I loved Mr. Madson’s Biology class. He was a first rate
teacher passionate about science and the scientific method and
the pursuit of truth. He was also a good church-going man and a
role model for many students who wanted to be scientists. I was
one of those.
Back in 1969 no one had even heard of something called
Intelligent Design or irreducible complexity. What was made very
plain to us over and over again was that evolution, as a
mechanism to explain the state of the world today, was a theory,
not a law. You could “test” some of its basic premises and
observe its genesis through bones and tissue and the fossil
record. But until scientists are able to create life in some
primordial slug-pit triggered by flashes of lightning Darwin’s
observations were simply that, one explanation of how man may
have begun his existence from a collection of amino acids and
carbon particles and changed and adapted to new surrounds.
Mr. Madson was always careful to point out that evolution
within a given species was a fact, but evolution between species
was still replete with holes large enough to drive a universe
through. Which is why we always spent several days talking about
alternative theories for the existence of life on Earth. We
talked about God, aliens, and other religious perspectives. We
talked about those missing links. We always came back to the
theory of evolution and talked about why it appears as the most
logical explanation. Yet, Mr. Madson would lecture us over and
over again: if you set a theory in stone that can never be
completely proven you are effectively discounting that part of
the brain that separates us from the rest of the animal world;
the power to imagine and question.
I kept my old Biology book, written in 1968, and went through
it last night. I was pleasantly surprised it had one whole
chapter dedicated to alternative theories to evolution. I don’t
remember anyone protesting that book or demanding it be banned
for even mentioning, in an intellectually honest fashion, the
possibility that there could be other explanations for the
origins of mankind.
Fast forward to 2006. The state of Florida has approved a
science textbook called: Biology: The Dynamics of Life. Some
teachers and editorial boards on newspapers want the book banned
because under the heading “The Origin of Life” it contains two
paragraphs on the belief that a supreme being created life. It
goes on to mention that cultures throughout history have had
their own religious explanations for the origins of life. Gee,
it reads just like my old biology book! It also tosses in a
quick reference to intelligent design. Here’s the biggest sin.
It suggests the class engage in a debate on the origins of life.
Discussion? Free speech? Opposing viewpoints? I can think of
nothing more tragic then open-minded discussion. I hear its been
banned on high school and college campuses of late. And what if
the theory of evolution isn’t able to stand up to the ramblings
of mere high school students? Where is Charles Darwin when you
need him? “This kind of discussion will only breed confusion,”
says a local newspaper editorial (St. Pete Times, Monday, Jan
23, 2006).
Confusion? Who is confused here? You don’t think high school
students are capable of handling religious explanations of
evolution? You don’t think they understand putting a gag order
on speech and thought just because it happens to have a
religious tone?
Here’s my take. The fear from many members of the academic
community is that new scientific explanations of the holes in
Darwin are gaining ground among more in the scientific community
itself. Even some professors and researchers who have spent
their entire lives studying evolution have reversed course or
are at least question their initial assumptions.
Dr. Michael Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, continues to
send shock waves through academia with its thoughtful dissection
of the biochemical challenges to evolution. He rules out
evolutionary process as the only answer because, biochemically,
they are: "irreducibly complex," meaning that if they are
missing just one of their many parts, they cannot function,
therefore cannot evolve in a Darwinian fashion. Why not? Because
natural selection works on small mutations in just one component
at a time. If dozens or even hundreds of distinct proteins,
precisely fashioned, are required to make a functional cilium,
how could natural selection slowly and patiently craft them, one
at a time, while waiting for the complex function of ciliary
movement to emerge?” You need to read this book. I can’t do it
justice in none paragraph.
In the end it is not important whether Behe and a growing
list of scientists continue expanding their scientific research
on Intelligent Design. For all I know, they could be wrong. At
least they are open enough to examine other explanations for
things we do not fully understand. I thought that’s what
scientists were supposed to do? Since when is science afraid of
the unknown?
You can label those scientists who support Intelligent Design
religious zealots if you wish. But at least they are being
intellectual honest by admitting evolution’s flaws and offering
other explanations for consideration. Would that be a crime or
unconstitutional? And does two paragraphs in a 700-page textbook
equal government support of religion? Please????
Intelligent Design supporters don’t want or need to have it
etched in stone wiping out Darwin’s evolutionary matrix. They
just want it footnoted in an honest fashion so if today’s young
scientist happen to turn the stone over and it says, “made in
heaven” they won’t be too shocked!
