Re: Cornell

A similar confounding occurred in a recent editorial, "Don't be stupid about
intelligent design" in the Journal of Clinical Ivestigation (Ref: Wgich read
in part

"It is hard to argue against a middle ground — a theory of life that
involves the incorporation of different beliefs. Especially as at least 40%
of scientists (and presumably more of the lay population) surveyed in 1997
state that they believe in God (2). A 1999 Gallup poll showed that a
startling number of people (38%) believed wholly in creationism, 43%
believed in a more intelligent design–like theory, and only 18% of those
surveyed believed in evolutionary theory as the sole explanation for the
origin of humans. The same poll showed that increasing levels of education
correlated with a belief in evolution (65% with postgraduate degrees versus
20% with a high school degree). What exactly does this say about our
schooling? That you have to have a postgraduate education to understand or
believe in fact? Are Bush and Frist trying to skew these numbers even
further?"

The 43% statement was essential "evolution happened but God guided the
process:" more akin to theistic evolution than ID, though a case might be
made that it is consistent with both. The 18% statement basically said God
had nothing to do with the process. If I had been surveyed by Gallup I'd
qualify as an ID advocate under this definition and I assure you I am
anything but! But to declare that a statement which specifically excludes
God is the only scientifically acceptable one plays right into the hands of
the Richard Dawkins of the world, and gives the Kent Hovinds of the world
that much more ammo with which to convince Christians that including
evolution in the science cirriculum is the same as buying your kids a
one-way ticket on the Atheists Express.

I would like to see a poll that gave people a choice between a basic
theistic science statement (like that outlined by Francis Collins) and
Johnson's advocacy of "a God that acted openly and left his fingerprints all
over the evidence." My guess is, things wouldn't look nearly as good for
ID.

Louise

> "Rawlings said that some polls show that 40 percent of Americans
> believe that creationism should be taught instead of evolution in
> public schools, and about half of the Cornell students in the large
> course on evolution for nonmajors agree that 'some sort of "purpose"
> [is] informing the process through which life develops.'
>
> It is a grevious issue that those two positions ought to be equated in
> wrongness by academia. The first is a misunderstanding of science,
> but the second is a position taken by all theistic evolutionists,
> including evolutionary luminaries like Dobzhansky. ID thus threatens
> to truly take "God out of the classroom" if the political backlash
> mandates the teaching of evolution as unguided.
Received on Fri Oct 28 14:22:48 2005