LA Times Columnist Slams Intelligent Design as a "Ruse" and a "Ploy"

Newsbusters.org ^ | 30 July 2006 | Dave Pierre

[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.

[RobbyS]

I don't see that ID does any such thing. Sometimes people take a theory and carry it to extremes. Ptolemy adequate explained all the astronomical data, but his followers finally were able to explain the data by making it more and more complex. Copernicus did not disprove it; he simply proposed an alternative which was gradually modified until a good theory was finally developed. Somewhere along the way, Ptolemy was abandoned because it could no longer predict the data that was appearing. ID, it seems to me, is simply pointing out the shortcomings of the neo-Darwinism theory.

[RobbyS]

Darwin's theory has not been updated; it has been largely superceded, unless you want to contend that modern genetics is somehow implied in "origin of Species."

[RFC_Gal]

Then why argue about Darwin?

You still haven't told me what you want on your pizza. You really should hurry - the free Dr. Kelp with each order special expires in 2 hours.

[thomaswest]

Re 217: Why don't you read what Darwin actually wrote? He said all he had to say that was worth saying in "Origin of Species."

Your attack on Darwin seems very weird. He was just one man who wrote 145 years ago +/-. Since then, physicists and gelogists worked out the age of the earth and solar system. Since then, Monk Gregor Mendel established genetics. Since then atomic theory and the Periodic Table were worked out. Since then, Watson and Crick worked out the structure of DNA.

Since Darwin, there are more than 10,000 fossils that have been discovered and described. Since Darwin, there are more than 100,000 biolgists who have published papers in scientific journals expanding on Darwin's original ideas.

ID has contributed nothing to this. That is ZERO. Scripture has contributed nothing to this. Another ZERO.

[thomaswest]

Re 221: ID, it seems to me, is simply pointing out the shortcomings of the neo-Darwinism theory.

Yep, ID is only negative. Only interested in attacks and "short-comings".

ID offers nothing positive. ID offers no scientific explanations. ID says, "only a miracle" could explain this; only a supernatural designer's intervention could explain this.

ID reduces to a pathetic plea--"please, I hope this supports my faith in God". ID is merely an old argument for the existence of a god when understanding is absent. ID and belief in rain gods are the same.

[thomaswest]

Re 220: Hell exists. I have been there, it is a small town in the NE portion of Oklahoma the name of which I will not mention.

I do not doubt you. The primal urge for religious damnation seems to dominate Oklahoma. So strange from Rodgers&Hammerstein.

[budlt2369]

But they are the same species. See beefalo, tigons, and ligers.

[Vaquero]

There is no reason to think that id (small letters)is not in play in the world and the universe. But through documented truths such as the big bang and evolution.

Who are men to determine how God decided to start and keep the ball rolling. Is it impossible that a supreme intellect could have given us the intelligence to find the clues left in the cosmos and in the layers of stone?

why not celebrate these findings.

[P-Marlowe]

Then what do you call those who say that those who support the ToE are going to hell?

Fundamentalists

(Most rabid Fundamentalists tend to vote republican while most rabid TOE believers tend to vote democratic.)

[shuckmaster]

It's pretty common knowledge among all educated people that intelligent design is a "ruse" and a "ploy". I don't need some idiot from the LA Times to tell me that!!!

[planetesimal]

See post #37. You may want to educate yourself on the science of ID. I've posted some helpful links.

Thank you for your concern, but I am well versed in the output of the ID crowd. I would not describe it as science. The only way it could be described as such is by redefining the word itself, a practice used by the pioneering ID luminary Behe - or the 'Mystical Madame Zaza', as he is known at conferences of real scientists.

[P-Marlowe]

It's pretty common knowledge among all educated people that intelligent design is a "ruse" and a "ploy". I don't need some idiot from the LA Times to tell me that!!!

ALL educated people, huh?

That means everyone with an education.

What, pray tell, is your level of education?

