August 16, 2005    

Dear Concerned Citizen,

  
by Dr. Benjamin Wiker

Recently, President Bush raised some eyebrows during a round-table interview with reporters. Prodded about his views of the origin of life and what he thought of the Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design debate, Bush reluctantly said,

"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought. You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas; the answer is yes."

As expected, Bush's comments were immediately met by howls of indignation that the President was mixing pure science (Darwinism) with pure religion (Intelligent Design). Such mixing is an intellectual and political no-no, they warn.

Intellectually, there is no place for God in science, or even the merest hint of an intelligent cause. All apparent "design" in nature must be explained only in terms of the twin powers of chance and material necessity, as prodded and kneaded by natural selection. Politically, as we all know, the Constitution absolutely forbids any mention of God in the classroom (or if we do mention God, it better be in a religion classroom in a private school, not receiving any funding from the federal government).

So they say. So we are told.

But perhaps it isn't as simple as that. Let's begin with Darwinism. Is it really a pure science...or is it, by design, a view of science "purified" of any reference to God? Not purified because science demands it, but because a particular secularist ideology or worldview demands it?

I am suggesting a parallel to our political situation. The First Amendment of our Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..." The obvious meaning: Don't establish a state church either directly (as the Anglicans did in England) or indirectly by outlawing all but the favored denomination.

We are now told--obvious appearances to the contrary--that this statement means that all mention of God must be actively and zealously stripped from the public square. In short, politics must be "purified" of religion. And that means: no mention of God in the classroom, especially in the science classroom; no mention of design in biology, for that would imply a Designer. Thus, only "pure" Darwinism may be taught, which by definition eliminates the need for a Creator. No questions asked, because none are allowed.

There is a pattern here, if we step back and view things in its larger historical context. Both the exclusion of religion from politics and the intellectual exclusion of intelligent design from biology are part of a larger, more comprehensive, well-planned secularizing project. Over the last several centuries, secularists have been intent on stripping God from public life; Darwinism provides the scientific mandate for the project.

Think that's too strong a claim? Grist only for right-wing, know-nothing conspiracy theorists?

Consider carefully the following interesting statement made by a very reputable molecular biologist, Franklin Harold.

"We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."

Harold is a magnificent biologist who has written one of my favorite books on the glories of the cell, The Way of the Cell. The Way of the Cell is a long argument against the reductionism inherent in Darwinism...yet Harold still takes the side of Darwin. It is clear that he has been indoctrinated against design. Why?

The entire of Darwin's argument rests on its ability to provide detailed accounts of biological systems. Darwin made a bet against design. He admitted living things certainly appeared to be so complex that only a divine intelligence could have been their cause, but he bet that natural selection, continually choosing the most fit utterances from "the dialogue of chance and necessity," could explain the bit by bit build-up of any and every biochemical system.

After a century and a half, we're faced with "only a variety of wishful speculations" and we think Darwin has won the bet? Why are "wishful speculations" any more than a protracted sigh of faith, a confession of hope for things yet unseen?

We're not dealing then with a controversy between science and religion, but a clash between two faiths, two religions. One is the religion of Secularism that demands unbelief in God, evidence or no evidence. Witness the oft-quoted words of Darwinian biologist Richard Lewontin (interestingly, another trenchant critique of the reductionism of his fellow Darwinists).

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Lewontin claims that we must be materialists because "To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen."

This is, of course, a real fear, but a false claim. To argue that things in nature are designed is precisely to focus on their evident, regular, and complex order. But the materialist's fear of miracle, that is certainly quite real, and we are right to be suspicious that there's more than meets the ear in the howls of indignation at President Bush's words.

Responses to The Experimental Family:

I would like to know if you did any research on Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse or inquired into the sources she used for this article. I find her "research" (or whatever she calls it) about the children of single or divorced parents highly offensive and wrong. If you look into August or September's issue of Parenting magazine you will find an article by a doctor that shows the exact opposite. As a divorced mother of two boys, who attend church regularly and have a working and responsible parent as a role model, I find such an article irresponsible and without merit unless you show the findings of other research that shows that children raised in a stable loving environment grow up to be stable, loving adults. The children of single parents who are members of a close knit church family have a good social peer group. While I have read the statistics of children raised in single parent homes, I also know that those numbers were taken from certain economic groups and do not uually show a wide variety of economic levels. - D. E.

No way to have heaven on earth, is there?? - L. P.

I continue daily to follow some old articles written a long time ago. I am fortunate to have a readable copy. There are ‘many’ wonderful examples of living, love and health. The writers of the articles haven’t done as much research as some do….but they make their point. After having read a number of different articles, I concluded a long time ago that a child ‘should have and needs both a mother and father’…..just as your recent research has concluded. Also, as your article has inferred, hunger would be lessened and other good things would come from the unity of the family. GOOD JOB!!! I’m glad to hear others today coming up with the same conclusions that I have had for many years. I am also glad to hear that the research today has come to the same conclusion as the articles written 2,000 years ago. - W. W.

I have always enjoyed reading your articles and I don't recall ever disagreeing with what was written. But this article made me upset, very upset. Since when has a $15.00 an hour job been considered "High Paying?" I make $12.50 an hour, have no health insurance benefits, no retirement fund, no paid sick days. You think I should be paid less??? Fine - then figure out a way to lower the cost of living. Until then I am going to support the purchase of American made products! - C. L. L.

