I just finished reading the Rev Bird’s article in our local newsletter where he cites the book Darwin on Trial and seems to be a proponent of Intelligent Design (I think, I’m not sure exactly what point he was trying to make, but he does mention ‘the accomplishments of intelligent design’ in the article).

I have quite different views on the subject of religion and this isn’t the place to discuss or promote them as I’ve always believed ‘each to his own’ and providing that believers stick to quoting the bible (or whichever holy book they claim to be written by their particular god) and not pretending to discuss ‘pseudo science’, then I don’t have a problem at all.

Most ‘family church goers’ and the vast majority of mainstream christians are as appalled at the I.D nonsense as non-believers are.  There’s no conflict in most christian’s believing in their religion and also understanding and accepting that natural selection and evolution are the cornerstone of our understanding of how life came to be on the planet. Many don’t accept that the original ’spark of life’ could also have come about by purely natural means - they believe in a supernatural event at the very beginning. Again, I don’t have a problem with them believing that either. Science has yet to fully explain the phenomenon - but science may be getting close.

Intelligent Design however is a new (well, new to mainstream religions anyway) evangelical belief that the way the earth came about was exactly as described in the bible. The planet was apparently created around 6000 years ago and dinosaurs and man were frolicking around together at the same time…

Proponents of the ‘theory’ - which used to be called ‘creation science’ - frequently attempt to use old books and studies to discredit Darwin’s theories and modern evolutionary biology. They do this because they don’t have one shred of evidence to support their so-called theory. They frequently use the word ‘theory’ as if evolution and natural selection are ‘crackpot ideas dreamt up by anti-christians’. No, sorry a scientific theory is a proposition used to explain the state of the natural world based on evidence and reasoning by people who want answers to their questions. Such theories are debated, discussed and criticised by their peers. This has been done (and is still being done) for decades - but as yet, no other theory can explain the world in as much detail and accuracy as Darwin’s original brilliant idea. That’s just the fact of the matter.

‘Darwin on Trial’ is one such book. Darwin on Trial has been reviewed by, among other people, a practicing lawyer by the name of Thomas C. Sager. In his review, Sager makes some very interesting points about the legal profession which he and Johnson share. He puts it succinctly: ‘The job of a lawyer is not to find the truth, (that is the job of the judge or jury) but to defend (or prosecute) the client…. The standard is to vigorously argue on behalf of one’s client, rather than to pursue an abstract ‘truth’ or even ‘justice’.’ Sager goes on to note: ‘In supporting the client, the lawyer may use any ethical means available. It is perfectly ethical for a lawyer to make ad hominem attacks on the opposing witnesses, to present incomplete information to a jury, to bring in irrelevant data, and of course to use a wide panoply of rhetorical skills and tricks. Science, obviously, has different goals. But the lawyer’s orientation should be kept in mind when analyzing Johnson’s book, because he is a lawyer, he has titled his subject a trial, he pursues it as a trial, and his job is to prosecute Darwinism. Lots of things are ‘fair’, from his point of view.’

Another reviewer states ‘Almost every scientific source cited by Johnson had been misused or distorted, in ways ranging from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to the construction of what appears to be outright fiction. The more closely I examined Darwin on Trial, the more inaccuracies I found, until it became almost impossible to catalogue all of the misleading statements in Johnson’s work. This book-upon which the ‘intelligent design’ movement is trying to hang a program of social reform and public education - is perhaps the ugliest and most deceptive book I have ever seen.’

Darwin’s book and his theories have been refined and improved upon in the decades since they were first published. Claims that Darwin ‘admits he could not point to any impressive examples of natural selection in action’ or that ‘transitional fossils don’t exist’ or even that ‘bananas are a wonderful example of how god made fruit perfectly suited for human use’ are just plain silly childish nonsense.

Transitional fossils have been found and continue to be found every year, the human genome project and evolutionary biology has reinforced and made even clearer how natural selection has changed our species as it has all species - and as far as bananas go - if you have seen what bananas looked like when ‘god made them’ you would hardly recognise them! Selective breeding by growers has turned a butt-ugly, tasteless fruit into what we have today. But - that doesn’t stop believers trying to tell children otherwise. The video is good for a laugh anyway - and I’m embarrassed to say that Ray Comfort is from New Zealand:

This video is still on the Way of the Master website (skip the intro - click on Icon 2, Intelligent Design vs Evolution, then watch the ‘Atheism’ video. It’s still in there) Even though the video has been panned by atheist’s and christian’s alike and he had admitted that it was a ‘mistake’ in his blog. Funnily enough, he seems to blame atheists for making out that he believes that modern bananas were made by God, but sorry - video doesn’t lie Ray…