http://report.ca/archive/report/20020722/p55i020722f.html

In its second major test, Intelligent Design seems headed for decisive victory in Ohio

by Ted & Virginia Byfield

EPOCHAL events that change the course of history do not begin with large headlines. A mother telling a story to a child could be directing the entire course of the world because of what that child might grow up to believe, to become and to do. Similarly, when a California law professor, browsing through a bookstore some dozen years ago, picked up a copy of scientist Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker, acclaimed as a masterpiece, who could have foreseen the consequences?

The Dawkins book purports to show that we don’t need God to account for “the wonders of nature,”that all these supposed wonders in fact have come about by sheer accident, and that every natural phenomenon, no matter how complex, is simply the product of accumulated chance occurrences.

Phillip E. Johnson, professor of law at the University of California at Berkeley, is no scientist. But he is seasoned in polemical argument, and is a lethal debater with a sharp eye for flawed reasoning and an instinct for the soft spots in any case. He knew Mr. Dawkins as the world’s foremost apologist for what is called “scientism” or “naturalism,” the philosophy which maintains that only what can be shown to have resulted from some “natural” cause (i.e., within nature) is believable. Anything that suggests otherwise can be dismissed as speculation or superstition. He was the pre-eminent voice of Darwinism in the 20th century.

Mr. Johnson was understandably startled, therefore, to discover The Blind Watchmaker so full of flaws and mushy hypotheses that if offered as a case before any court, it would certainly fail. Then why, he wondered, did almost every respected scientist accept it as self-evident fact? Surely there must be better evidence for the Darwin Theory of Natural Selection. He was further astounded to discover, however, that there is not. The famous speckled moths of the high-school textbooks proved only that dark-coloured moths survived better on soot-covered trees than white moths. But they still were moths, and when the soot was gone the white moths returned. This is like arguing that because fish fare better than gophers in a flood, floods can cause species to change. But in fact fish stubbornly remain fish, gophers remain gophers, and moths remain moths. The celebrated fruit flies, recurrently offered as another “proof,” stubbornly remained fruit flies, albeit with minor variations. And that inspired textbook sketch of figures metamorphosing from reptile to human, he found, is totally fictional.

Indeed, despite 150 years of tireless search, specific evidence of one species accidentally “evolving” into another is virtually non-existent.

After incorporating these suspicions into a book, Mr. Johnson made several more discoveries. First, he was everywhere dismissed as a biblical literalist advocating a 5,000-year-old universe, a position he vigorously disowns. Second, he discovered the power and the bias of “the scientific establishment.” Many publishers, fearing that science faculties would deny them future textbook business, refused to touch his book. However, his Darwin on Trial was finally printed and became an instant best-seller.

Other books followed with the same public acclaim. Even this was only the beginning. He found that a small circle of highly reputable scientists agreed with him. Together with philosopher William Dembski, they developed the movement known as Intelligent Design, which allows that a powerful intelligence may be at work in and behind nature. They believe evolution should be taught in science courses–but as theory, not fact. Moreover, the challenges to the theory should be taught along with it–one of these being the theory of Intelligent Design.

Their case got its first trial two years ago in Kansas, when the state school board voted to teach “creationism” alongside evolution. This decision was denounced by spokesmen for the scientific establishment and most of the American media. Public opinion in Kansas swung strongly behind the evolutionists, a new school board was elected, and Kansas was “saved” from the supposed ravages of Christian ignorance.

Last year, however, the same issue arose in the schools of Ohio. Public hearings were called, and a phalanx of scientists appeared. But this time they represented both sides of the question–some contending evolution should be taught as established fact, and others, equally reputable, that it be presented as a theory under challenge from Intelligent Design. This time the weight of public opinion is going the other way.

One poll set out two options. First: biology teachers should teach only Darwin’s theory and the evidence that supports it. Response: 19% said yes. Second: biology teachers should teach Darwin’s theory, but also the scientific evidence against it. Response: 65% yes.

Another case in London, England, is going the same way. The consternation of the Darwinists is almost pitiable to behold. “Scientific triumphalists,” lawyer Johnson sardonically observes, “remind me of Napoleon’s army in Moscow. They have won many battles and captured an immense amount of territory. But they have no safe line of retreat, and if something goes wrong, any withdrawal may become a rout.”