REBUTTAL

I fear there is an incurable naturalistic bias in Eleanor Egan’s

argument for evolution.

She fails to rationally justify that we not teach children in our

public schools that information we have today is able to show many flaws

in the Darwinian model of evolution by natural selection and that there

is fresh evidence that supports and defends a concept of life based on

“intelligent design.”

The term of intelligent design is not the same as the belief in

creationism, based on historical biblical information alone. However,

belief in intelligent design may actually lead one to conclude the

biblical account is true. It is no longer necessary to use only the Bible

to argue the existence of an intelligent designer.

We have come a long way since David Hume argued against the existence

of miracles in the 18th century, prior to Darwin’s theory evolving in

1859. It was Hume who helped change people’s minds to doubt supernatural

intervention. According to Hume, no event could ever happen under any

circumstance, outside of the established laws of nature.

If Egan applies her own “intellectual labor” to understand recent

scientific and philosophical information which interprets accurately the

truth surrounding Darwin’s theory and secular humanistic philosophy, she

must admit her own bias which avows only naturalism as a governing

philosophy of life.

Scientific progress has to leave the door open to the possibility and

a reasonable belief in events happening outside nature’s laws or

naturalists are disingenuous in their efforts to find the truth. We have

to look at all the evidence for the rare as well as the regular. Why are

miracles falsifiable in principle but not the belief that every event is

a natural event? In examining the diversity of life, it is not irrational

to believe in an event that is not a “natural event” when evidence

supports it?

Take the notion of of “irreducible complexity” (see Michael Behe,

“Darwin’s Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution”) and look at

a mousetrap. If you take one part of a mousetrap away, will it still

work? Then look at the eye. Could an eye and all its intricacies have

evolved? What is the probability it did? Where is the evidence to support

this? Also, what is the chance that a protein can randomly combine to

form a simple cell with others and function?

Egan attacks creationism as a “hodgepodge of biblical phrases

engrafted upon pseudoscience, as a substitute of intellectual honesty

and scientific labor.” Fossils, peppered moths, the Cambrian explosion --

scientists, not biblical scholars, are attacking old theories supporting

evolution. They aren’t using the Bible at all.

We must teach about this exciting controversy in science and give

students all of the current information. Opposing views on science should

not be censored, yet that is what has been done in our textbooks and

California’s current rules on teaching science.

Egan states that the “practice of scientific inquiry does, however,

promote the values of intellectual honesty and humility, care and

thoroughness, critical thinking, the courage to stand behind one’s own

work, and the respect for others.”

If she really believes this, then she will have to think outside the

box of naturalistic philosophy and examine all the new evidence (see

Discovery Institute Web site).

The theory of evolution does have a lot to do with the idea that there

is purpose to life, and it can undermine, contradict or support spiritual

values. Fairness is required. Thankfully the Information Age is giving us

the facts we need to support intelligent arguments to help children

understand the origin of life. If they end up believing in God, so be it.

A recent Public Agenda poll says parents want more religion in public

schools, so the timing to teach about “intelligent design” is perfect.

(See Los Angeles Times, “Wanted: More Religion Everywhere Except

Politics,” Jan. 10).

WENDY LEECE

Costa Mesa

* EDITOR’S NOTE: Leece is a member of the Newport-Mesa Unified School

District Board of Education.