Subject: Response to Sunday's "intelligent design" article
Dr. Gapud,
I am writing this letter in response to your article that appeared in the Press-Register on May 25th. I would like to respond to a few of the assertions you made. First of all, the last time I checked, evolution was still listed as a theory. Certain people in the scientific community seem to think that it has been proven as fact. If you look at evolution in the true light of what it is, you would see that it is actually “a belief system”. Religion can also be classified as a “belief system”. We all want to know where we came from. People tend to think that “origins science” is on the same level as “observation science”. I can use “observation science” to see the beginning and the outcome of an experiment, but I wasn’t there in the beginning of time to know what happened. Therefore, we rely on artifacts, geological evidences and other things to give us the clues to the past. Both sides have the same evidence; we just come up with different outcomes based on our presuppositions.
You mentioned that none of the articles were written by scientists or scientific educators. I assume you believe that all scientists agree with you when it comes to evolutionary beliefs. There are plenty of reputable scientists that don’t agree with Darwin. Just because none of them wrote a letter in our paper is not proof that you are correct. A scientist that speaks out in favor of intelligent design is risking having future grant money for their projects removed as well as not getting their papers published. In other words, they are blackballed.
You said that you are a devout Catholic Christian and that “intelligent design” should only be discussed in the church or a philosophy class. This type of statement leads me to think that you believe it is a “fairy tale” with no truth and should be relegated to the church were they teach other “fairy tales”. At the same time you say you believe there is intelligent design in everything. If you believe there is intelligent design in all things, why do you not believe that we should use “good science” to determine the feasibility of this theory? I don’t see where someone having a belief, that intelligence was involved in our creation process, is going to negatively effect cures for diseases, longer life spans, revolutionizing medicine and agriculture, and so on. On the same hand, I don’t see where believing that I came from a primate is going to help the previously mentioned items to come about.
You used the statement “God’s green earth”. If there wasn’t intelligent design, why are you giving God credit? You talked about not having time to dispute the intelligent design books and said, “We have better things to do”. You apparently have time to write a half page article on why science is a closed box and that nobody can question the theories that were brought about over a hundred years ago.
Our judicial system is not perfect, and a court decision against the intelligent design community does not mean that it is proven to be wrong. Courts once decided that it was okay to own another human being as property, but I am glad that decision was proven wrong.
The last comment is in reference to your statement that all data that makes it into the textbooks is tested and proven. If this is true then why are the textbooks always changing? They remove things that were once “proven”, but are now found not to be true. The other thing that is done is to leave things in the textbooks that were proven wrong years ago and are still used as propaganda. One example is Haeckel’s drawings of embryos of certain animals and a human embryo. His drawings have the fish, turtle, chicken, rabbit and the human all looking the same; leaving us with the impression that we all are closely related. In realty, the real embryos hardly look anything alike.
In conclusion, if the scientific community is truly interested in the truth, they should allow all points to be examined. Those who seek to oppose the truth always try to subdue it.
Sincerely,
David C[.]
Mobile, AL
***************
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Response to Sunday's "intelligent design" article
Dear Mr. C[.],
Thank you so much for your letter. I am very interested in the issues you raised.
However, I feel that many of the statements in your letter reflect a simple misunderstanding of most of my statements in the essay, which can be easily cleared up if you would just please do a careful re-read of the essay.
For now, please allow me to comment on something clearly important to you and to me: Truth.
You seem to think I equate “science” with “truth”. Let us make something perfectly clear – and this is something the intelligent-design folks do not want you to know: No self-respecting scientist would ever equate “science” with “truth”. (Please re-read the part of the essay that says science can not claim intelligent design to be “wrong”.)
As you know, science is just one aspect of humanity’s search for truth. Art is another aspect. Religion is also another. Science deals only with what our five senses can tell us – no more, no less. Therefore, science cannot tell us what “beauty” is – and this is why we need Art: music, dance, cinema, paintings, and literature. For the same reason, science cannot tell us what “love” is, or what our “purpose” is, or what things we “should” or “should not” do – and this is why we need Religion.
In short, science is not the whole picture because we humans are much more than just five senses, more than just what measurements and data can say about us. There is no data that can back up my claim that Nat King Cole’s “Unforgettable” is one of the most beautiful ballads ever made. There is no equation that can prove my claim that I love my wife more than life itself. I also claim that Jesus Christ is my King and savior – but I cannot show you any statistics to back up this claim. Does that mean that all of these claims are “wrong”? Of course not.
