K.U. and the Big Lie

Leonard Magruder
06/20/2005

"Board member Bill Wagon, of Topeka, told the three conservatives they had become "dupes" of intelligent design advocates and said their proposal was based "on absolute and total fraud."

"The Journal -World "- June 26, 2005

That is outrageous - the whole intelligent design movement has as its basic motivation the exposure of neo-Darwinism as a hugh world-wide hoax. The following article, in two parts, shows that neo-Darwinism was known to be fraud as early as 1983-84. 

Thomas Woodward, in the most objective and comprehensive recent survey of the whole conflict ,"Doubts About Darwin," says "The moral core of Design's rhetorical vision is a deep reformist impulse. They see themselves as spearheading an intellectual reformation , seeking to restore academic integrity and to expose and dissolve networks of self-deception and deception of the public."

In other words fighting corruption in science. The motive has nothing to do with any spiritual crusade but simply the denuding of what is seen as a contemptible flow of misinformation. They see their task as simply telling the truth. 

Michael Behe, a major leader in the ID movement, has described for reporters his anger on reading and hearing things in Darwinian presentations that were blatently false and were known to be false by experts in the field. Recalling his student days Behe said, "I immediately recognized that there were difficult problems and I became very angry that no one had had brought these up. I felt I was being led down the garden path to a conclusion that didn't have the evidential support I thought it had."

In short, it became obvious to him, and now many others world-wide, that too many experts in evolution theory are simply trying to fool the public. Behe's motives are rooted in a strong moral indignation- a simmering settled outrage - about the pervasive deception and misinformation he sees in all the textboook discussions of macroevolution.

Phillip E. Johnson, in his book, “Darwin on Trial”, has probably asked the defining question . “How could a deception of this magnitude possibly have been perpetrated by the whole body of a respected science dedicated by definition to the pursuit of truth ?" 

Details about this widespread deception can be seen in the new book by molecular biologist Jonathan Wells, "Icons of Evolution." He tells not only of widespread distortion and misinformation in the textbook discussions of these icons but far worse, of known and tolerated fraud. 

The public, for example has been misled to think that the fossils generally support Darwinian continuity, that they manifest a pattern of steady , gradual change. On the contray, sudden apprearance, coupled with stasis, speak of gaps, discontinuities, that are stubbornly persistant. The idea proposed by Gould and Eldridge about "punctuated equilibrium" opened this entire area to public discussion, arguing for the discontinuity of biological forms. 

The citizens of Kansas have been deeply misled by the university and reporters as to the motives of those who support Intelligent Design, especially when those who support evolution at K.U. say the motive is to introduce religion into science. That is the Big Lie. Once Behe, for example, shows that certain molecular machines could not possibly have been produced through Darwinian gradualism, then how did they get here ? One may speculate in various directions, God being one of them and that is a perfectly legitimate inference. The whole object of science, the universe, began at one point, the Big Bang. It is absolutely legitimate to suggest that here is where God enters the picture. These are simply inferences. They are outside science but are possible answers to legitimate questions that science cannot answer. It is academic fascism for scientists to tell people that they cannot make such speculations. 

On the other hand, nobody today but a few forlorn fundamentalists have any interest in arguing that science can be found in a literal interpretation of Genesis. That is a smokescreen by academics to keep the public from realizing that the conflict is between two opposing camps within science itself. And as you can read below, that conflict has been going on for at least twenty five years.

Says Woodward, "It is in the work of Behe, with his development of the concept of "irreducible complexity", that critics of the Darwinian paradigm detect firm ground for challengeing macroevolution, a weapon to foment an unmistakable paradigm crisis and ultimately a paradigm shift within the scientific community, hence throughout the world. 
That is why the Darwinism-Design debate that is building to such a pitch in American society is not pheripheral but rather culturally central, because questions posed in any debate about origins touch the deepest level of our personal and societal notions of what it means to be human. The debaters are contending over the fundamental cultural story of humankind, and those who succeed in crafting and telling the most convincing story of origins hold in their hands supreme cultural authority." 

It is one thing to try to sneak God into science. It is another thing to discover scientific facts, using scientific methods, that can only be explained by intelligence from outside the system.

The vast majority of the public, of course, is pulling for Intelligent Design, as it has what Woodward calls "dramatic supremacy" as it approaches its goal of the collapse of neo-Darwinism's monopoly in public education. 

