Reader's Forum

The Voice welcomes letters to the editor. Submit opinions through campus mail to 101 Jeter Hall or e-mail (thevoice@uamont.edu) us.  Though letters may appear anonymous at the writer's request, the editorial staff must know his or her identity.

Dear Editor,

   I am writing this in response to Colt Roan's letter to the editor, which appeared in Vol. 3, Issue 10 of The Voice. As part of the university community I feel compelled to point out the erroneous logic of Roan's commentary on Todd Kelley's article "Evolution Sparks Debate" (Vol. 3, Issue 9). In turn, also I wish to clarify some of Kelley's own misinformation, to draw attention to the prevalent lack of knowledge and understanding of this issue as represented by these two individuals' articles, to suggest a possible cause of this deficiency, and to propose a solution.

   In reading Roan's letter recently, I was shocked that he would actually suggest that Intelligent Design Theory (ID) be taught "because an overwhelming majority of people do not believe in evolution." This (ill) logic seems to imply that the university should teach things because they are popular. Following this reasoning, if this is the majority view of the university's purpose, then perhaps professors should simply poll their students on what they (the students) want to know and teach from that; throw the essence of science and the pursuit of truth out the window. This is, in fact, the direction in which Roan's slippery slope leads. In light of such views, we should be thankful that scientific rigor demands such a high standard of its theories!

   I do understand the motivation behind Roan's attempt to combat Kelley's haughty assumption that all members of the Christian faith are like brainwashed members of "support groups" and that ID is "a religious ego-trip." That sort of fallacious mud-slinging is just as erroneous as Roan's rebuttal. Far more important than that; however, and Kelley's biggest misrepresentation in the article, is his statement that "intelligent design claims that the process of evolution, and other scientific explanations for the creation of life on earth, were all guided by the hand of God." One would think that the responsibility of a journalist would be to at least research the facts of ID and represent them honestly. In fact, Kelley misrepresents the theory in three major ways: a) ID theory makes no claims about God whatsoever, b) ID actually challenges the notion of evolution through natural selection, it doesn't posit evolution as a necessary means, and c) ID makes no claims about any particular religious, moral, or political philosophy. Instead of constructing legitimate arguments against ID, Kelley invokes the ad hominem, ad populum, and red herring fallacies by deliberately making an irrelevant and false connection between ID and Newt Gingrich! Speaking of hypocrisy; why not defend the "demonized" theory of evolution by simply "demonizing" its competition? This will all, somehow, lead to a greater enlightenment, right?

  Wrong!

  My biggest concern in all of this, and my reason for responding now, is that I see the whole exchange between Kelley and Roan as an unfortunate symptom of a larger problem. In Kelley's article and Roan's response there exists an almost willful lack of specific knowledge about the issue at hand. Neither writer is able to address the issue directly, only the most general popular notions of the issue, and this troubles me. At a university that touts itself as a "comprehensive" institution, but that has not seen fit in the last decade to look seriously into hiring a single full-time PhD in Philosophy, is it a wonder that many of our students, even our brightest, are poorly versed in the proper and useful discussion of philosophical topics? As the sole instructor of philosophy courses on this campus (by which I mean one course offered every other semester), I see an overwhelming need for more philosophical and critical thinking instruction for our students. If our institution would finally see the need to revive this once central bastion of the university community, then we may be able, in time, to see our mission reflected in the statements and arguments our students proffer in classes and in the student newspaper.

   Until that time, I offer to work immediately with any willing faculty members, student organizations, or UAM affiliated collaborators to organize and offer to our students a panel discussion or formal debate event on the topic of evolutionary theory and ID theory for the greater knowledge and understanding of what these ideas really are and how they impact our world. I hope there are others of you out there who feel as strongly about the erudition and acumen of our future graduates. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Mark Wegley
Instructor of English and Philosophy

    This little ditty is in response to Colt Roan's letter, "Evolution," dated 11-23-05. Like his comrades, the Intelligent Design Creationists and their sympathizers, Colt's letter is indicative of someone deliberately misrepresenting or not understanding the biological theory of evolution. There are so many problems in his four paragraph statement that it is hard to know where to begin, much less end. For the sake of brevity, let me just pick two and restrain myself from writing a paper.