The story of Jennifer Roback Morse fails to mention one area when it comes to children. What about the children that were given away or sold to new parents and the abuse those new parents gave that child? When a person has their own child they are connected to it more than when they take or buy the child. That child get's a different kind of love than the child that have been raised by strangers. People that aren't connected, Like Uncle Joe, Grandpa Jones, or even a father that was not in the birthing process find the distance of connection a way in to sexual, verbal or physical abuse. That connection give the father or mother a sense of protectiveness. Strangers will do whatever they want to a child that is not there's to begin with. Mothers are not escaping the picture either. This is not to say that all parent's of their own children would not do the same. It is usually the foster parent, the cousin who moved in, the Uncle/ Aunt, the grandfather/ Grandmother who do all the damage to a child. - T. M.

I would like to know more about the research that supports the claims made in this article. While I can affirm (at least to some degree) all four "rights" listed at the end of the article, I hope we all recognize that marriage, by itself, does not magically bestow advantage on children. There are bad marriages in which children suffer. Perhaps the larger issue is how do we as a culture, as a society, assist those reluctant to marry? How do we as a society assist children, who through no fault of their own, live with a single parent or with parents emotionally and/or financially unable to care for them? Requiring everyone to be in a male-female married couple relationship before having children will not be a magic bullet. Divorce happens and is sometimes preferable to abuse. Biological parents are not always the best parents just because they are biological. I am a mother of four (in a committed marriage for 35 years), and a grandmother of five. Our society is in a time of great change; we are fearful. We struggle to find the "answers" when maybe the answer is loving people right where they are, loving people first, before judging them. A friend's son just returned from street ministry in London, England. He was amazed at the lack of interest he encountered. Perhaps we need to remember that people are won to a life in Christ one person at a time. People are won to a life in Christ because Christ meets their needs and they experience that through one person being the presence of Christ to them, not through rules and regulations, judgments and put-downs. - M. R.

Unfortunately, an email address for the author was not provided... if these comments were forwarded I'd appreciate it. Despite impressive qualifications on the part of the author, the article is functionally useless to me. If I turned in a similar paper, I'd be failed for plagiarism or lack of evidence, or both. There are many "facts" stated as well known, but with no sources or citation of any kind! I don't see how this is acceptable to either your publication or to such a qualified author! I would truly appreciate higher standards in the future. - E. P.

The ideal two parent biological family has never been the norm, just the ideal. WHile I think your article has some positive points, I don't think it is very well thought out. And as an adoptive mother who could never give birth to a child, didn't feel so good for me either--again like there's something wrong with me. In my bathroom I have a picture I won at the only adoptive family gathering I ever attended. In it is a mother bear, one color, rocking a baby bear of another. The saying reads, "Bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh, never forget that you did not grow under my heart but in it." - Rev. J. B.

Can you do an artical on the difference (legally) between "state sancioned marriage" and a "church wedding without a marriage license" Here is the background to my question. Also, I live in New Brunswick, Canada. I am a pastor. Our government now gives marriage licenses to same sex partners. I am strongly considering changing my policies regarding marriage. I would like to offer the following options. 1. I do the whole "legal marriage" with both a church service AND me signing the government forms. This is the normal way I have worked in the past. 2. I do a church service, but do not do do the government paperwork This would be with couples who wish to show that the government definition of marriage IS NOT their definition of marriage. 3. I do the Legal Paperwork only This is for couples who are already living together who simply want a legally recognized marriage. - G. J.

Responses to The Great Anti-Poverty Solution:

I have always enjoyed reading your articles and I don't recall ever disagreeing with what was written. But this article made me upset, very upset. Since when has a $15.00 an hour job been considered "High Paying?" I make $12.50 an hour, have no health insurance benefits, no retirement fund, no paid sick days. You think I should be paid less??? Fine - then figure out a way to lower the cost of living. Until then I am going to support the purchase of American made products! - C. L. L.

Send your letter to the editor to feedback@tothesource.org.
Your Name Your Email
Friend's Name Friend's Email
Click for a Printer Friendly Version
We live complex lives. We strive to sort out priorities that sometimes conflict or seem incompatible. A moral framework is needed to help us understand the reality around us. Our Judeo-Christian heritage provides a framework to help us comprehend the choices we make and the conflicts that arise over them. It is not only the main source of our spiritual values, but also many of the secular values we depend on.

tothesource is a forum for integrating thinking and action within a moral framework that takes into account our contemporary situation. We will report the insights of cultural experts to the specific issues we face believing these sources will embolden people to greater faith and action.
We invite you to subscribe to our free email service
that features informed opinion on current cultural issues.
  Benjamin Wiker
Benjamin Wiker holds a Ph.D. in Theological Ethics from Vanderbilt University, and has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College (CA).

He is now a Lecturer in Theology and Science at Franciscan University of Steubenville (OH), and a full-time, free-lance writer. Dr. Wiker is a Senior Fellow of Discovery Institute and a Senior Fellow at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology. He writes regularly for a variety of journals.

Dr. Wiker just released a new book called Architects of the Culture of Death (Ignatius). His first book, Moral Darwinism: How We Became Hedonists, was released in the spring of 2002 (InterVarsity Press). He has written another book on Intelligent Design for InterVarsity Press called The Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature (due out in Spring 2006).
tothesource, P.O. Box 1292, Thousand Oaks, CA 91358
Phone: (805) 241-3138 | Fax: (805) 241-3158 | info@tothesource.org

This email was sent to [[EMAIL_ADDRESS]]. If you feel you have received this in error or you do not wish to receive future articles from us, please reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line.