Nature Prints Anti-ID Letters
The May 19 issue of Nature1 printed seven letters responding to its editorial about the intelligent design movement (see 04/27/2005 entry). They were all critical of ID. Not one even tolerated Nature’s suggestion that scientists try to help students integrate their faith with science. Apparently, last month’s editorial was not sufficiently vicious against ID, says Rob Crowther on Evolution News. Crowther knows that at least one letter favorable to ID was not printed: the one by Stephen Meyer, interviewed in the April 27 article, who wrote in to correct some misconceptions (see it at Discovery Institute).
1Correspondence, Nature 435, 275 (19 May 2005) | doi: 10.1038/435275a.
OK, since some readers are intimidated when Big Science raises its collective voice against anything, let’s examine this correspondence. First, we don’t know how many readers wrote responses, and of those, how many were pro vs. con. Since Nature was born as a pro-Darwin mouthpiece (see 03/04/2004 commentary), it is not surprising the editors would continue the propaganda campaign of associating Charlie with science and anything else with foolishness. Second, scientists are fallible. The majority has been wrong before, often strenuously, sometimes for long periods of time. Third, scientists can be woefully ignorant of issues outside their specialties; in fact, one of the writers (Roy, below) admits it. This means that a molecular biologist or geneticist may know a lot about a particular molecule or gene but very little about intelligent design theory and the history and philosophy of science except what his liberal Democrat ivory-tower colleagues in academia tell him or her (see 12/02/2004 entry). They may be oblivious to the fact that their work rests on the shoulders of centuries of creationists and believers in design (see online book).
What onlookers must do is get past the hot air, bluffing and bandwagon tactics of these selectively-printed letters and evaluate the strength of the arguments. See if you are impressed with what any of these self-styled Darwin champions have to say:
- Jerry Coyne (U of Chicago) uses the word science or scientist 17 times in 3 paragraphs, but really means materialism. Substituting in the correct word makes his whole point fall apart, i.e., “scientists” have no duty to help “religious” people come to terms with “science” – recast as: materialists have no duty to help non-materialists come to terms with materialism. By perpetuating the either-or fallacy of science vs. religion, Coyne contributes nothing to the discussion. Remember how Coyne flip-flopped in the 07/05/2002 entry?
- David Leaf (Western Washington U): this letter is all about politics and strategy for fighting ID. He thinks high schoolers are too dumb to understand the controversy, because they are “just learning the basics of science” (read: materialism). He recommends waiting to allow students to think until they have been thoroughly indoctrinated by their junior or senior year of college. (In the film Icons of Evolution, a high school student takes offense at the suggestion they can’t handle the controversy. He points out that evolution is taught to kindergartners. “If we can’t handle it, we shouldn’t be in high school,” he quips.)
- Chris Miller (Brandeis U): no merit in this letter, either; he just perpetuates the dysteleology argument with a presumably witty remark about Tinkerbell in the kitchen, “Evolution is a short-order cook, not a watchmaker.” Read the 05/18/2005 entry again, and the 03/11/2005 commentary.
- Douglas Yu (East Anglia U): perpetuates the non-overlapping magisteria science vs. religion stereotype, making the odd claim that “ID actively undermines the basis of Christianity.” Presumably Darwinistic materialism does not. He defines all of Christianity in terms of the advice to doubting Thomas, “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.” Talk about a quote out of context (see half truth). Jesus often urged his disciples to follow the evidence, not engage in blind faith (and especially not human tradition). Thomas should have followed all the overwhelming prior evidence he had rather than demanding more physical proof. Jesus meant that future disciples would not have the benefit of his bodily presence. It does not follow that they had no evidence or should have believed out of ignorance.
- Rustum Roy (Penn State) equates ID with the ignorance of different cultures or belief systems, and advocates a relax and stay-the-course strategy. “Ham-fisted efforts will simply alienate much larger numbers of people from the rest of science,” he says, so just treat ID like you would those who are ignorant or illiterate. Even for scientists, “amazing ignorance” of things outside their specialties does little harm, he argues. Maybe if they ignore ID it will go away. What if it doesn’t? Again, no effort to understand or answer the case for ID was offered.
- Michael Lynch (Indiana U) pounds the nail about ID being equivalent to intellectual laziness: i.e., just giving up and saying “the Designer made it that way.” That didn’t seem to be an obstacle for James Joule (see Joule’s own words) and many other great scientists (see also von Braun’s own words); on the contrary, their fascination with God’s design was their motivation to do good science. Lynch also tries to distance evolution from dependence only on natural selection – interesting admission that Charlie’s famous mechanism is not omnipotent, but then what naturalistic mechanism can produce a wing or an eye? (see 05/15/2005 attempt). Lastly, he repeats the faulty analogy that evolution is not just a theory, but a fact like respiration or digestion. Surprisingly, Lynch touts evolution as the most quantitative field in biology, and suggests that teaching evolution will help students gain the mathematical skills necessary to compete in our technical world. Is this a record for non-sequitur density per paragraph?
- Dan Graur (U of Houston) embarrassed himself with a senseless rant, equating ID with “flat-Earthers, tea-leaf readers, astrologers, geocentrists and phlogiston theorists” who, like ID (he thinks), “cannot publish their studies in respectable journals.” This guy is clueless; the egg is on Nature’s face for printing it, unless their intention was to make ID look good by contrast. Jonathan Wells on Discovery Institute shouldn’t have had to give it the dignity of a response.
So thank you, Nature, for giving us a sample of your best and brightest Darwin defenders taking on intelligent design. If this collection of ridicule, straw man arguments, loaded words, false dichotomies, big lies, equivocation and pure ignorance of the issues is the best the Darwin Party can offer, then all ID must do is stand back and watch evolutionism implode. Just don’t let them try to delay the inevitable by letting their illogic and ignorance go unchallenged.
Suggested reading: The Design Revolution by William Dembski. This 2-PhD mathematician/philosopher answers typical objections to intelligent design, including all those of the above challengers.