Posted on 07/30/2006 12:56:40 PM PDT by infoguy
Under the corrupt cloak of a "book review," this Sunday's Los Angeles Times (July 30, 2006) continues its underhanded and one-sided assault on the theory of intelligent design (ID). "The language of life," by Robert Lee Hotz*, is a review of three new works that attack intelligent design. The review was promoted on the top of the front page of the "Sunday preview" edition under the heading, "Less than 'intelligent design': Darwin's believers debunk the theory." And rather than providing its readers an honest critique, the Times' "review" is nothing less than a full-on Darwin propaganda piece. Hotz begins his article as follows (emphasis/link mine),
In the border war between science and faith, the doctrine of "intelligent design" is a sly subterfuge - a marzipan confection of an idea presented in the shape of something more substantial.
As many now understand - and as a federal court ruled in December - intelligent design is the bait on the barbed hook of creationist belief ...
Objectivity? Forget it. You won't find it with Hotz. Hotz' hit piece on ID then continues by haphazardly labeling ID as a "ruse," a "ploy," a "disingenuous masquerade," and "dishonesty."
Hotz claims the works he's reviewing are written by "some of the nation's most distinguished thinkers." Well, one of the reviewed books is by well-known "skeptic" Michael Shermer, whose work has been cited numerous times for falsehoods and inaccuracy (for example, here, here, here, and here)). Shermer has also floundered considerably while defending Darwinism in public, as witnessed in a 2004 debate with Stephen Meyer on TV's Faith Under Fire (link with video). In 2005, Shermer struggled in a debate with William Dembski (link/audio). "Distinguished"? Sorry, Mr. Hotz.
As NewsBusters has already reported this year (link), the Los Angeles Times has never published a single article from a leading spokesperson of intelligent design theory.** (Leading spokespeople would include names such as Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, and acclaimed writer Lee Strobel.) Yet the Times has now published its tenth piece in the last 14 months attacking ID! (I'm using this count).
Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Not even close, folks. The Times is unequivocally disserving its readers. How many Times readers are aware that one of the world's most renowned atheists, Antony Flew, has recently become open to God largely due to the persuasive science of intelligent design?
* Hotz "covers science, medicine, and technology" for the Times, yet Hotz has a B.A. in English and an M.A. in theater history. Am I the only one to think it odd that the Times would find him well qualified to write on science, medicine, and technology?
** Stephen Meyer did co-author a 1987 op-ed in the LA Times (almost 19 years ago) on the subject of human rights; but the article does not delve into the topic of intelligent design. In addition, there was a book review in the Times over 8 years ago (1998) by Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. His review, about a book on the 1925 Scopes trial, included brief references to intelligent design science. However, Gaffney's name would not be included among well-known proponents of ID.
To keep the image of the LA Turd alive.
bump
Why so angry? I thought the ID types wanted to "teach the controversy". (I guess only so long as no one "teaches" back!)
Seems rather generous.
You don't get it. Read the article. ID proponents do want both sides heard, but forums like the LA Times are only presenting one side of the issue!
The issue is what theory is correctly based on fact and science: the way things actually are.
Who has stated that such a thing is not possible? Please provide specific quotations.
Uh, Darwin, I believe.
Uh, so? Assuming this is true (which I don't particulary question) The Discovery Institute itself is at least equally one-sided.
Do you expect something different than that the "controversy" will be engaged principally by controversialists?!? (Especially since it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy, but instead almost entirely a popular one.)
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to 'intelligent design,' to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.These Steves are only the tip of the scientific iceberg, because the name "Steve" is given to only about 1% of the population. Therefore, the 700 Steves probably represent about 70,000 scientists. See also Project Steve update.