Therefore, I hope you would not feel uncomfortable when I say that religious beliefs do not belong in a science class. When I say that something is “not science”: I am not saying it is “wrong” or “not true”, I’m just saying it is something that cannot be proven using scientific measurements. And when you cannot use scientific measurements in a discussion about something, then you are no longer having a scientific discussion; instead you have something outside of science class. Does this mean we are now in the realm of fiction, or fantasy, or “fairy tales”? Of course not.
I hope that you now understand how I differentiate between “science” and “truth”. It is with this understanding that I hope you will re-read the essay. Afterwards, I would be happy to discuss further with you.
Respectfully yours,
Albert
***************
Date: Mon, 26 May 2008 08:35:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Your response
Dr. Gapud,
After re-reading your essay, I have come to the conclusion that I understood it the first time. I feel that you are still not accepting the analysis that evolution is “a belief system”. There are more evidences ( scientific and historic) to prove the accuracy of the Bible than there are to prove the theories of Charles Darwin. If this is the case, then why is evolution still being taught as fact and the science of the Bible banned from the classroom? The changes we see in natural selection are often referred to as “evolving”. In order to evolve you must have new information added. We just don’t see that happening.
People like you who are opposed to intelligent design often say that we are trying to throw out conventional science. We only want to have all points laid out on the table to examine. When you try to suppress other alternatives, you are like a salesman that hides the other competitor’s goods in order to make sure people buy your item. Given the opportunity to examine things on a level playing field, people will come up with the right answers.
You mentioned that we need religion to tell us what love is, or what our purpose is, or what we should or should not do. I on the other hand think that religion is the problem with the world today. We have gotten away from what the Bible says and have started believing what infallible man has to say. The Bible has been repeatedly proven to be historically and scientifically accurate. Just because we refuse to believe the truth does not mean it is not true. We have established our “religions” based upon what we want truth to be. We all go the church that makes us feel better about our lifestyle. What we really need is to have a relationship with God. I have a problem with people that believe that Jesus wants us to love each other, but yet they don’t believe the part in John 1:1 were he says he is God. With a statement like this, he was either telling the truth or he was a liar. He also claimed to be the only way to Heaven (John 14:26), and yet we still want to say there are many roads to Heaven. If you only believe part of God’s word, how do you know which part is true. I believe things are true after I test them. I have studied the Bible’s statements on historical, geological, scientific and astrological things and have found them to be accurate.
You are right when you say, “religious beliefs do not belong in a science class”. We don’t need to teach religion; we need to teach all possibilities of origins based on proof from scientific evidences. Until the scientific community is ready to open their eyes to the mass amount of evidences, that an intelligent designer had to be involved in the process, we will continue to stay at the same crossroads in science ( Please read Romans 1:20-22).
We have the bible’s history on origins that can easily be measured through science, but those that refuse to believe in God don’t want to go down that path for fear that if it is proven to be true will know they have to answer to the creator God. I believe this is the real reason that intelligent design is opposed.
David
***************
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 18:32:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Your response
Mr C[.],Science is not a "belief system", but part of what made it so reliable is that we have followed a certain procedure for advancing our knowledge. If you want to do science, you have to follow the procedure. It's like trying to make a new federal law. Let's say you're a muslim and you want to outlaw the eating of pork across America -- after all, pork is an impure food. Well, you don't go straight to the speaker of the house and to the senate president and try to insert this new law into the books, it has to go through rigorous scrutiny, using tried and true standards. If your proposal does not become law, even with the checks and balances between both houses, between executive and legislative, etc., especially after several tries, then one should accept that outlawing pork is not a proper law. Well, ID proponents have never even gone this far; they have not even tried to do step ONE of the scientific process. (This is described in the essay as a process that has even more extensive checks and balances -- and actually predates the US government.) If they really have a viable "alternative" to evolution, then that means it has gone through the same process as all other scientific proposals and survived. If the proposal did not go through, then that means they failed and should accept that ID is not a scientific principle. And if it's not a scientific principle, then it cannot be an "alternative". At that particular point, the ID proposal is no threat to science. NOW, when the ID folks try to INSERT their theory without going through the proper procedure, then that is a total disregard of the scientific process. It is in that sense that they are attacking science. Going back to that pork law example: If I try to circumvent congressional procedure, I will not attract sympathy from congressmen -- I'll land in jail!No disrespect, sir, but your characterization of science and scientists reflects an inadequate understanding of how science is really done. But this is easily remedied simply by finding out more. Just because ID folks do not understand, that does not mean you have to be the same. I strongly suggest you speak to different scientists, including those not listed by the ID folks. Have you done this? Have you tried to find out a typical day/week/month/year in the life of a scientist? Have you even surveyed the other side of ID's arguments? Did you do your own checking into their claims? Don't be fooled when they use the Bible -- remember that entire cults have used the Bible to excuse some of the worst atrocities of history.Here's an even better question: the ID folks are actively trying to discredit entire sciences: Can you honestly trust such a group to give you reliable information about the science they are attacking? That's like trusting Nazis to give you an "alternative" description of a Jew. --Albert
***************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 05:11:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Your response
Dr. Gapud,
If you would read my letters closely, you would see that I am not trying to say that science is a "belief system. I am saying that the concept theory of evolution is a belief system. It is the theory of origins to an evolutionist in the same way that the chronicles in the book of Genesis is to a christian. If you would read the bible and go through the scientific methods you keep talking about,you will be able to prove many of the claims in Genesis 1-11 as feasable alternatives. What evolutionist need to understand is that their belief in origins is not "science". It may use science to try to prove their claim, but it is not science itself. We are not attacking science, but are attacking false claims by science. It is no different that trying to get rid of bad laws.