[LibertarianSchmoe]

when you get down to it, you have two (as I see it) choices: One is that "we don't know, but we are going to ASSUME that everthing is natural and that there is no supernatural and that we really don't have a reason other than utilitarianism." The other is that "There is no 'natural order' of things but rather the 'laws of science' are a reflection of the Creator's constant upholding of his creation."

But there aren't only two choices. Just because science can not and does not address supernaturalism doesn't mean that science asserts that it doesn't exist. It just means that, *if* it exists, it exists outside of science. Just because you can't hit a home run in a football game doesn't mean that home runs don't exist. True, there are plenty of folks who believe the supernatural doesn't exist because of a lack of evidence. And there are people who believe the supernatural exists despite the lack of evidence. Then there's that third realm, inhabited by the charlatans and huxters, where people buy and sell "proofs" of the existence of the supernatural. That's where you'll find ID.

[LibertarianSchmoe]

"Hello? Check....check....is this thing on?"

[<1/1,000,000th%]

What? Someone pieced together a video taking creationist quotes out of context?

[shield]

I don't agree with everything coming from President Bush either. As far as the planet earth is concerned...I agree with Ross. I also agree with both Ross and Baugh...there's plenty of evidence for Creation.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Were it not for the fact that the fundamental properties of the universe may be subject to change without notice you might have a point. While science may not be capable of predicting anomalies it may carry on despite them and in confidence the universe will generally behave as designed. For science the fundamental properties of the universe will always be a question. It ignores intelligent design at its own peril; for philosophical rather than scientific reasons.

[Coyoteman]

I also agree with both Ross and Baugh...there's plenty of evidence for Creation.

Carl Baugh (b. ?). Source (links in original):

Carl Baugh is best known as a tireless proponent of the claim that human footprints appear alongside dinosaur tracks in the Paluxy Riverbed of Glen Rose, Texas. He has appeared on numerous Christian radio talkshows and was even touted as an "expert" on the 1996 NBC pseudoscience program, The Mysterious Origins of Man. He operates a small museum out of Glen Rose, Texas.

Baugh is a Baptist minister who claims to be an archeologist with a Ph.D. from the California Graduate School of Theology in Los Angeles. This school is unaccredited by the Western Assocation of Schools and Colleges, the primary body responsible for college and university accreditation in the region. It is also unaccredited by the state of California, although it is listed as "approved".

Baugh has also claimed Ph.D. degrees in education and anthropology from the Pacific College of Graduate Studies in Melbourne, Australia and the College of Advanced Education in Irving, Texas. According to Glen Kuban, who has thoroughly researched Baugh's Paluxy "man-track" claims and his credentials, neither Pacific College nor the College of Advanced Education is accredited or authorized by any regional or national body to grant degrees [4]. Pacific College is a small religious school run by Australian creationist Clifford Wilson, a close associate of Baugh's. The College of Advanced Education is a division of the International Baptist College, of which Baugh himself is president.

Baugh's dissertation for his degree from Pacific College is titled "Academic Justification for Voluntary Inclusion of Scientific Creation in Public Classroom Curricula, Supported by Evidence that Man and dinosaurs were Contemporary". Its contents include descriptions of his field-work on the Paluxy river "man-tracks", speculation about Charles Darwin's religious beliefs and phobias, and odd ramblings about the biblical Adam's mental excellence.

[PatrickHenry]

Baugh may be a clown, a crank, a fraud, and a charlatan, but that doesn't disqualify him from being a good creation scientist.

[shield]

For your information....Carl lives in the town many of my Scottish relatives help to found....Glen Rose was originally a Scottish Settlement. My Dad knew Carl well.

It's understandable why Carl moved to Glen Rose, TX. Example: When my Dad was a little boy, He played in all the caves around Glen Rose....he found a skull...gave it to the local Rhodes scholar [Bull Adams] that lived in Glen Rose, he sent it to NYC for analysis. It was so significant it's now in the UT museum.

There's plenty of crapola regarding right leaning folks including Dr. Ross that have challenged especially Darwin's Evolution Theory. If folks do not have a belief in a God and especially Jesus Christ...then those folks can easily look to the Nanny State as their god...this gives the state lots of control.