   First of all, a theory CAN BE fact. (See this essay by Stephen Jay Gould for an extended discussion of the scientific meaning of "theory"). Creationists have been tossing the whole "just a theory" canard around for so many years that it has become cliché. Few statements better represent the confusion regarding popular versus scientific usages of a term. People often use the word "theory" in speech when they are referring to a fuzzy notion resting somewhere close to guess, but far from the other end of the spectrum, which is certainty: "I really don't know if Su-young and Mi-Sung are dating; it's just a theory." This is not the way scientists (or for that matter, academics in general) use the term.

   A theory in science is an intellectual framework for understanding the mechanism of observed phenomenon. In other words, the facts taken together—homology, observed speciation, anatomical vestiges, etc.—are best understood according to the theory of evolution: common ancestry, change in genetic diversity, descent with modification, etc. After 150 years of making accurate predictions about what we would expect to find in nature if the "theory" of evolution were true, after the accumulation of overwhelming evidence (that cannot be summarized on a bumper sticker, which Creationists essentially demand), a critical threshold of certainty has long been crossed making the fact of evolution one of the safest bets in all of science. The definition of theory as it is used by science can also be found in the Oxford English Dictionary (see #4 under "theory1").

   There is no controversy in science as to whether or not evolution happens. Scientists (evolutionary biologists in particular) do, however, debate how, not if, evolution happens, hence, the theory of evolution. "Intelligent Design" is neither a scientific nor any other type of theory. It is, rather, a political strategy masterminded over the years by the religious right to circumvent the Wall of Separation and have anti-evolution arguments presented to public school children under the respectable veneer of "science."

   Colt's "scientists that are forsaking Evolution every year" has also become such commonplace Creationists flapdoodle that the history of the charge—called imminent demise—can be traced all the way back to Darwin. By far, there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community regarding the veracity of biological evolution. Creationists are fond of distributing "lists of scientists who dissent from Darwin," always under questionable circumstances, because they are appealing to the public's credulity as regards scientific credibility: "Hey, these guys are scientists, so how can they be wrong?" So much has been made of these appeals to authority, that the National Center for Science Education has sponsored a humorous parody of the practice called Project Steve.

   I could go on, but I will spare the poor editor's time, and my own. In conclusion, I will agree with Colt on one thing: ID is not about "it just happened." One of the ways that the ID movement misrepresents evolution is to unfairly conflate it with Abiogenesis and Big Bang Cosmology. Those theories are actually less well constructed than evolution and deal with a different question all-together, and one that more closely complements what religious people are after. That question is essentially, "where did it all come from?" Evolution concerns itself with, regardless of how life got here, what it does once it is here. Life is certainly here. And that it evolves over time, and on a macro level, is one of science's most vindicated truths.

   ID proponents want you to believe that evolution does not happen and, ultimately, that the Judeo-Christian God "did it." If you really think, Colt, that "I.D. supporters are looking mostly to implement the theory WITH Evolution," whatever that really means, or that they are not pointing to the Judeo-Christian God, as ID spokespersons tirelessly point out, there are more than a few things you should have a look at. Start with the Wedge Strategy document published by the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (the principle think-tank for Intelligent Design) and then tell me that it seeks to be consistent with evolution in some sort of secular, "open-minded" quest for empirical truths. You also said something else that I agree with entirely regarding ID, which deserves to be quoted in full. ID is not science, and the reason is pretty much summed up in your own words: "Most of us hold these ultimate convictions because we have felt God change our lives in ways that cannot be explained effectively to a non-believer." Can anyone say Christian fundamentalism? Thanks for making my point for me.

Jeff Dickens
Electronic Resources Librarian

Have a comment? Please e-mail us.