You suggested that I talk with non ID scientist; well I have been listening to them for years and it wasn't until I started looking into other options that I really started to learn the truth about origins. I was shown that the science of the bible can be trusted (yes, the bible is a science text book). I would sugggest that you go to a website www.answersingenesis.org to find good information on
the origins. They have an excellent museum in northern Kentucky that I have visited. If scientist
were open to the truth, like they say, they would not try to hang on to old theories that are so full of holes.
I agree with your comment on false use of the bible. We shoud never try to use a verse here or there to try to determine what God is saying to us. God gave us the entire bible. The letter(books) that were chosen all went through the test of canon in order to be included (similar to the scientific tests you refer to) in the bible. We must read the entire thing to understand it. I would wager to say over 95 percent of the population has never read the entire bible but yet they are all experts on how to live and where they are going when they leave this life.
In conclusion, I don't think IDs have ever tried to discredit "entire sciences". This goes back to our belief that the evoltionary theory is a science.
Thank you for your responses.
David
***************
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 23:59:35 -0700 (PDT)
From: Albert Gapud
Subject: Re: Your response
Mr C[...],
I respect your opinions and appreciate your willingness to respond.
However, I think I will always be baffled by the logic of ID arguments. ID singles out one scientific principle as non-science while acknowledging all other scientific principles as being OK. This does not make any logical sense. The fact is, evolution has been accepted as science because it has followed the same exact process and criteria as do all of the other branches of science (remember the "peer review" process). This is the reason why calling evolution as a "belief system" is like calling all of science a belief system. Questioning one established scientific principle basically questions all of established science. Also, as I said before, evolution has pointed us to useful knowledge about life processes that have made a positive impact on our quality of life, just like all other significant principles like Newtonian physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.
When you use adherence to scientific procedure as a criterion, evolution is really on an equal footing with all other important principles in science. And yet this one principle has been singled out for no other apparent reason than some folks just don't like the sound of it. Is it because it violates Biblical text? I don't think so. There are many discoveries and principles in physics and in chemistry that used to be seen as a violation of Biblical text -- and one could probably find even more -- but you don't see the ID folks trying to introduce "alternative" physics or chemistry. So ID is not really a fundamentalist group (one that takes Biblical texts very literally).
Speaking for myself, it seems to me that ID represents people who simply cannot accept the notion of humans evolving from less complex organisms. Why is it difficult to think that maybe God used evolution to execute His creation of life? (Remember, you can't say it's because it violates Biblical text because then you have to explain why physics / chemistry is not being attacked even though they violate many Biblical texts.)
If the reason is not scriptural, then clearly it is just an arbitrary personal distaste of the idea. They just don't want to believe we have so much in common with other animals. Why is this a bad thing, when these animals do not commit selfish suicide, or murder their families, or commit genocide, or wage war on its own species? Also, just because we are evolved from other animals, obviously this has never diminished the fact that humans are capable of great love and heroism, can design and build the most amazing things, and can organize the greatest campaigns of kindness. So, what's the problem?
Albert
***************
[NOTE: No response as of 5/29, when I sent the form letter.]
No comments:
Post a Comment