According to the article, Pearcey believes ID vs. evolution should be viewed as philosophy vs. philosophy, rather than religion against science.

Wrong. Evolution is science, and ID is religiously based (as I noted in my Wednesday column) so science vs. religion pretty much sums it up.

Then come the usual arguments that if behavior is based on evolution, immoral acts are not immoral they’re hardwired into us, and with “true Darwinism there can be no room for free will, love or human dignity.” (this is phrasing from the article and may not be a direct quote from Pearcey).

Tommy rot. In the first place, while there are evolutionary theories for much of human behavior, many of them are also hotly contested. Pearcey mentions, for instance, the idea men rape because it’s an efficient way to spread their genes, but that’s always struck me as a feeble argument since it ignores the many nonreproductive rapes: Anal, oral, rape with blunt instruments, homosexual rape, rape of children, rape of post-menopausal women, spousal rape, rape-murder. That’s not much of a reproductive strategy (it does serve conservatives who want to imagine that rape is caused by women dressing too sexy, going out to bars and generally stimulating the male’s uncontrollable lust, but that’s a topic for another day).

And even if we were biologically programmed for rape, that wouldn’t mean the impulse was uncontrollable. It is controllable: That’s why rapists wait until their victim is alone. That’s why most men don’t rape at all. We have a choice about rape, just as we have a choice about where we urinate and whether we steal food when we’re hungry, and if we can choose, we can make moral choices. There is nothing about evolution that negates free will or morality.

And if we’re going to go with a “by their fruits you will know them” argument — evolution has to be wrong because the implications are unpleasant — I could just as easily argue that Christianity has to be wrong because it condemns virtuous non-Christians to eternal damnation. Or because it has led to Christians committing discrimination, pogroms, holy wars, genocide and other abominations, and has had more blood on its hands than any other belief system. I wouldn’t make that argument — the truth of Jesus’ words doesn’t depend on whether his followers actually paid attention to “love thy neighbor” and “turn the other cheek” — but it’s certainly comparable with Pearcey’s line of reasoning.

Perhaps it’s unfair to judge Nancy Pearcey’s Thursday-night presentation on intelligent design by an article in the Daily News, but I’m going for it anyway:
•Will creationists/IDers ever get it through their heads that evolutionary theory is not “Darwinism?” I presume their choice of the word is to make it sound more like the religion they claim it is (comparable to Christianity or “Mohammedanism”) but the term makes no more sense than calling relativity “Einsteinism” or quantum mechanics “Bohrism.” Plus, of course, the theory we have today differs a lot from Darwin’s original concept, since Charles D. had no knowledge of genetics (if a creationist ever points out that many scientists don’t believe Darwin’s theories can explain all of life, that’s the reason—it would be several decades before even basic genetic theory became well known).
•Pearcey argues that since we can look at Mt. Rushmore and know for certain it’s the product of design, we can do the same with living things—in other words, if something looks like it’s been designed, it has been.
The flaw in this argument is that people see designs that don’t exist: Remember the claims that the image on Mars resembling a giant face was, in fact, a carved giant face? Or the countless times an image of Jesus or the Virgin Mary has appeared in some odd place? Either Pearcey believes every one of these examples is true, or we can’t spot design as well as she thinks.
For that matter, conspiracy theory is a form of design: People look at the supposedly random events of 9/11, for instance, and conclude that our government engineered the entire thing. Is Pearcey signing off on that theory?
Even if we stick to biology, Pearcey’s argument is disprovable. Biochemist Michael Behe listed several had-to-be-designed biological features in his book “Darwin’s Black Box.” Scientists subsequently found random, simple genetic shifts and mutations that could explain all of them.

A writer from the National Center for Science Education says my column on evolution –posted online last week, in the paper Wednesday, would win me a “reporter of the week” award if they gave one out.
(edited to correct when the article ran).

From a letter in the Daily News today, on the historians who voted George W. Bush the worst president in history: “Sounds to me like a bunch of secular progressive elitists trying to defame a good, decent, honest, God-fearing man … President Bush has brought a sense of morality and godliness back to the White House.”

And when was that, I wonder? When he signed off on his cabinet sanctioning and authorizing torture of American prisoners? When he kept telling America he was trying to avoid war, even though he’d already decided on regime change? When he kept telling America that we had to invade because Saddam had thrown out the UN weapons inspectors—even though this wasn’t true?

And by what logic is the son of a former president, Yale graduate, millionaire not an elitist himself?

Then the writer goes on to assert that Bush and McCain “will go down in history as the men who brought democracy, peace and stability to an otherwise Islamo-fascist, theocratic area of the world that was hellbent on killing anyone and everyone who didn’t cater to their deranged extremist beliefs.”

Ah, no. Until we invaded, Iraq was a largely secular nation. We brought the theocratic whackjobs to Iraq, which is why “democracy, peace and stability” are nowhere to be found in the Iraq Bush made.

