Evolution Icon Evolution
Faith & Science Icon Faith & Science
Intelligent Design Icon Intelligent Design

Here’s Why We Answer Some of Our Less Cogent Critics

Uoft_universitycollege.jpg

Laurence Moran is the University of Toronto biochemist whose notable contribution to the evolution debate has been to coin the term “IDiots” in referring to advocates of intelligent design. Jonathan M. replied to him yesterday (along with biologist P.Z. Myers) on the question of whether intelligent design is science or “apologetics.”

Now Moran follows up with a post in which he concedes, “I agree that many ID proponents try to use the science [sic, he means “scientific”] way of knowing to prove that creator gods must have built some complex molecular structures inside modern cells.” However, he then says:

As long as ID supports outspoken leaders like Denyse O’Leary, Barry Arrington, Phillip Johnson, Casey Luskin, David Klinghoffer, Paul Nelson, John West, William Lane Craig, and others who are not scientific by any stretch of the imagination, then it can’t claim to be entirely scientific.

Ah, so if only all on that list were somehow disposed of, then ID could potentially be judged “entirely scientific.” It might in that case be fairly evaluated as science by scientists, its most incisive arguments answered rather than evaded with name-calling and the most vacuous ad hominem attacks. That’s the “scientific way of knowing,” don’t you see?

You may wonder why we reply to someone like Moran at all. Because, I think, it shows the caliber of many of our critics in the scientific community. This may be hard to accept if you’re in the habit of venerating scientists (as distinct from loving science as the pursuit of truth), but Moran is not atypical. Otherwise, you would find thoughtful scientists speaking out to distance themselves from the less thoughtful ones, and then responding adequately to the argument for ID.

But you don’t find that, which in itself suggests something about the relative seriousness of the two sides in the dispute about Darwinian theory. Remember, when folks in the media denounce ID, equate it with creationism, etc., it’s scientists like Larry Moran they point to for support. Yes, they do.

Moran, you may recall, was recently interviewed by Forbes writer John Farrell on how ID exemplifies the “larger debate between rationalism and superstition.” Moran was willing to admit, though, that “Most scientists and science lovers cannot win a debate with the best intelligent design creationists.” So in this picture, the implication is that “scientists” number among their ranks a majority who are even less capable of answering ID theorists than Moran.

Here, by the way, is Ann Gauger on Moran’s attempt at critiquing Stephen Meyer in Darwin’s Doubt.

And this is the scientific establishment that, in the media’s presentation, rightly sits in judgment of Meyer, Axe, Dembski, Gauger, Sternberg, et al. What a comedy!

Image: University of Toronto, by Jphillips23 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL], via Wikimedia Commons.

David Klinghoffer

Senior Fellow and Editor, Evolution News
David Klinghoffer is a Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute and the editor of Evolution News & Science Today, the daily voice of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, reporting on intelligent design, evolution, and the intersection of science and culture. Klinghoffer is also the author of six books, a former senior editor and literary editor at National Review magazine, and has written for the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Seattle Times, Commentary, and other publications. Born in Santa Monica, California, he graduated from Brown University in 1987 with an A.B. magna cum laude in comparative literature and religious studies. David lives near Seattle, Washington, with his wife and children.

Share

Tags

scienceViews