Don’s Comments (group member since Dec 17, 2008)

Don’s comments from the Evolution vs. Intelligent Design group.

Interesting quote from Alfred Russell Wallace, the co-discoverer with Charles Darwin of the theory of evolution through natural selection:

"Let us not shut our eyes to the evidence that an Overruling Intelligence has watched over the action of those laws, so directing variations and so determining their accumulation, as finaly to produce an organization sufficiently perfect to admit of, and even to aid in, the indefinite advancment of our mental and moral nature." Quarterly Review (April 1869) "Sir Charles Lyell on Geological Climtesand the Origin of Species." page 393-94.

This ought to be good for some more wailing and gnashihg . . . O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken not unto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish. But to be learned is good if they hearken unto the ccounsels of God.

You guys have a lot more time than I do. Bashing Christians must be a form of entertainment in order for you to spend the time doing it. Or maybe you have evoled more and type much faster than me.

I do know logic, but we start from a different base. I start from the point, "If God then . . ." You start from the point, "If not God then . . ." These two view points are not going to find resolution. They cannot both be right. Excluding Bible literalists, there are many Christians that do not have a problem with science - it is not exclusively the result of secularists. There is no better example than Isaac Newton. IDer's though recognize God's hand in creation.

Sorry, my work and family commitments leave limited time for leisurely pursuits. I don't have time to spend on studying secular humanist views. In the end we can't both be right, but only one of us could be surprised. If you are right, when I die I won't know it because my existance is terminated. If I am right, you're post-death existance is going to need some new theory in order to continue a denial of a Creator and his plan for mankind.

My mistake I posted this in the wrong thread. I did not notice that I was getting notices on this other thread. At no point did I use any of the same sentences as the original authors unless they are direct quotes from the Scopes trial. It is a mirror play to Inherit the Wind. The exercise is to switch out arguements for ID for those used for Evolution in the original play and stay in the format of the original.

This post originated to announce the completion of my play which is a passage by passage mirror of Inherit the Wind. Here is part of a scene where the defense attorney, Nicole Duran (think Ann Coulter) puts the prosecutor Gordon Albert (think All Gore) on the stand.

JUDGE FRANKLIN
(To ALBERT)
Dr. Albert, are you ready to testify in opposition to your own case?

ALBERT
Your Honor, my testimony will only make my case stronger. I shall stand for what is right and just and in defense of true science.

JUDGE FRANKLIN
Mr. Chambers, please swear in the witness.

(ALBERT steps over to the witness stand and puts his hand on CHAMBERS' Bible.)

CHAMBERS
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

ALBERT
I do.

MS. WILSON
Give ‘em hell, Gordy!

(ALBERT calmly and confidently awaits his questioning.)

DURAN
For the benefit of this court, would I be correct to claim you are an expert on the subject of science, since you have long been involved in the global warming movement and later became well known as a defender of evolution?

ALBERT
It is no secret that I am often called to speak on this subject. I have studied evolution in depth, as much as any layman, and helped educate thousands through my lectures.

DURAN
Your lectures are well known. Related to this, are you quite familiar with Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species?

ALBERT
Oh, yes. I am very familiar with the contents of this great book.

(DURAN crosses to counsel table and picks up a book.)

DURAN
I am interested to know how familiar you are on the subject of Intelligent Design. (Shows book to ALBERT.)

ALBERT
The last thing I would do is waste my time becoming familiar with the slapdash, retro ideas of that book.

DURAN
So you have never even opened this book?

ALBERT
Never have, never will.

DURAN
In other words you come from a base of ignorance to wage a politically correct war against ideas you refuse to even consider? On what basis can you be so certain that the scientific claims put forth by Intelligent Design are incompatible with the teachings of Charles Darwin?

ALBERT
What are you saying?

DURAN
Let me rephrase. (She opens the book.) We can see here on page twelve that . . .

GREEN
Objection! Dr. Albert is here as an authority on evolution. Now the lady from Connecticut is using this as a platform to introduce pseudo science nonsense into the record. The court has already ruled this irrelevant. Dr. Albert is an expert on evolution, so the questions should be limited to evolution.

JUDGE FRANKLIN
Limit your questions to evolution, Dr. Duran.

(DURAN slaps shut the volume of Intelligent Design.)

DURAN
So that's how it's going to be. (She tosses the book on the counsel table.) We’ll play with your house rules then, doctor. (She picks up a copy of Origin of Species from the counsel table. DURAN examines the book without opening it.) Very well, for the benefit of the jury, is this the book you are qualified to give expert testimony on?

