Diverting Attention

Dear editor,
   Contrary to the recent piece by Mr. Michael King ["In Search of Intelligent Life at the SBOE," Sept. 19], there is no grand plan to push creationism into textbooks or classrooms.
   The actual issue before the SBOE is whether or not Darwinian evolution theory will be fully and completely presented in biology textbooks, meaning will it include both the evidence supporting the theory and that which does not. You would never know that's the issue by reading Mr. King's opinion piece.
   Testifiers to the SBOE were not seeking inclusion of creationism or intelligent design in textbooks or curriculum. Neither were they advocating for excluding evolution from textbooks.
   Instead of focusing on the science, Mr. King wants to divert attention from the issue with attacks on the alleged motives of Darwin's critics. He writes that "the institute's long-term project is (in its own words) 'to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist world-view, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.'"
   If Mr. King had taken the Discovery Institute up on its offer to provide him interviews with scientists and researchers, or simply asked us about this, he would know that we want to end the abuse of science by Darwinists like Richard Dawkins and E.O. Wilson who try to use science to debunk religion. Furthermore, we do provide support for some scientists and philosophers who think that real science is actually "consonant with ... theistic convictions." Please note, however: "consonant with" means "in harmony with." It does not mean "same as." We don't think religion and science are the same thing, or that science can somehow "prove" religion. To maintain that science and religion can be at peace with each other does not mean that science will be turned into some kind of religious enterprise.
   Another diversionary tactic employed by Mr. King is to point out that a majority of scientists believe in Darwinian evolution. That shouldn't surprise anyone, and doesn't really matter. What happened to following the scientific evidence where it leads? Is scientific truth decided now by a roll-call vote of all scientists? Are we to resort to a sort of mob rule in science, letting whichever gang is bigger determine which theories will be heard and which won't?
   The Discovery Institute released a list of 40 scientists from Texas, and 60 biologists from around the world who doubt that natural selection or chemistry alone explain the origins of life. The only scientists that Mr. King singles out for scrutiny are those few who happen to have a public persona that includes a religious affiliation.
   However, he ignores prominent biologists who have declared their skepticism of Darwin including evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe, molecular biologist Richard Sternberg from the Smithsonian Institute, and Giuseppe Sermonti, the editor of Rivista Biologia/Biology Forum. Dr. Salthe authored a mainstream biology textbook in the 1970s and now considers himself an apostate from Darwin. Dr. Sermonti is the editor of one of Europe's leading, peer-reviewed, biological journals. Obviously, in his "search," Mr. King didn't bother to look very hard to find anyone who didn't fit his Inherit the Wind stereotype.
   The issue currently before the SBOE is whether the board should apply this standard to how evolution is presented in textbooks. Let's leave religion out of it and stick to the science challenging Darwinian theory.

   [Michael King replies: Robert Crowther's letter is simply another misleading installment in the Discovery Institute's extended national campaign to undermine the teaching of the biological sciences in the public schools. Since he can't deny the Institute's declared goal – of imposing Christian theism upon scientific study – he tries to define it away. If Crowther believes evolutionary theory is indeed not "consonant with" religion and therefore to be opposed, he should make that case directly, not under the disingenuous guise of defending "full" or "complete" scientific teaching of a subject he in fact objects to in principle. That would not be a winning argument, but at least it would be an honest one. I discussed the first two names (fundamentalist Christian polemicists both) on the Institute's sloppily documented list of Texas "scientists," but – as I wrote – found that many others on the list either had similar backgrounds or no relevant scientific credentials to speak of at all. I will believe the Discovery Institute cares one whit about the serious education of public school students in Texas when Mr. Crowther and his employers devote as much time, energy, and money to restoring state textbook funding as they are now doing to weaken the curriculum, confound teachers, confuse students, and muddy the educational and political waters in the service of a fundamentally dishonest bait-and-switch religious crusade.]