Gary Chiang

In a previous post (Is ID Dying?) one participant firmly believes that ID is not just dying - it is DEAD!
Why would they believe this? Because the courts in the Dover case have agreed that ID is based on religion, and should not be taught in the public schools.
However, the theory of evolution is also based on faith, yet it seems to avoid a similar fate. If what I say about evolution is true, then why is it still taught in the schools?
The answer to this riddle is provided in my book "Overcoming Prejudice in the Evolution/Creation Debate." If you are interested, I can provide a pdf of the chapter in which I deal with this topic.
And for all those of you who like to quote flowery rhetoric from uninspired scientists, let me make a deal with you.
Give me just one solid proof (please, no opinions - just proof) that the theory of evolution is a scientific fact, and I will give to you TWO solid proofs that God is as real as the air you breathe!!!

Since 1995 the Natural Sciences and Mathematics Division of Redeemer University College has hosted the Ontario Christian Schools Science Fair. The Sixth Biennial Fair occured April 14-15, 2005. First overall individual project was 'Feelings and Faces' by Carolyn Daichendt, Maranatha Christian Academy, Windsor.

Previous winners

Comment on the Evolutionblog
At 8:04 AM, Dr. Gary Chiang said...

Much of what we see about the debate between evolution and creation is essentially religious. Few of the opponents on either side understand what the debate is really about. It is about what we WANT to believe, not what we HAVE to believe.

Is ID dying? NO, it will never die. Although reworked to address a modern world, it is still as compelling an argument as it was when William Paley first used he "Watch on a path" analogy.

But is it science? I say yes, but as long as it challenges naturalistic evolution, the courts of the land will labeled it religious.

I have never had trouble refuting evolution in any of my university biology courses. Why? Because I stick to the scientific understanding of what evoluton really is. Once the religious nature of evolution is known, it is much easier to bring in other "religiously-based" scientific theories such as ID and Creation Science.

In a Body and Health article in the National Post (Monday Dec 12 2005), Michael Rose claims that evolutionary biology tells us that prolonging the human life span is scientifically reasonable.
If Michael Rose were to look into the Bible, he would see that his evolutionary biology actually supports Genesis and creationism. The human body was designed not to die, but to live on forever. Even with the detrimental effects of sin, that body lived for hundreds of years!
So the novel idea that Rose believes he has discovered has been known by Christians for centuries. (for other examples, see Overcoming Prejudice in the Evolution / Creation Debate)

During the taping of ListenUpTV program, the interviewer became confused because she had never heard any Creationist say that Creation Science and Intelligent design are religiously based concepts. She became even more confused when I said I did not want to teach ID nor creation science in the science classroom, but wanted to teach evolution!
Stephen (see previous posts) is also confused about my position.
The question I have to these creationists:
Are you so overwhelmed by the scientific support for evolution that you would rather not examine it scientifically, or are you afraid to learn some biology? I wonder.

I posted the following comment in response to: creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/12/kansas-prof-apologizes-for-e-mail-etc.html

Over my years of experience as a university professor engaged in teaching and research, I have come to the realization that the Evolutionists are right about one thing. Creation Science is religiously based, and teaching young-earth, six-day creationism in the public school system is bringing religious ideas into the classroom. Even the concept of Intelligent Design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, is Creation Science in disguise.

On the other hand, Evolutionists are dead wrong when they claim that the natural world can only be understood from an evolutionary perspective. Creationists can stand firm on the reality of scripture, and rid science of religious presuppositions by attacking the scientific merit of evolution, rather than promoting creationism.

[please note: Jones has misquoted me. The last sentence in the first paragraph should read "Even the concept of intelligent design, which claims that the design in nature is scientific proof of a designer, has been accused by Evolutionists as being Creation Science in disguise."
I never wrote that I claim that ID is creation science in disguise. I tried to correct this misquote on Stephen's blog, but he still insists that I wrote it. Strange...]
Stephen E Jones answer on his blog was:

Thanks for your comment above, but I disagree with it.

"Creation Science" (as commonly understood) is based on the Bible. That is why it tries to present scientific evidence for an Earth only ~10,000 years old, and also that the fossil record was laid down by a worldwide Noah's Flood (not that the Bible requires either of those two interpretations).

You won't find *anything* like that in ID. ID is based *only* on the evidence for design in nature, not the Bible. Some IDists are not even theists (e.g. David Berlinski). Also some IDists accept universal common ancestry (e.g. Mike Behe and myself). There are *no* advocates for "Creation Science" (as commonly understood)who are not theists or who accept universal common ancestry.

To be sure, one can believe in both "Creation Science" and "Intelligent Design" but they are two different beliefs. Not all who believe in "Creation Science" also believe in "Intelligent Design", and not all who believe in "Intelligent Design" also believe in "Creation Science".

However, if after this you *still* maintain that "Intelligent Design ... is Creation Science in disguise", then we must agree to differ.

He went on to elaborate at:
creationevolutiondesign.blogspot.com/2005/12/intelligent-design-is-creation-science.html

This phrase is found in a letter written by Darwin to Hooker in January 1844. In the ListenUp TV program called By Design or Chance, it was used by a Darwinian historian as proof of the inner turmoil that Darwin was going through, an inner turmoil that was occurring as the scientific evidence forced Darwin to recant his faith in Christianity.
This historian is absolutely WRONG!
Darwin was not going through any internal turmoil at the time of this letter. He was living a care-free life of a happily married man with lots and lots of money to spare.
If this historian cared to read the actual letter, in this letter Darwin was happy and excited about his work, and not depressed and worried that he was challenging Christian theology. The comment was directed to Hooker, and Hooker alone, and it was to warn Hooker (a casual acquaintance that Darwin barely knew) that Darwin had some ideas that were considered lame by everyone else he had shared them with.
This letter was not a confession of the soul, but was a light-hearted way to get Hooker to take Darwin's idea seriously.
Moreover, Darwin had no solid evidence for evolution, so the evidence would not have caused any inner conflict for him. That this evidence was missing, and is still missing, can be read about in Overcoming Prejudice in the Evolution/Creation Debate, as well as in The Christian's Guide to Defeating Evolution.

This summer raised beds were created in Redeemer University's Teaching Garden using 4x4 pressure treated landscape lumber. Only flowers are planned for the beds. If vegetables were to be grown there might be some concern as the wood contains chromated copper arsenate which could leach into the soil and be absorbed by the vegetables; there is an article in Kitchen Gardener Magazine discussing this.