Kevin Ogorzalek wants evolution alone to be taught in schools. Rather than waging war through The Chronicle, I wish only to point out flaws in his argument and express my hope for a reasonable alternative.
First of all, Ogorzalek assumes that "misunderstanding evolution . . . causes resistance to acceptance." However, to negate his example, I assert that one who rejects evolution because of wrongly assuming that it claims men descend from chimps would reject the claim that they share a common, less advanced ancestor.
Secondly, intelligent design claims no religion. Some non-Christians accept intelligent design. If ID were merely another attempt by creationists to return to the classroom and had no scientific standing, no atheist scientists would accept it.
Ogorzalek explains that with new contradicting evidence, Darwinians are "bound to change their views." However, evolution operates on a "foregone conclusion;" when new evidence is discovered it is worked forthrightly into the evolutionary framework without consideration that evolution could be a false conclusion. Quoting atheist philosopher and self-proclaimed evolutionist David Stove: "In neo-Darwinism's house there are many mansions: so many, indeed, that if a certain awkward fact will not fit into one mansion, there is sure to be another one into which it will fit to admiration."
Perhaps Ogorzalek's most dangerous claim is that "evolution is not a threat to religion" because of certain religious endorsements. If all Christians took the pope's word for everything, then surely Christianity would be an opiate for the masses. Following Ogorzalek's reasoning, one can claim that eugenics is not a threat to evolution because some famous Darwinians have endorsed it.
Evolution and ID should be considered in schools, devoid of religion. Known mistakes propagating evolution in textbooks should also be addressed.
Stephen Paul
Trinity '06
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.