by William Lloyd Stearman, PhD


Liberals and some others oppose teaching intelligent design (ID) in public schools, charging that it introduces religion into the classroom, whereas teaching pure Darwinian unguided random “natural selection” evolution does not.  Actually ID does not, per se, presuppose a belief in God, a supernatural creator or any religious belief, whereas, unguided evolutionism, by a priori rejecting God the Creator, presupposes atheism, which is most certainly a religious belief. So why not substitute, in the classroom, intrinsically religion-neutral ID for a belief in atheism? In this connection, it is highly significant that over 90% of academic and other Darwinian evolutionist scientists are atheists who have long imposed their religious belief on the classrooms, taking the line that “science only deals with material reality, whereas religion deals with the spiritual, the moral and the ethical” and therefore it (along with ID) has no place in science classes (or actually in any other classes). In point of fact, scientist ID supporters accept the concept of evolution and even the possibility of a universal common ancestor of all living things. The fanatical opposition to ID most probably is primarily motivated by the fear that, heaven forbid, ID could lead to a belief in God (which. of course, it could), which gives atheists unrelieved heartburn .This is why there will always be a vast majority of scientists who oppose ID. This, in turn, produces an overwhelming preponderance of “scientific opinion”, generally taken seriously by laymen, which places ID proponents in a very difficult and unfair position in the courts and with school boards.

For scientists so confident in their evolutionary beliefs, it is amusing the extremes to which they sometimes feel compelled to go to make a point. It must, for example, be a troubling puzzlement to these Darwinian evolutionists that “man’s closest relatives”, the nonhuman primates, seem entirely incapable of making or inventing anything --  totally unlike man whose ability in this regard seems (and no doubt is) limitless. Therefore, it was with great satisfaction and enthusiasm that, in recent years, a Darwinian-oriented scientist widely proclaimed that “apes can use tools.” This was based solely on observing one ape plumbing the depth of a stream with a stick (the “tool”).  It gets even better. The National Geographic (April 2008), in an article entitled “Almost Human,” reports how anthropologist Jill Pruetz observed chimpanzees sharpening branches with their teeth and then using them to spear bush babies, very small primates living in trees. Published in over 300 news and science outlets, this created a sensation in the Darwinist-oriented anthropologic community. Imagine, then, its reaction to discovering a group of primates building large dams, floating materials for it in specially constructed channels and, in lakes thus created, constructing lodges with separate rooms and underwater entrances. This would undoubtedly cause these anthropologists to dissolve in paroxysms of ecstasy. This, of course, is something beavers have routinely been doing for countless centuries. Also compare the above highly touted observed simian achievements with, for example, bees’ remarkably constructed hives and honey production, many birds’ intricate nests and spiders’ highly effective webs and traps, relatively sophisticated “tools” for catching unwary prey

Much of the belief in unguided evolution largely depends on Darwin’s observations of microevolution within single species during his short stay in Galapagos Islands in 1835.  The only possible fossil evidence of one species evolving into another is some evidence of small dinosaurs evolving into birds, the evidence of which is still sketchy. Generally blind faith in believing large evolutionary gaps in the fossil record can be overcome, still unguided evolution deserves to be labeled the leading superstition of our time. In any case, there is a huge unbridged and, indeed, unbridgeable gap between the most advanced animals and the most primitive humans. Humans constantly advance in all fields, whereas animals remain frozen in time with few, if any, advances. This alone should give pause to those who believe in unguided evolution, but, of course, it will not.  Then there is, for example, the question of explaining the Cambrian explosion of life forms, predominantly trilobites, over 500 million years ago. This brings into play DNA which, according to Dr, .John West (see below) “poses a fundamental challenge to materialist [that is Darwinian] explanations of life because materialist explanations in principle cannot account for the most important characteristic of [DNA] information: its meaning.” In respect to the Cambrian explosion the question is (quoting British scientist Stephen Meyer) “Where does all the new information come from needed …to build these fundamentally new forms of animals?” Speaking of DNA, 3.1 billion chemical “letters” make up the human DNA. What an enormous input of information! How could this occur through random selection?