The Steves alone are greater in number than all the scientists (of every name) who have signed statements questioning evolution, and most of the evolution skeptics aren't biologists. For example, the much-publicized list of 500 names (compared to 70,000) collected by the Discovery Institute includes only about 154 biologists, less than one-third of the total. Those 500 signed a rather ambiguous statement, which says:
We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.In contrast, two-thirds of the 700 Steves are biologists, so the biologist-Steves are about 466 in number. Steves are 1% of the population, so they represent approximately 46,600 biologists. Compare that number to the 154 biologists' names collected by the Discovery Institute. Those 154 are the totality of biologists who are evolution skeptics. Did you get that? The comparison is 46,600 biologists who accept evoution to a mere 154 who are "skeptical."[Note what a hollow statement that is, compared to the statement signed by the Steves; and also note what the hollow statement doesn't say: It doesn't say that those who sign it are creationists or advocates of ID (although some probably are). It doesn't even say that they reject evolution (although some probably do). It merely says they're "skeptical," presumably a term chosen to permit as many as possible to sign.]
These competing lists clearly tell us that evolution skeptics are a tiny fringe group -- about one-third of one percent of biologists. Therefore, notwithstanding the unending demands to "teach the controversy," there literally is no scientific controversy about the basic principles of evolution. Scientists, especially those in the biological fields, are all but unanimous in their acceptance of evolution.
ID isn't a theory neither is astrology.
Theory - "In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it often does in other contexts. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method)."
The issue is what theory is correctly based on fact and science: the way things actually are.
Of those three fields, only evolution is a theory as that term is used in science.
See the definitions below:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws." (Courtesy of VadeRetro.)
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.
Who has stated that such a thing is not possible? Please provide specific quotations.
Uh, Darwin, I believe.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzt! Wrong.
Final paragraph of the Origin of Species (6th and final edition):
It is interesting to contemplate a tangled bank, clothed with many plants of many kinds, with birds singing on the bushes, with various insects flitting about, and with worms crawling through the damp earth, and to reflect that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from each other, and dependent upon each other in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us. These laws, taken in the largest sense, being Growth with reproduction; Inheritance which is almost implied by reproduction; Variability from the indirect and direct action of the conditions of life, and from use and disuse; a Ratio of Increase so high as to lead to a Struggle for Life, and as a consequence to Natural Selection, entailing Divergence of Character and the Extinction of less improved forms. Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows. There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
And from Darwin's Autobiography, and very frank and reflective work originally written by Darwin purely for private consumption by his family:
Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist.
This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker. But then arises the doubt -- can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as the possessed by the lowest animal, be trusted when it draws such a grand conclusions? May not these be the result of the connection between cause and effect which strikes us as a necessary one, but probably depends merely on inherited experience? Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake.
I cannot pretend to throw the least light on such abstruse problems. The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble to us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic
I've added all underlining and other emphasis to the quotes above.
So, yes, Darwin certainly did not believe that mankind was created directly. He was confident in his conclusions regarding man's animal ancestry. But he was agnostic about the ultimate role God might have played in such a process. He certainly does not hold that a role for God is "impossible". Instead he explicitly says that he finds the issue "insoluble".
Try these:
Primer: Intelligent Design Theory in a Nutshell
The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
DNA and Other Designs by Stephen Meyer
If you read these, you'll learn a lot. There's no "unsubstantiated guessing" or "hunches" in ID.
Anything that depends on "God/Deity/Supernatural PB&J Sandwitch" as a root cause isn't science. And please don't tell me that ID isn't religious as I have had too may ID supports say that I am not Christian because I refuse to call ID Science.
It is kind of like all those 9/11 'government did it' proofs on the Internet - it doesn't stand up when examined closely by independent reviewers.
Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue?Doesn't seem like there is. More cogently, should there be? Considering the 'issue' is science, clearly no.
Of course the Discovery Institute is one-sided! They don't pretend not to be! On the other hand, the Los Angeles Times presents itself as an unbiased forum; yet on this issue they are totally one-sided. If I take your comment at face value, you are agreeing with the Newsbusters article that the Times is only presenting one side of the issue.
2. "it's NOT a genuine scientific controversy ..."
Well, I guess you aren't aware of the numerous public debates that have been taking place on the issue. A couple of examples are linked in the Newsbusters piece. You might want to check those out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.