Darwinists Dig In Heels Against I.D. 03/07/2005 ¡°We aren¡¯t going to
convince them and they aren¡¯t going to convince us,¡± said Vittorio Maestro
of Natural History magazine, quoted at the end of a piece entitled,
¡°US scientists battle over challenge to Darwinism¡± in ABC News
Online. The article gave quite a bit of space to quotes by
Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells, proponents of Intelligent Design
(ID). The only rebuttals from Darwinists consisted of religious
arguments: e.g., claiming that ID is inherently religious or motivated by
the Christian right, and that it is not scientific by definition: for
example, a dismissive statement by John Marburger, ¡°I don¡¯t regard
intelligent design as a scientific topic.¡± In the Wichita
Eagle, pro-ID writer John Calvert made a case that the ¡°Science,
religion debate [is] asking the wrong question.¡± The paper gave him
a respectable byline: ¡°John Calvert of Lake Quivira is managing director
of Intelligent Design Network Inc., an organization that seeks
institutional objectivity in origins science.¡±
Both these articles gave ID a respectful
forum. Neither of them quoted a Darwinist able to answer the
scientific questions. The ABC article explained Behe¡¯s claim about
the complexity of the bacterial flagellum and molecular machines being
inexplicable by Darwinian mutation and natural selection. The
wimpy counterargument was, merely, ¡°Darwinists, who still comprise the
large majority of scientists, say Professor Behe and others are simply
appropriating what is yet unknown to conclude that it must be created by
a higher intelligence.¡± This is a tacit admission that they have
no answer. Instead, the Darwinists show obstinance and
unwillingness to think. Maestro¡¯s statement, ¡°We aren¡¯t going to
convince them and they aren¡¯t going to convince us,¡± conveys a spirit of
cold war, not negotiation. The statement is not symmetric.
It¡¯s not that the I.D. scientists are equally dogmatic; they are the
ones willing to debate, and trying to get these issues out on the table
for consideration. It¡¯s the Darwin Party that has no scientific
response to the design arguments and refuses to consider them on a
priori philosophical grounds. Some churchmen in
17th century Europe refused to look through Galileo¡¯s
telescope for fear it would jeopardize their views. Now, the roles
are reversed. Some naturalistic scientists are figuratively
refusing to look through Behe¡¯s microscope at the irreducible complexity
of molecular machines. To avoid looking like modern dogmatists,
the Darwinists need to debate and show their explanatory muscle.
They either need to provide detailed mechanisms by which specified
complexity could arise – and did arise – by natural means, or else
concede that they are beholden to a philosophical preference. Only
unequivocal success at the former approach will permit them any claim to
privilege in academic circles.