Don - You have misrepresented both the intent and content of Intelligent Design. In the intro to the debate, and in Haught¹s response, ID is presented as a conflict between science-as-atheism, represented by Dawkins, and science-as-religion, represented by ID. This is a false model and will not contribute to your expressed desire to take a useful position on this subject. There are 2 facts that influence this issue: The first is that Darwin is simply inadequate to explain the world as we see it. You admit that Darwin cannot explain origins, but the situation is much worse than that. In addition to origins Darwin (and neo-darwinism) cannot explain the cell, the fossil record, the ³origins of species² (to coin a phrase) and most importantly, the massive amount of coded intelligence in our genes. These things are nearly as much of a mystery to the Darwinist today as they were to Darwin himself back in the 19th century, at least in terms of accounting for their evolution within the accepted paradigm. Click to read more - Don Cicchetti

There is a famous painting by Salvador Dali depicting Jesus on a cross. The cross upon which he hangs is above the earth -- a chessboard, in fact -- not planted in it, and there are no nails actually piercing his hands or feet, just a cubist suggestion of them. Dr. Haught wants us to think of science and religion in the same manner: that spiritual truth is suspended transcendently above the earth, with no real connection to it -- that science and religion are divorced realms that cannot inform each other. Aquinas would be surprised by his son in the Church. This is nonsense; a by-product of 19th century "Higher Criticism" seeking to separate the milk of whimsical mysteries from the cream of real stuff. -RB

Intelligent design is far more than irreducible complexity. On the comment that science has done much materially for mankind but "Christainity hasn't made the world a better place" we need to see reason and faith as the twin pillars of human development. These God has provided for those who seek Him. "That Western civilization stands indebted to Christ's Church for the university system, charitable work, international law, the sciences, important legal principles, and much else besides has not exactly been impressed upon them (his students) with terrific zeal. The Church, in fact, built Western civilization." [From: How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization, by Thomas E Woods, Jr.]. Oh, BTW, Woods is a convert to Christ's Church. In Sience and Creation, Fr Stanley Jaki cites how science was hindered in seven great cultures by unfavourable conceptual frameworks -- Arabic, Babylonian, Chinese, Egyptian, Greek, Hindu and Maya -- inall of which science suffered a "stillbirth." Best regards -Peter D Howard

Who in the world is John F. Haught? Gerogetown University theology prof? Remind me never to send my kid there to learn theology! I wonder what Bible he is reading and pontificating on. Not the one I read, that’s for sure. My Bible makes it unapologetically clear that God is the Creator. He wants us to give in to the Materialists here and agree that science and religion are two totally different areas that should not intersect. But this is illogical. If there is a Creator, He would be the greatest scientist ever. We should be able to see evidence of His design and power in His creation. Don’t you think that if there are things in nature that do not have a natural cause, science might be able to show that a natural cause is not a credible explanation for that thing? If we abdicate science to these guys, we lose the battle. Science is seen to be the science grounded in reality and religion, well, those guys can say whatever they want to, we all know that science is the only thing we can trust. No way. You do that and you can just watch people give up on God. The Bible will lose all credibility. Click to read more -Jim May

There's no good reason to listen to John F. Haught. -JE

Friends: I will confess that I probably don't belong on this mailing list. I sent a note to Dinesh D'Souza a few weeks ago, and I guess that put my address on tothesource. But, hey, I enjoy reading the content, and I'm grateful for your solicitation of feedback. I wanted to challenge Marvin Olasky. "The real question is: Did Darwinism bulwark Hitlerian hatred by providing a scientific rationale for killing those considered less fit in the struggle for survival?" There is no doubt that mid-19th and early 20th century scientific concepts, including Darwinism, were put to horrific use by the tyrants of the mid-20th century. As Daniel Goldhagen has pointed out, fifty years of "race science" was far more destructive than five hundred years of religious anti-Semitism. But how much of this was Darwinism? I would submit that the more important concept employed by the genocidal butchers was classical genetics, of which Darwin was ignorant. They were fixated, along with their eugenicist predecessors, on the notion of genetic determinism. The Other is biologically distinct from Us, and that distinction is immutable. This provided more of a scientific rationale "for killing those considered less fit" than Darwinism. So does anybody propose that Gregor Mendel and Thomas Hunt Morgan were architects of genocide? No. Of course, public health imagery was, and remains, central to the genocidal agenda (see Hezbollah on the Jews). Pestilence, parasitism, hygiene. Should I, as a microbiologist, feel accountable? There is no mystery why Darwin alone is treated this way: Darwinian evolutionary theory is held to challenge theism, and theism is held to provide the foundation for social morality. The real question is: Does respect for intellectual honesty impose any constraints? -Ken Pidcock

(by John F. Haught During the highly publicized Dover School Board trial in 2005 I testified for the plaintiffs that teaching “intelligent design” (ID) has no place in public school biology classes. As the only theologian present)
I find it interesting that the only theologian allowed to speak at the Dover School Board trial is one who believes in evolution. What were they afraid of? My question is "Why don't schools and science follow scientific principles they say they believe in and teach the problems with evolution as well as the reasons for it. There are lots of problems with evolution, but these are never discussed in the classroom. So are our teachers and scientist trying to get the students to believe that only evolution is a possibility? Evolution is only a theory, as it has not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. So why do they teach it as a "fact"? There is a word for that you know, called indoctrination. They should be ashamed of themselves for violating scientific principles. -Terry Warren

