The Furious Response to Intelligent Design
March 2006By Tom Bethell
Tom Bethell is a Contributing Editor of the NOR and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science (Regnery, 2005).
The fury and table-thumping aroused by the Intelligent Design movement has to be experienced to be believed. Droves of readers write in to the newspapers, some on the verge of apoplexy; and on radio talk-shows, the phone banks light up. I wrote my first article criticizing evolution some 30 years ago, for Harper's magazine. Headlined "Darwin's Mistake," it evoked a large response (mostly enraged, but some supportive). The Editor, Lewis Lapham, had not been long on the job and the volume and intensity of the mail surprised him. He took no position on the issue, but he was definitely interested in arousing the readers. So he allowed me to write two more articles on the topic.
I have written "doubting Darwin" articles many times since then, and the impassioned response never fades. With the rise of Intelligent Design, it has only increased. I have two chapters (out of 15) on the controversy in my new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, and in talk-radio interviews the subject almost always comes up.
I don't want to turn this into a discussion of the case for or against Darwinism. But let me quote one comment by the late Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. He had already written an introductory text called Evolution. After it came out, a curious reader asked why he had not included in the book any "direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions." Patterson replied: "You say I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.' I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test."
At about that time, Patterson gave a talk to curators at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. In the course of his talk he said that there was "not one thing" that he knew about evolution although he had been studying it for twenty years. He challenged colleagues to tell him "any one thing that you think is true," but was answered with silence. That was in 1981.
You have two options:
Subscribe now to New Oxford Review for access to all web content at newoxfordreview.org AND the monthly print edition for as low as $38 per year.
Single article purchase:
Purchase this article for $1.95, for viewing and printing for 48 hours.
If you're already a subscriber log-in here.
Back to March 2006 Issue
|Read our posting policy
Add a comment
|Public TV's NOVA had just devoted a full program to the federal case involving the Dover School district's policy on Intelligent Design.
It was found that the ID proposal was derived from the earlier creationist theory, which was ruled to be religious in nature, therefore, also unconstitutional.
Two well known roganizations helped to defend the policy, yet, they lost.
One must wonder, why they did not counter ergue, that evolution itself is also religious tenet. According to Humanist Manifesto I,
FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
SECOND: Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
THIRD: Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
It is poor strategy to answer evolution in a science class, since it involves a philosophical issue, and the matter of origins should be taught in philosophy classes.
|Posted by: blueskies
November 17, 2007 12:41 AM EST
|I recommend the book Saving Darwin (http://is.gd/0UDFCG) which describe how thoroughly "ID" has been discredited. I also recommend that we begin with the civility that the evolutionists lack. Both "sides" seem to begin with a dismissal and derision of the other side.
A few years ago, scientists would admit that the universe did, in fact, appear designed. Then they would proceed to describe their theories of evolution and development. Religionists would begin by acknowledging that much of the "creationist" corpus was fraught with error and emotion, and agree to scientific rules of the road.
That has disappeared today. It leaves Christians believing that they MUST subscribe to "ID" or be labeled an anti-Christian bigot. Scientists fear admitting their belief in God for fear of being labeled one of those emotional, under-schooled creationists.
Many of us do not see why the limits of science and the omnipotence and glory of God should not coexist.
|Posted by: eberwein
June 01, 2011 01:44 PM EDT
|Add a comment
U.S. bishops announce a new four-part plan on abuse, including full investigation into the charges against McCarrick and into the responses
to those charges.
Cdl. Ouellet, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops, says women should help screen seminarians and participate more in the training
A press report claims that 20 of 39 senior clerics were involved in covering up abuse of children between 1945 and 2010.
A CNN poll finds only 48% of Americans have a favorable view of Pope Francis, down from two thirds a year and a half ago.
The Pope tells a large group of Jesuits that the abuse scandal 'has behind it a Church that is elitist and clericalist.'
Pope Francis calls all presidents of the bishops’ conferences of the world to meet at the Vatican in February to discuss child abuse.
more news links...