Then there are the usual right-wing rants about how the enemy are fascists (they’re evil, but not fascist); everyone criticizing the war is doing so for a political agenda (in contrast to war supporters who presumably are noble souls totally removed from base politics) and it’s only because traitorous anti-war activists stabbed the troops in the back that we aren’t proclaiming victory now.

Reading letters like this are kind of unsettling. I believe in reason and negotiation to settle differences; it’s the only way to work things in a democracy where every point of view is entitled to be heard (even if we only hear it long enough to mock it). How do you reason with people who impose their own fantasy world over reality and refuse to admit error?

The writer says “This is what I firmly believe and you can’t change that.” And that’s the problem, we probably can’t.

Kisela says that part of the boarding-house problem is a clear violation and will be dealt with promptly–code enforcement has already been directed to do so.
Bagby asks Capt. Greg Gaddis if a citizen filming someone smoking dope would justify police going in. Gaddis: “How would they know it was dope? … I can’t answer for a judge.”
And on that note, we wrap up. Good evening, all.

Kisela says that Eglin’s future missions may lead to planes going over Destin harbor. He says that if the council wants to object, they’ll have to deliver an objection to Eglin by the end of the week. He says he only learned this in a recent verbal report.
Bagby makes a motion to that effect.
Some of the council are a little unclear just what the issue is, or why planes flying overhead should automatically be banned and just how they’d go about objecting.
Bagby: “I’ve lived by air force bases … I love that sound but when you hear that sound 24/7 it’s not as fun as it seems.”
Seevers: “it sounds like freedom to me.” And without more specifics on height, frequency, etc., she’s not comfortable with voting yes.
Wood: “A lot of my neighbors are concerned about airport noise–my first vote on airplane noise is not going to be against the military I’ve served for 20 years.”
Bagby: He thinks all that’s at issue is asking the military to pick a flight path over the bay, not over the harbor–but he concedes there’s not much information to construct an objection on at this point. Ultimately, he withdraws his motion.

Eisler says it’s different from when he and Marler went to school: More traffic, for instance. And that should be considered.

Next a woman bringing up the boarding houses: When you call the police about a problem, what address do you give them for an accessory unit? “When you tell them there are people smoking out in front of my nine-year-old … when they pull up a half-hour later, the smoke is gone … It’s really, really bad and it’s getting worse. My kid’s terrified to walk home from school … I’m begging you, we need help.”

Cyron Marler, former City Councilor, thanks the city Recreation Department for a fine Founders Day (he served as MC, as he’s done in the past), including a smooth move to the Community Center when the rain began.
“On the two matters that have just been spoken about …”
•Marler says he raised this issue back when the accessory units were developed on these homes, and the worst has come to pass. And he thinks code enforcement can do more.
•On the high-school discussion, he’d like to see the students’ views considered: Do they want a neighborhood school? Are they happy where they are? Marler says he had to get up early, so his parents put him to bed early–and right now, the county doesn’t have enough money to keep all its current teachers, never mind expanding.
Keeping DMS and DHS students on the same property? Bad idea. The younger kids need some space from the older.
•Back on the boarding houses: “If it says single family, it means single family … it’s cut and dried.”

Capt. Mike Williams asks for a show of hand from people in “Kelly’s Third Edition” who’ve been affected by the boarding-house problem. Around a dozen hands go up.
“We’re not going to go ask for a gestapo to go knock on people’s doors and ask if they’re renting … but look at the excess trash cans. Talk to the local mailman whose delivering to one mailbox for three or four families. This came to the forefront in our neighborhood because of increased traffic … when you have people out there with guns … it becomes a concern.” Estimates 22 such units have been put in in a two block neighborhood.
Another problem: The infrastructure isn’t designed for this kind of packed development and they wind up with sewage overflows.
What is the loophole that allows these owners to do this, Williams asks? He called the city and was told flat out that it wasn’t allowed or legal–so how come these owners are getting away with it?
Linda Milligan, another resident: “I guess I’m a little bit confused tonight … There’s two things I just do not understand and I need to understand.”
The owner has signed a statement about density of development: He acknowledges the lot is for one family only, no portion rented out to anyone else. “That says one thing and one thing only–renters cannot live in there separately.” She has someone there who has lived in one of the lockout units.
Mary (no last name given): “I did rent one of these units–it was probably my fault, I didn’t know the rules.” It was a house divided into a duplex, though with control of the power all on the other side (cable was on her side–she says that meant she wound up paying for the other side’s cable TV as well).
Milligan resumes: She argues that the signed document should give the city grounds for invalidating the rental agreement. “To me, that gives us the right, whether you put any more ordinance on the books or not.”

He says he came in support of Saleeby’s efforts, but feels almost superfluous after Saleeby’s presentation. He seconds Saleeby in encouraging the council to attend the Monday meeting.
And he commends Saleeby, whose children will be out of school before any high school is built–he has nothing to gain for himself, in other words, only for the community. He encourages the council to go over Saleeby’s presented material thoroughly. “Take a bow, Charlie, you deserve it.”
Applause follows.