The root of today's controversy over Intelligent Design is not that the scientific community is too good at science, it is that they are too bad at theology. They have become lazy and theophobic in dealing with issues that cannot be smeared onto a microscope slide, and have thus put entire volumes of human experience into a box labeled "DON'T GO THERE." As Ben Stein points out so well in Expelled, some of that community have doffed their lab coats to brandish the badges of Mind Police, enforcing that their fellows not go there either, and that if any should boldly go where they dare not, they are properly ostracized, disciplined, and, well, expelled. How very un-scientific. It's high time that Dawkins, Meyers, Scott, et al stop whistling in the dark fear of extra-terrestrial intelligence and explore the new world in that box that they so desperately try to quarantine. Instead of urging the public to sit numbly before the thousands of computers cooperating in the SETI network, waiting for some random static to pulse-out three or four prime numbers in a row, let them join the seekers who ease into a classroom (or, dare I say it, a pew) to wrestle—desperately but with all the hope of the human soul—alongside the authors of Job and Ecclesiastes, struggling with the apparent injustice and vanity of life. Only the lazy mind and heart will shun the rigor of such inquiry, thought, and debate. True scientists are better and more disciplined than to rope-off such large portions of our world, declaring, in an oddly theological way, that such things are tabu. -Pastor Ron Heffield Orlando, Florida

Do you have an archived article on evolution? thanks, -Irene

Very many thanks for your regular input of much-needed ammunition to counteract secularists and their anti-Christian ideas. Many blessings for all! -Henk Verhoeven and his extended family Sydney, Australia

I would like to recommend a book by Vernon L. Grose, Science But Not Scientists "How Everything Began: Chance or Creation." Although written in 1975 the book was not released for print until 2007. The forward is by Wernher Von Braun, father of America's space program and close friend of Vern Grose. You might consider interviewing Mr. Grose, who is also a FOX NEWS contributer and lives in the Washington, D.C. area. I know he would present an interesting perspective to this debate. Best Regards, -Dan Collins

Thanks for the comparison and contrast in the article on the movie Expelled. I find it amazing that Dr. Haught is trying to argue that science and theology are too diverse to mix together. There should be one integrating thought: Both science and theology should be about discovering and disseminating truth. Oh I know that I’m bringing into the discussion more fields of study, but no one can have any meaningful discussion without agreement of terms. It is a well known historical fact that Hitler and the Nazis used evolution to justify their atrocities. Evolution is a religion or at least a central core of the religion of secular humanism. The religious indoctrination is included in nearly every field of education. I have a B.S. in business administration and an MBA. When I attended college in the 60’s and early 70’s most of my classes included Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs which is a spin off of the concept of evolution and secular humanism. One of my greatest obstacles as a Christian was to clear up the brain washing on evolution that was throughout my education. I came to the conclusion that there is true truth. That there is a God Who has spoken in ways that we can understand and He is the basis of all of life. It was my introduction to the works of Francis Schaffer that helped me get the bigger and deeper picture. -BF

Mr. Haught says: "Unfortunately, however, evolutionary materialists and ID advocates alike are luring minds back to a prescientific stage of human consciousness when empirical study of nature had not yet been emancipated from dogma and religious preoccupation. " It must be understood, that in most American universities there is NO presumption of scientific inquiry in any evolutionary biology or anthropology course. It is approached, in my experience anyway, at UC Santa Barbara, as more of a scientific theology. In no other course of study would the rules apply as they do in evolutionary studies. For example, the skeleton of "Lucy", huge sweeping claims were made based on a small sample (not a whole skeleton as it is often shown) of bones found over several square miles (not in situ as it is often assumed). Would biological science make the same claim of a new animal species? They would never get it published, nor would a similar situation in botany, geology or any other hard science. A statistician would never accept the proposed timelines of change (there is not enough time), and any physical evidence is not statistically relevant either. Click to read more -Stan O Temecula, CA

Re: What to think? My wife and I saw Expelled a few days after it opened locally. My comments are from one who is a father and grandfather. The choice is not whether it is worth seeing or not. As a ‘no-body’ I think every one, who is thinking of what is happening to our world societies and what is confronting us as Americans, would benefit from viewing Ben Stein’s production. I do believe God, a Person, hence by necessity, must be characterized as possessing Intelligence as a descriptor of His Nature, did create the Universe. I also believe God’s attributes are not limited to the boundaries of Man’s understanding. I also believe He created Man - we did not evolve. But this is beyond the subject of Expelled. Expelled is simply addressing the topic: Is there intelligence exhibited in the design of the constituents of the Universe? If this question is answered by the affirmative, common logic can not simply end. A greater question is: From where did all the mass and energy of the universe evolve? If God, with His Infinite Power did not create the Universe. from what energy did evolvement commence? If energy and mass are to remain equated, how did mass originate without The Provider of energy? From whence came the lightning bolts if there was nothing - no source of Power? - Nothing! Nothing physical. Click to read more -Dan Kazarian