The Gallup Poll over the last 15 years showed that 90% of Americans subscribe to some sort of "God-guided evolution." Those who hold to a strictly naturalistic evolution, in which there was no participation by a preexisting intelligence has consistently remained around 10 %. A special poll of biologists by the National Academy of Science shows that 95% say they do not believe in God. We understand now their fanaticism in trying to hold on to evolution, it is their "security blanket." The ontological anxieties of evolutionists, however, is not the public's problem. Let them eat cake -or start going to church. 

The vast majority of Americans share a solid intuition that the world around them, and themselves, did not come about by random chance. Among all scientists about 40% believe in God. We see here the impact of evolution theory on biologists. If 95% of biologists are atheists, they have followed through on the logical implications of their theory. Which is, as the eminent evolutionist Richard Dawkins put it in "The Blind Watchmaker," that the universe, "Has no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Or as evolutionist George Gaylord Simpson said, “Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.” This is what students are currently taught - a very problematic philosophy of life. And we know that this is the way many evolutionists want it.
Kenneth Miller is a world-class biologist at Brown University who was the keynote speaker at a conference on evolution at the Univ. of Kansas last year and the author of a new book on evolution and religion.

“Western intellectual life,” he writes, “is tolerant. On the surfaced this tolerance extends to religion. The problem comes when one attempts to take religion seriously - academia just isn't prepared for that. The assumption is that religious belief is something that people grow out of as they become educated. There is, in essence, a fabric of disbelief enclosing the academic establishment. Many, if not most, are frankly inclined to use evolution as a weapon.”
We must not be naïve as to this propaganda function of evolution as currently taught in our schools. There is no question but what evolution has an anti-religious side to it which is O.K. with a lot of academics. It is wise to be aware of this when discussing the role of evolution in schools. And, as we see in the Wells article on textbooks, academics, especially evolutionists, are not above lying to accomplish their goals. Furthermore, there are fanatics in the evolution camp that completely parallel the image amongst intellectuals of fundamentalists as fanatics.
So herein you see the bind the evolutionists are in. They have come up with something that does not fit with the world-views of the vast majority of mankind. The reason the world does not have to put up with this is because every area of relevant scientific evidence tends to falsify Darwinism rather than confirm it, because Darwinian theory has spectacularly flunked the empirical tests in regard to macroevolution and because the theory is now clearly nothing more than a culturally and socially induced illusion -a Big Lie. If it could be shown to be a fact, the world would have no choice. It would have to accept the very bleak situation described by Dawkins and Simpson.

As to the importance of getting it right this time E.F. Schumacher says in his remarkable book “A Guide for the Perplexed:”

“The inability of twentieth century thought to rid itself of this imposture is a failure which may well cause the collapse of Western civilization. In nuclear abuse, overpopulation, famine, resource shortage, environmental degradation and technologies racing out of control, mankind is blundering headlong towards multiple calamity. Unless we can break the world-wide conceptual stranglehold of undiscriminating materialistic scientism, best seen in evolution theory, the world will lack both the idealism and the motivation to tackle these problems.”
Said Darwin on the eve of publishing his theory, “It was like confessing a murder.” Indeed, millions may die unless the world can embrace a more optimistic and empowering world-view than that currently presented by Darwinism. Facing the evidence of intelligent design will lead to that new world-view.

Methodological naturalism is O.K.. Metaphysical naturalism is the enemy of mankind.

So, the mission of Design theorists is to storm the evolution fortress and blow up the ammunition dump. Destroy the current paradigm based on lies, even if it turns out they are unable to successfully furnish an alterntive. Said Woodward, "The rhetorical consciousness of Design is rooted in a sense of profound disgust about widespread gross malpractice in teaching about biological origins. Evolutionary biology is seen as a field whose scientific content, at the level of macroevolution, is deeply interwoven with unprovable philosophical asumptions and whose integrity is plagued by unrepentant patterns of deception and fraud. Any measure of success in overturning the Darwinian paradigm would dwarf nearly all previous revolutions in the history of science because of the ramifying intellectual and social effects of the installation of a Design paradigm would have on the academic world and on modern culture worldwide. The cultural stakes for mankind of this drama could not be higher." 
To help in this revolution this organization, Vietnam Veterans for Academic Reform, has been the first to announce the extension of the principles and tools of ID even further, into the social sciences, in particular the field of psychology. This field has been crippled by the same philosophical agendas that has corrupted the field of biology. Send for our 16-page position paper, "An Existentialist Critique of Psychology, " which is available at no cost by e-mailing Magruder44@aol.com with address.

