This is the problem with people who don’t understand basic science concepts trying to talk about standards in science curriculum.

     In his Beliefnet article Tony Campolo (quotes highlighted in red) asserts that:

1)      The theory of Natural Selection has no empirical validation.  So the fact that all the following branches of science work, despite their reliance on the Theory of Natural Selection as a foundational concept, is not empirical validation?  (Biology, genetics, gene therapy, genetic engineering, paternity testing, how we explain bacteria gaining resistance to anti-bacterial drugs, etc.)

2)      “It’s just a theory”.  So is gravity.  Get a dictionary.  Look it up.  Read, absorb, learn, think.  Then, if you still have something to say, talk.  ID is NOT a theory.  Natural Selection IS.  So, one is taught in science class, and the other...well, Sunday School would be an excellent venue for that.  If you really must put it in a public school, I’d be open to it being discussed in a comparative religion class, theology, philosophy, history of science, debate, creative writing, something like that.

3)      “As a matter of fact, statisticians have figured that the belief that adaptations of organisms to changed environmental conditions can be explained by accident alone is nearly impossible.”   I just had to quote this chunk from the article.  “By accident alone?”  I think that there are a number of geneticists who would be able to give this guy several hours of lecture on how what we know of genetics accounts for why there is little random “chance” to mutations being functional.  For instance, most of them aren’t.  Did you know that somewhere near half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage?  Know why?  Because the fetus stops developing.  Know why?  Often because the genes don’t work.  The vast majority of organisms conceived die before reproducing.  In utero, in infancy, in youth…in part because of maladaptive mutations and/or maladaptive random genetic combinations.  Yes, the chance that a particular mutation will be adaptive is so small as to be improbable.  Doesn’t mean that’s not the way it happens.  Only the organisms with traits that enable them to live until they can reproduce pass on their genes and possible mutations.  Hence the term “Natural Selection”.  The mutations might be “random”, but the selection is not.  It very clearly follows natural processes as described by science.

 Think of the process of going down the beach to find the perfect skipping stone.  The shaping of the stones is due to “random” factors, the selection of the stone is not.  Yet even the “random” factors that shaped the stone follow patterns described by science, and are not truly “random” in the sense implied by the ID proponents.  So it is with mutations.  Even the occurrence of mutations is governed by natural laws.  Some have been described by science, and some have not.  Just as it is ridiculous (though poetic) to say “This stone was made to skip across the water.  There is no other possible explanation for why it is so perfect for the job”.  So it is ridiculous to say “This bird’s beak was designed to crack this seed, there is no other reason why it should work as it does.”

4)      “That statistical discovery, however, proves nothing.” Continuing the quote from above there.  This paragraph had so many twists and turns, I had to quote it to do it justice and carve it up to give them all the attention they deserved.  I have no argument with this particular sentence…I agree with it.  But it is important in light of the next sentence:

5)       But it does give legitimacy to the claim that intelligent design deserves some serious consideration as an alternative to Darwinism.  As Jon Stewart would say….”Whhhhaaaaa…?”  How could something that proves nothing give legitimacy to anything?  Dude’s just talking to move his lips now.

There is absolutely no good reason for Intelligent Design to be taught in Science classes as an alternative to the Theory of Natural Selection.  I would be interested in seeing some separate areas of study develop around the proposition that you can infer an intelligent designer based on the founding principles of ID (for instance, the assertions that the SETI project can discriminate between the random “noise” of the universe and any intelligently designed signals that might be bouncing around out there.)  But I suspect that there are few public school children who could handle the math.

6)      In the meantime, I think that the Kansas Board of Education did the right thing when it approved new standards for science courses in public schools, thus allowing for intelligent design to be taught along with Darwinism. After all, why should any one theory have exclusive rights?

The theory of Natural Selection does not have exclusive rights.  It is challenged all the time.  It has so far stood those challenges.  ID has not.  The proponents of this hypothesis have not yet produced anything approaching results.  When ID has spawned new disciplines and technologies that work and improve our daily lives, when it produces tangible results that can be built on and have reliable evidence of it’s validity, it will find a place in science classes.  It hasn’t, and at this rate it won’t.

All innovative hypothesis have to survive the real world and yield results in order to survive.  If they don’t, they should be modified in such a way that they CAN survive and yeild results or allowed to die a natural death and be laid to rest.

I agree with my darling husband and his statements in his blog.  Like him, I believe that there is a conscious intelligence behind creation.  I call it God.  I teach my children what I believe, and help them explore their own beliefs.  And I teach them that there is a difference between what is believed, and what is known.