Intelligent design foes constantly condemn ID as “unscientific.” Here, however, is an irrefutable mathematical, therefore scientific, proof of ID as it appeared in a letter (from me) in London’s The Economist (August 27th –September 2nd 2005) which is hardly conservative. (I.e., it supported Kerry in the 2004 election.):
“The human brain has one hundred billion extremely complex neurons connected by one thousand trillion synapses. It is mathematically impossible for anything this unimaginably complex to have been the product of any kind of unguided evolution, even over limitless aeons. One doesn't have to know the rules of mathematical probability to recognize this. The brain could only have been created by a limitless intelligence, call it what you may.”
(To demonstrate an easily graspable idea of mathematical probability, the odds against a very simple random selection like drawing a royal flush in five card poker, are 689,739 to one.)  As Lehigh University biochemistry professor Dr. Michael Behe put it, some biochemical systems are so “irreducibly complex”  that they are better  explained as products of intelligent design rather than a Darwinian  process of unguided natural selection (from Darwin  Day in America cited below.). It is important, therefore, that ID proponents explain that the “intelligent designer” must well, at times, have used an evolutionary process in creating. The proof of a common micro-evolutionary process is evident within species. For example, in my lifetime, Americans have evolved into being substantially taller and into living significantly longer. Darwinists seek to discredit ID by wrongly associating it with those fundamentalist Christians who believe in the “new earth” concept (i.e., that the earth is only some 6000 years old) and in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 in respect to creation. This allegation is patently untrue. In contrast with these fundamentalist beliefs, on the other hand, the oldest and largest Christian Church, the Roman Catholic one, is open-minded about a 4.6 million year old earth and about the possibility of an evolutionary process in Divine creation. (See below.) It maintains that, while the Genesis concept of divine creation is, in principle, theologically correct, it could be regarded as being more allegorical than literally factual, as fundamentalists claim. Incidentally, a Belgian Catholic priest, Father Georges Lemaitre, in 1927, first came up with the Big Bang theory, often discredited by fundamentalist creationists, and he was certainly not reprimanded by the Church for it. However, for sometime, Albert Einstein disagreed with Father Lemaitre until famed astronomer Edwin Hubble finally brought him around on this.

For those who believe in God, one could cogently argue that God may well have created using an evolutionary process. The Bible says that “God created man in his own image…” (Genesis 1:27) That being so, since man creates using an evolutionary process, for example, a hammer first from stone, then bronze, then iron and finally steel, why couldn’t God do the same? When man was finally created he was obviously endowed with properties enjoyed by no other creature on earth, as noted above. A religious person would say that he was, in first instance, endowed with an immortal soul. The Catholic Church seems inclined towards God’s possibly using an evolutionary process in creating. Both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have, for example, stressed the Catholic principle that faith and science are compatible. Pope Pius XII, in 1950, sanctioned “research and discussions…with regard to the doctrine of evolution.” Pope John Paul II opined that evolution was “more than a hypothesis.”  However, Austrian Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn, who is close to Pope Benedict XVI, wrote, in 2005, that “neo-Darwinian dogma is not “compatible with Christian faith.” He later explained that he did not reject the theory of evolution, but rightly pointed out that neo-Darwinists deny the divine creation which is fundamental to Christian belief. As explained, in 2009, by Reverend Marc Leclerc, in the official Vatican organ L’Osservatore Romano, “Evolution and creation do not represent the least opposition between them…On the contrary they reveal themselves as entirely complementary.”

The pernicious widespread dehumanizing influence of Darwinian-inspired scientific materialism was described in great detail in an extraordinarily thoroughly researched and documented book entitled Darwin Day in America (ISI Books 2007, Wilmington, DE.) by Dr. John G. West of the Discovery Institute (in Seattle WA). This materialism runs starkly counter to Christianity’s exaltation of the human being as created “in the image of God.” This materialistic debasement of the human being poses a grave, little recognized, threat in many facets of our society, as explained in great detail, case-by-case by Dr. West. For example, he quotes biologist Bruce Alberts, former president of the National Academy of Sciences as stating “…we have come to realize humans are more like worms than we ever imagined…the worm represents a very simple human.” British scientist Jane Rogers is quoted as stating, “…we share 99 percent of our genes with mice and we even have genes that could make a tail.” This is why, as noted above, Darwinian-oriented anthropologists eagerly seek anything that makes us seem more like “other primates.” Their bottom line is that, if humans are essentially no different from animals, why should they be regarded differently? This erodes the entire ethical, philosophical and moral foundation of our society, as Dr. Bell so tellingly documents.