In the field of psychology, in Personality Theory, where it all comes together, there are over a dozen major theories, some of them, such as Behaviorism and Rogerian theory, hopelessly incompatible.Yet students study them all. We now see that the same is going to happen in biology. The same phenomenon is found in many disciplines, world religions, for example. Is it not absolutely absurd, and a fraud , for neo-Darwinism, where all the evidence is disconfirming, to pretend to have a monopoly on truth and try to force this on students, most of whom already know from other sources that there are hugh problems with evolution theory ?

There is no doubt that it is this corruption that Board of Education Connie Morris had in mind when she told reporters yesterday, "Students need to understand there are many criticisms, and they're backed up." The other side, in groups like The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and Kansas Citizens for Science lied outrageously in response, when , for example, Harry McDonald of KCS said,"Their criticisms of evolution aren't accepted, valid, scientific criticisms. Science has rejected these criticisms as invalid." 
The criticisms come from within science, by scientists, and McDonald knows this. That is what makes this an attempt to fool the public, and a lie.

To demonstrate how long these issues have been around with the "true-believers" impeding a resolution I include some selections, in this and part 2, from an important book that appeared in 1983, "The Great Evolution Mystery", by Gordon Rattray Taylor. The book was intended to inform the public of the controversies going on in evolution circles at that time, that is, within science. It was written for scientists, but could also be followed by most educated laypersons. Nowhere in the whole book does he mention Creation science. That was not the issue then, nor is it the issue today.The question of the designer only arises after ID scientists demonstrate the presence of facts that can only be explained by outside intelligence through the probability tools developed by Dembski or the molecular machines of Behe, for example. Their is no question but that what they do is science. Any inference beyond that is simply that, an inference, and one that may or may not be made.

The significance of the book is that you can clearly see here all the same criticisms of evolution that we see today. They were being argued 23 years ago, and earlier:

1) The continuing problem of the missing fossils, crucial to the concept of macroevolution.
2) Early demonstration of irreducable complexity, supportive of Intelligent Design.
3) Evidence of purposiveness in nature.
4) Contradictions in the theory of natural selection.
5) Evidence of discontinuity in the biological world.
6) The most important fact, the arguments all occur within the evolution camp itself, between mainstream scientists. 
--------------------------------------------------------------
from "The Great Evolution Mystery."1983

"There have been periodic protests by scientists over the credibility of Darwininan evolution theory ever since 'The Origin of Species" was first published. One of the most dramatic recent protests came about in 1967 when a handful of mathematicians and biologists, stunned by the optimism of evolutionists by what could be achieved by chance organized a conference, Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution, chaired by Nobel Prize winner Sir Peter Medewar who opened the conference by saying ,"The immediate cause of this conference is the pretty widespread sense of dissatisfaction about what has come to be thought of as the accepted evolutionary theory in the English-speaking world, the so-called neo-Darwinian theory." 

Said Medewar, "These objections are very widely held among biologists generally , and we must on no account , I think, make light of them."

The opening paper was by Muray Eden, Professor of Engineering at MIT, entitled , "The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwian Evolution as a Scientific Theory." He showed that if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change , this would occur but once in a billion years. - while, if two dozen genes were required , it would require ten billion years, much longer than the age of the earth. Scientist after scientist presented papers of a mathematical nature showing that chance could not possibly achieve what neo-Darwinists claimed. The paleontologists especially felt the need to accept the existence of some directive force and have found it impossible to assign the many seemingly purposeful developments to chance."

It is clear why this is true. The chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random, as it must in evolution theory, is only 1 in 10 followed by 113 zeros. According to Borel’s law any event that has 1 chance in but 10 followed by 50 zeros is no chance at all. The number 10 followed by 113 zeros is larger that the estimated total number of all the atoms in the universe! The probabilities involved in the formation of the nucleotides in DNA exceed even this. Mathematicians, using probability analysis, are playing a major role in the scientific disproof of neo-Darwinism. 

(Shortly flollowing this 2-part article I am sending out a condensation of a definitive mathematical argument exposing the failure of neo-Darwinism that appeared just one year later in 1984. A book by mathematician/biologist I. L. Cohen, "Darwin was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities.")

More disproof came three years later when philosopher Arthur Koestler brought together biologists critical of orthodox Darwinism in the 1969 Alpbach Symposium. It was at the Wistar and Alpbach Syposia that scientific skepticism of evolution not connected to biblical objections began. The way the media skips all this, going back to the Scopes trial, is advocacy journalism, the same kind of journalism that betrayed South Vietnam, in this case designed to keep people in total ignorance of the true ongoing history of the evolution debate.

continued in part 2 which follows immediately