ALBERT
Yes.

DURAN
Good. Would you take the position that this entire book is correct and true?

ALBERT
We’ve had more than a century and a half to show evolution to be true.

DURAN
Darwin believed that paleontology would prove his theory of evolution, correct?

ALBERT
Yes.

DURAN
(Picks up large photograph from counsel table and shows it to ALBERT.)
Do you recognize this picture?

ALBERT
(Smiling)
That’s archaeopteryx.

DURAN
And what is the significance of this fossil?

ALBERT
Creationists would like us to believe that God created the animals on the fifth day. From the geological record, we know this to be utterly false. Life forms have evolved over millions of years and we can see from archaeopteryx the bridge from dinosaurs to birds.

DURAN
Really? Is that so? (Picks up copy of National Geographic magazine.) And here is another proof of this bridge from dinosaur to bird. (Shows picture to jury.) Is that correct?

ALBERT
(Squirms)
It is an artist rendition of what we might expect to see in the fossil record.

DURAN
Artist’s rendition? That’s an interesting spin. Dr. Albert, a man of your scientific knowledge is surely familiar with this hoax. This so-called fossil is in fact manmade, but was represented as a real fossil to give the scientific community what they wanted, correct?

ALBERT
(Frowning)
I don’t recall the details of this story.

DURAN
Really? You subscribe to National Geographic do you not?

ALBERT
Yes.

DURAN
Yet somehow you missed the follow-up article that identified this fossil as a fraud?

ALBERT
I don’t recall.

DURAN
Isn’t it true that there are fossil factories in China producing fakes that may be accepted by modern scientist as the real thing?

ALBERT
What’s your point, Nicole?

DURAN
We are well into the second century of paleontology since Darwin. We have thousands more in trained personnel, and millions more in funding to fill out the fossil timeline. We continue to find entirely new species as discontinuous as ever. But tell me, Dr. Albert, where are the intermediates? Where are the missing links?

ALBERT
This is ridiculous. You bring up nit-picky examples and pretend that those carry the day. The geologic record is firm. It is physical proof that evolution happens.

DURAN
Going back to archaeopteryx; will you concede that modern scientist no longer recognize archaeopteryx as half-bird, half-reptile? That it is all bird? Isn’t it true that cladists have examined the homology of archaeopteryx and actually think modern birds descended from reptiles tens of millions of years later in the fossil record?

ALBERT
So? What’s your point?

DURAN
The point is that archaeopteryx is trumpeted as proof of evolution and yet your own evolutionists concede that this species died out and no existing birds evolved from it. So, where are the fossils showing the transition from reptiles to birds?
ALBERT
(Frowning)
Give it time, Nicole. Give it time. You haven’t proved anything. Not finding something is not proof that it does not exist. The fossil record will be confirmed.

DURAN
You show great faith, Dr. Albert. But let the record show that for now there is no fossil record of intermediate stages showing evolution of reptiles to birds and the mechanism of transition remains unknown. This lack of evidence in evolution, does it bother you?

ALBERT
Not in the least.

DURAN
Aren't you the slightest bit curious?

ALBERT
No.

DURAN
The total lack of intermediates is of no concern to you?

ALBERT
Evolution is an established fact, book closed.

DURAN
Book closed? Is this the modern state of science today? What happened to the driving curiosity for knowledge?

ALBERT
If I know two plus two is four, I am not curious to know anything different.

Charles Darwin, the Father of Evolution, intended it to replace belief in God.

When people have different world views, it is pointless to debate secondary issues. ID makes sense for believers in God because it explains how life originated and evolved. ID is rejected by secularists because moral relativism doesn't stand if there is a God who has given us commandments and natural laws to live by. Better to adhere to the religion of Darwinian Evolution and all the freedoms from the chains of religion it brings.

The Judeo-Christian world view is at war with Secular Humanism. Evolution vs. ID is just one of the battlefields.

I don't expect my play will sway secularists to change their beliefs, but it can help religious people, who only get evolution propoganda in school, to see that ID can explain the creation of life easier than evolution does.

???Evolution is not an alternative to religion anymore than evolution is an alternative to tennis.???

Anyone who has read biographies of Darwin should know that Darwin and his crony Thomas Huxley looked to Evolution to overthrow the belief in God.

