By Josh Hayes / jhayes@crossville-chronicle.com
April 17, 2008 02:27 pm
—
In April 1521, Martin Luther appeared before ecclesiastical court at the Diet of Worms. He was charged with speaking in opposition to the sacrosanct doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church and was ordered to recant. As Luther faced Catholicism as the prevailing system of thought in medieval culture, modern-day academics and scholars must answer to a similar foe in Darwinism.
Based on the amount of e-mails I’ve received in response to my previous column on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s safe to assume I have been told to recant. In this column, I would like to address several things. First, I wish to clarify my statement about “modern Darwinist dogma.”
The chief objection to my column was the accusation that I claimed the theory of evolution taught the universe came from nothing. I realize the word evolution merely means “change” and the theory relates to how complex forms of life developed from simple forms of life, which possibly emerged from nonliving matter. Indeed the theory does pertain mainly to biology.
Admittedly, Charles Darwin did not write much concerning the origin of life, just briefly mentioning a “warm little pond” from which life may have emerged through random chemical processes. His followers, however, took the idea further and the notion of a “primordial soup” was a respected view among scientists until recent decades.
Still, Darwin held that natural selection left out the need for God. “The view that each variation has been providentially arranged seems to make Natural Selection entirely superfluous, and indeed takes the whole case of the appearance of new species out of the range of science” (Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, vol. 2, 6-7, 28, emphasis mine). With this statement, Darwin planted the seeds for the driving principle that would rule science in the following generations—propositions that aren’t naturalistic or materialistic should not be considered.
Perhaps the world’s most famous atheist, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated, “Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory… we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories” (The Blind Watchmaker, 287). Kansas State University professor S.C. Todd made a similar statement in Nature magazine. “Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (vol. 401 Sept. 30, 1999, 429).
Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin made the confession scientists “have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” What’s more, he admits, “We cannot allow a divine foot in the door” (“Billions and Billions of Demons,” The New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, 28). Evolutionary authorities forthrightly demonstrate evolutionary theory is not a scientific issue but a philosophical one.
Darwinism in its contemporary form extends beyond biology, affecting areas from cosmology to psychology to other cultural and social issues. That was my point in saying current Darwinian thinking is equivalent to “nobody multiplied by nothing equals everything.” If any explanation for the origin of the universe must rule out a supernatural agent, then one is left with three possibilities: creation by chance, self-creation and a self-existent universe. Aside from the last concept, the other two leave you with a “something out of nothing” explanation when fully comprehended.
Consequently, contemporary Darwinism—not the theory of evolution—holds to such cosmological concepts. Darwinism refers to the broader ideology and worldview that contains evolution as its basis for how life has come along through naturalistic processes. Darwinism goes farther than Darwin ever did with the theory.
Intelligent Design theory suggests a common sense approach to looking at data. As Nancy Pearcey stated, ID contains three categories of explanation: 1) random processes by chance; 2) regular patterns by natural law; and 3) complex or distinctive cases from design.
Pearcey writes, “We distinguish readily between the products of nature and the products of intelligence. Walking on the beach, we may admire the lovely pattern of ripples running across the sand, but we know it is merely a product of the wind and the waves. If, however, we come across a sand castle with walls and turrets and a moat, do we assume it too was created by the wind and waves? Of course not. The material constituents of the castle are nothing but sand and mud and water, just like the ripples all around it. But we intuitively recognize that those starting materials have a different kind of order imposed upon them” (Total Truth, 181).
Pearcey adds we make this detection of design in other areas of life. Detectives discern between murder and natural causes. Archaeologists distinguish between a primitive tool and a stone beaten by the weather. Insurance companies determine if a fire came by arson or from an accident (182).
The atheistic Dawkins even admits design at face value. “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (The Blind Watchmaker, 1, emphasis mine). But what do I know? I’m just a 23-year-old journalist who knows little about the First Amendment and nothing about evolution as some say. I should know better than to question the prevailing and authoritative views of our society.
In the end, the theory of evolution is accepted so readily in our culture because most people have the mindset that “all those scientists must know what they’re talking about and therefore can’t be wrong.” A similar mindset toward the pursuit of truth was adopted in medieval Europe toward the Catholic clergy when commoners felt too infantile to handle such important matters.
Today, I stand in opposition to the ideological authorities in my culture with the same words of a dissenting little monk who called for reform in his culture.
“Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me” (Martin Luther, Diet of Worms).
When authority is left unchecked, the people suffer for its errors.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.
Photos
