Letter to editor about intelligent design

To the editor, Baton Rouge Advocate:

After reading Charles Voss’ letter in the October 10 Advocate one cannot but wonder how biologists would respond to the idea that evolution is defined rather blandly as “change”. Or that evolution described thus is not a “scientifically useful theory”.

Do I believe in “intelligent design”? I think it a no-brainer. Moreover that the God described in Hebrew and Christian scriptures is involved in the formation of the universe and everything in it. But I would address (1) the issue of teaching intelligent design in public schools, and (2) the probable intent/motive.

I scanned some of Professor Voss’ proposed textbook changes. I admit that nowhere did I see him propose “therefore God, divine being, higher power, sacred text” or the like. But he does propose, “Other explanations for what is observed on earth should be examined”. Therein lies the rub. What other explanations could there possibly be that are non-religious? (Besides extraterrestrials.) Intelligent design advocates like Voss might not call openly for classroom lectures on “looks like divine intervention!” But the implicit conclusion is nigh unavoidable. Intelligent design (note the expression!) in public schools functionally guarantees teaching/discussing religious ideas as “truth”.

We can explore that. If my inference is correct, what “unavoidable conclusion that is a religious belief” might intelligent design advocates have in mind? Dare we ask how many want this who are not Christian? (In fairness perhaps Voss is no more a theist than Dawkins et al.) Could they live with students embracing deism? Islam? Buddhism? classical philosophy? anything besides Christianity? Or is the intent to promote some vague generic theism? And why would a committed member of any religious tradition hope for such a thing? Be careful what you ask for.

Be honest and tell us openly. Although difficulties with evolutionary theory probably should be acknowledged, exactly what “other explanations” will be presented and discussed – and accepted? I honestly cannot find how Voss would answer.

Sincerely,

Richard Wright, Ph.D.
pastor, adjunct professor (Hebrew Bible)
Baton Rouge

Addendum (not send to the newspaper but to this blog entry) – Vewy vewy intewesting. Guess what? Turns out that Charles Voss is not only a Christian (no biggie – in and of itself). But is vice-president of the Origins Research Association. Check it out. Lots of links on that website to “creation science” and “creation corner” and “creationist organizations” and so on. Not only that but the organization promotes (among other things) that “public school students should also be exposed to whatever evidence favored creation” (my emphasis). Excuse me? I found creationist websites that list him as a speaker/resource (although guilt-by-association is a weak argument). And yet his letter to the editor of the Baton Rouge Advocate clearly states:

Labeling ‘intelligent design’ as a… substitute for creationism points out a lack of understanding…. Furthermore your comment that ‘intelligent design’ advocates say, ‘If something, anything, is not explicitly proved, proclaim that complexity as proof of divine intervention’ is not true.

One might argue that technically, literally everything Voss wrote is correct. But surely this is plenty of evidence that the “truth” he speaks with his mouth (or types with his fingers) does not accurately reveal the agenda he hides in his heart/mind. And it is this rank dishonesty that offends me.

Oh – and respectable biologists have pointed out that some of his “research” is just plain rubbish.