Powell's errors undermine his argument

September 10, 2005|By G. F. Miller

To the editor:

What could explain the serious factual errors found in Allan Powell's "Faith, science and the difference?" Did the professor not do his homework? Did his source material fail him? Is he being less than honest with his readers?

Whatever the explanation, here are the facts: The Kansas State Board of Education was not involved in a bitterly contested debate. Oh, Darwinian scientists vented plenty of bitterness, just not before the Board of Education. Instead, they decided to boycott the hearings and not debate the merits of the proposed changes. (Washington Times house editorial of May 5,

Furthermore, the hearings were not over the inclusion of Intelligent Design (ID) in science textbooks. The proponents of the changes to Kansas science standards did not ask for, nor did they even want, Intelligent Design to be included in the curriculum.


The changes would permit evidence-based critiques of Darwinism, however. And, in my opinion, Darwinists have good reason to fear that.

Powell claims that ID is not science. He is mistaken. ID uses the scientific methodologies of such disciplines as biology, chemistry, geology and physics to demonstrate that Darwinism delivers far less than it promises.

Curiously, many who embrace Intelligent Design also believe in evolution. Their unpardonable sin in the minds of purists is that they don't believe that evolution is the only explanation for life as we know it.

Powell further claims that ID is "a statement of religious faith - pure and simple". Wrong again. ID does not endorse any faith-based conclusions; it contains no reference to the writings of any religion or faith; it does not identify the designer(s) behind Intelligent Design and does not claim to be able to do so. ID makes no comments regarding atheism or theism, either one.

While some ID proponents are religious, many have no religious affiliation or practice whatsoever. In reality, ID presumes less about religion than does Darwinism.

In all fairness, it should be noted that Powell did get one thing right. He wrote, "...scientific claims are, in principle, falsifiable...." John Chaikowsky, writing in the geology journal, Geotimes, evidently agrees.

"Evolutionists ... tell the public that the science behind evolution is the same science that sent people to the moon and cures diseases. It's not.

"The science behind evolution is not empirical, but forensic. Because evolution took place in history, its scientific investigations are after the fact - no testing, no observations, no repeatability, no falsification, nothing at all like physics .... I think this is what the public discerns - that evolution is just a bunch of just-so stories disguised as legitimate science." "Geology v. Physics," Geo-times (vol.50, April 2005), p. 6.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

G. F. Miller

The Herald-Mail Articles