Professor Anthony Flew is an embarassment to all good atheists, having abandoned the faith. How disturbing that a rational critic of God's existence ended up abandoning atheism. Is no one safe?

???No, just like every other question I want answered, I turn to science. Science will find the answer soon. ???

That is called faith.

??? This statement has no basis, and is also not true. Consciousness fits perfectly in the evolutionary scheme. For example, higher forms of consciousness are found in "higher" animals. ???

Evolution can't explain the origin of consciousness, beyond recognizing that it happens.


Excluding Young Earth creationists who are stuck on the literalness of the Bible, there are millions of people that accept the reality of God. The story of creation recognizes that God created the universe, all the elements and the lifeforms. ID is a theory that suggests an alternative to completely random chance in the origin and development of life. A complex system is more likely to be the result of a designer than chance occurances which require random combinations at odds that would boggle the mind. Science says look to the simpliest explanation first - for the origin of life and the major changes in species, the simpler explanation is ID, not random evolution.

ID is too threatening to the secular community. It argues for the existance of a God and that is too inconvient for a society that prefers the "benefits" of moral relativism. If you can eliminate God, you can do away with all His pesky, inconvient rules.

The big questions of life are where did we come from? Why are we here? Where do we go?

With different world views, it is unlikely we will be able to convince each other. I believe God exists, therefore ID makes sense to explain how the universe and life were created. It appears you do not believe in God, so your faith must rest in something else, such as Darwinian evolution to address these questions.

??? How life originated from non-life is a completely different issue than the issue of evolution. ???

So for that you turn to Intelligent Design?

??? Evolution may explain how a species evolved, but it does not do as good a job showing how new species are created.

That is the same thing. ???

If it is the same thing, why all the hand wringing about finding a missing link? We easily find paleologic evidence of distinct species, but not spans between them.

Such wailing and gnashing of teeth . . . my, my.

Evolution is still called a theory. It DOES take faith to accept this theory, especially for the primary origin of life from non-life. This has not been replicated and acceptance of current theories requires faith. Evolution also has a hard time explain consciousness. In my religion, we believe everything is created spiritually before it is created physically. Although this universe is probably 13+ billion years old, God is outside of time and is responsible for creation. Evolution may explain how a a species evolved, but it does not do as good a job showing how new species are created.

ID vs Evolution is merely a battleground for Belief in God vs Secularism. If you believe in God, ID can shed light on the origin of life. If you are secularist, than Evolution is a convenient substitute for religion. Man seems to need to have faith in something. Some believe in God, some believe in Darwin.

ID is a scientific approach to explaining the origin of life, because life created from randomness takes too much faith to accept. It makes more logical sense to recognize a Creator is the cause of the origin of life.

ID by definition says evolution, especially the start of life cannot happen randomly. There is an intelligent designer responsible for the creation of life. This makes secular humanists uneasy. The existance of a God, especially one that has a special relationship to humans (the sons of God) raises too many uncomfortable questions for non-believers - better to believe in the religion of Darwinian Evolution and embrace moral relativity.

Critics like to lump ID and creationists together. But ID is based on science (though not the narrow definition of science from ID bashers) and Young Earth creationism is based on a literal reading of the Bible. A Young Earth creationist believes the earth is only 6,000 years old. Someone can believe in a creator that took billions of years to creat the earth. I guess that makes them a Old Earth creationist, but they should not be lumped together with Young Earthers.

Young earth creationists can have as big a problem with ID as aethist evolutionists.

Too many creationist are Bible literalists. The problem with this position is that there is not one translation of the Bible. If you go back to the earliest Greek, Hebrew and Latin texts available, there are differences. When they don't agree, how do you know which is right? ID advocates have a stronger case when they base their position on science than when they look to a literal interpretation of the Bible.

There are different groups of people that advocate for intelligent design. Young earth creationists are only a one of them. At the other extreme are ID advocates who can accept the geologically time line as we understand it now, but they cannot accept randomness. ID is not incompatible with much of the theory of evolution, but it seeks to explain an alternative to "live orginated entirely by chance."

Nathan wrote: "I teach ITW every year to my students. email me a copy of the play if you would be so kind.

Thanks.

Can you send it to me on Goodreads, or do you need another email address?"

Send me an email at donlmilne@yahoo.com and I will reply with the play as an attachment. I have had a number of colleges request a copy of the play so far. The fact that this fall is the 150 anniversary of On the Origin of Species makes it very topical.