The intelligent design movement has caused quite a stir in its aim to storm the academic citadels of evolution and replace it with an honest look at the evidence proving an intelligent Creator.
The latest notable incident occurred when Richard Sternberg, managing editor of a journal of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington, D.C., allowed an article sympathetic to intelligent design to be published in its prestigious publication, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. He was not prepared for the backlash from high-ranking evo-lutionists at the museum and around the world.
“I’m spending my time trying to figure out how to salvage a scientific career,” Sternberg told writer David Klinghoffer in a Wall Street Journal article. Sternberg, who holds two Ph.D.s in biology, says that although he continues to work in the museum’s department of zoology, he was expelled from his office and is being shunned by colleagues, prompting him to file a complaint with the U.S. Office of Special Counsel. He charges he is being subjected to religious discrimination.
The article in question, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” written by Stephen Meyer, a Cambridge Ph.D. in philosophy of biology, cites mainstream biologists and paleontologists from schools such as Cambridge, Oxford, Yale and the University of Chicago who are critical of some aspects of Darwinian evolution.
The article contends that supporters of Darwin’s theory cannot explain how so many varied animal types suddenly sprang into existence during the short geologic period known as the Cambrian explosion. It further argues the Darwinian mechanism would require a longer time for the required genetic information to be produced, and suggests that intelligent design provides a better explanation.
“Intelligent Design, in any event,” says Klinghoffer, “is hardly a made-to-order prop for any particular religion. When the British atheist philosopher Antony Flew made news this winter by declaring that he had become a deist … he pointed to the plausibility of Intelligent Design theory.
“Darwinism, by contrast, is an essential ingredient in secularism, that aggressive, quasi-religious faith without a deity. The Sternberg case seems, in many ways, an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches—like the National Museum of Natural History” (“The Branding of a Heretic,” The Wall Street Journal, Jan. 28).
This quote points out that Darwinism is considered a type of religion by many, with fanatical proponents ready to disparage and persecute any colleague who dares introduce another possible explanation of the origin and development of life on the earth.
It will be interesting to see the outcome of the Sternberg case, and whether it turns out to be a victory for evolutionists in their ongoing efforts to stifle discussion of alternative viewpoints as to the origin and development of life.