One thing I’ve realized after years of following the ID movement is that William Dembski can best be described as a gift that keeps on giving. Take a look at this, for example:
Here are some quotes from seven of Miller’s biology textbooks, textbooks underwritten with your tax dollars. As you read these quotes, ask yourself where is the “theo” in Miller’s “theoevo.”(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991)…(6) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152
Dembski is terribly wrong on so many counts that he has to be either terribly ignorant or is simply obfuscating the facts to pander to his religious base. By asking where is the “god speak” in a biology textbook, Dembski has shown us (yes, old news) that ID is all about shoving god into science and down the throats of children, destroying science education in the process. What Dembski did not realize is that there is no “god talk” nor “atheist talk” in the theory of evolution itself because the theory does not make any claim whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of a god. God isn’t mentioned in the description of the theory of gravitation, yet we don’t see IDists demanding to know where the “theo” is in gravity. There is no mention of religion in the weather forecast either and no ID creationist so far has claimed that god should be involved in the description of weather cycles.
Although Miller is a devout Catholic, he keeps his personal religious views out of the way in a scientific textbook. This has nothing to do with Miller accepting or rejecting the theistic god. He is merely writing about the theory of evolution the same way that someone would write about the theory of gravitation. Religion simply has nothing to do with it, and this is the very idea that Dembski refuses to comprehend. The IDists want to shove their narrow, fundamentalist version of religion into science, and they do not understand why current science textbooks do not read like the Bible. Once god is pushed into science, what next? Oh, and which god? Whose interpretation of what holy book? Fred Phelps’ version? Will kids be forced to learn about Yahweh creating man from dust? Will they also learn about Zeus shooting thunderbolts from the sky? Where are we to draw the line?
Of course, Miller is free to talk about his religious beliefs and publish popular books about what he thinks the role of his religion plays in science, the same way Richard Dawkins can promote the idea that evolution is incompatible with theistic belief. No matter how much Ben Stein would like you to think otherwise, nobody is trying to persecute and ‘expel’ Miller for his theistic evolutionary views. Evolutionary theory is discussed in science textbooks without “god-speak” because there is no need to invoke a supernatural being to explain scientific concepts. If Dembski wants Miller to include the “theo” in evolution, he should push for “theo” to be introduced in every scientific field and in every other area of study as well, to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Wait – that is the Wedge Strategy. The IDists actually do want to do that after all.
Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.
Comments
RSS
Digg!
Stumble
Tweet
More by Shalini Sehkar
Author Tweets
tweets loading 
Great story!! Keep up the good work!!
[...] Shalini got me thinking on a point that keeps coming up when dealing with liberal, or at least, evolution-accepting Christians. And that is, how do they reconcile a “purposeless” and “heartless” process of evolution (Dr. Kenneth Miller’s words, quoted from Shalini’s article), with a teleological (or purposeful) universe? [...]
What about the first claim:
Are biology books taxpayer funded? Does one receive a gov’t grant to write a textbook?
Taxes fund the government, the Government funds schools, schools pay for textbooks.
oh right, I was thinking that he thought the actual writing of the book was funded by the gov’t. of course, schools buy the texts with taxpayer money. *duh*
[...] READ THE WHOLE ENTRY AT “EDGER” [...]
Miller’s confusion of theology and teleology are thoroughly disheartening, and are a testament to the red herring of religion in modern scientific controversy. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing about the theory of evolution (in its most essential structure) that precludes a corresponding spiritual understanding. In fact, if one were to relate the theory of evolution to Hindu mythology, buddhism, paganism, or taoism, it becomes obvious that many spiritual cosmologies are based around a metaphorical concept of biological evolution. Just because most western organized religions are not internally coherent, does not mean that evolution has no room for spirituality.
In fact, the reason that science (at the time “natural philosophy”) was initially divorced from an energetic, spiritual, and metaphysical understanding of the world has much to do with the history of science and the christian church. In the 17th century, scientists (like Descartes and Hooke) desired to institutionalize natural philosophy, to provide a place for scientific discourse. However, England has just undergone the counter-reformation, and the church of England was reestablished and state-endorsed. Fearing that science would ultimately replace church teachings, these parties struck what has come to be known as the “positivist comprimise.” The result was that the church would have athourity over morals, religion, politics, and ways of knowing that were subjective and arational, while science could deliberate upon the objective, mundane and empirical. In return for this vested power, science would provide the church, state, and institutions with an enhanced power over nature (an exploitation that has deep roots in Judeo-Christian Mythology). After this compromise was struck, scientists were free to found The Royal Society in England and the Academie of Science in France.
Since Science gave up its right to the subjective realms in the 17thc., no scientific theory has included any reference to morality, religion, or the non-material realms. To assert that evolution is based on “philosophical materialism” is obvious, given that it is a scientific theory and science itself is limited to philosophical materialism.
Maybe instead arguing ‘god vs. evolution’ we should be looking for god in evolution. I’ll give you a hint – she doesn’t need to know where she’s going to get there.
I love http://bookstore.bornbuy.com so much!!!!! Seriously its the best site to review for textbooks! Its an amazing review textbook before you decision for buy!