Doubters Defy Darwin Dogma 06/29/2006
One
would think that the near unanimous opinion of international scientific
societies opposing creationism and ID would carry a lot of weight with the
public, but it doesn¡¯t. There are indications that a substantial
percent of the population is not impressed with the dogmatic
pronouncements that evolution is a fact, and that anyone who disagrees is
a religious nut (see also 04/21/2006).
This seems to be frustrating the daylights out of evolutionists who seem
unable to do anything about it. Some samples:
Go to H*** / H*** No, We Won¡¯t Go: One would think the
editor of the prestigious journal Nature would get a little
respect by virtue of his position, but when he tried blogging as an
overture to the public, he got an earful for his mouthful.
Nature decided to join the blogosphere in April as part of its
initiative for openness, in the aftermath of recent scientific scandals
over peer review (06/13/2006).
One of the first experiments was a Nature
Blog in April about the fish-o-pod Tiktaalik (04/06/2006).
After getting worked up over some creationist responses to the find, Gee
jumped into the fray. He argued that creationists cannot embrace
the science that gave us modern health care and cheap travel and abjure
other parts like evolution. He likened creationists to those
wanting to return to the Dark Ages and live like Bedouins. Though
he claimed to believe in God (as a Jew), Gee ended his tirade against
Biblical creationism with:
I object to the cheap, wilful [sic],
nasty traduction of my religious faith by a group of people who would
pervert it to further their questionable political
ideals. I call on all scientists of faith to join me in
its damnation, and to educate certain in the evolutionary biology
community of the rank and damning illogicality of their
position.
Some of the ¡°Evolution is a FACT!¡±
folk said Hear, hear, but not everyone. Gee may have felt
smug in consigning ¡°fundamentalists¡± to the flames, but for some of his
targets, the feeling was mutual. One signing himself a biochemist
called the Tiktaalik missing link claims ¡°Pure rubbish¡± and said
¡°The fact that this article is being heralded in media rags is one sign
of payola and not necessarily substance.¡± Another retorted,
¡°macroevolution is a fairy-tale for those grown-ups who personally feel
the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible to be unacceptable.¡± Another
commented, ¡°Dr. Gee repeats an error so egregious that I cannot resist
commenting; The Scientific advances he mentions from which we all
benefit are all the result of impirical [sic] science. They have
absolutely nothing to do with evolution.¡± Another pointed out,
¡°The irony of this find is lost on the authors – that a single find of a
fossil of a supposed transitional life form is a major news item.¡±
Another advised, ¡°If you actually want to do something about the rise of
6-day creationism, arrogance isn¡¯t going to help,¡± indicating what he
thought of Gee¡¯s decorum. One wonders how often the editor of
Nature has had to leave the comfort zone of academia and face
live hecklers.
Medical Malpractice: A similar blog counterattack came
when Stanford
Medicine Magazine made anticreationism its summer cover story,
¡°Darwin Lives.¡± After a series of attack pieces like ¡°Scientists
mobilize to fight the forces of intelligent design,¡± the magazine
invited readers, ¡°Visit our evolution
blog and tell us what you think.¡± Despite the magazine¡¯s
portrayal of creationists as nothing more than politically-motivated
religious zealots, many of the uncensored responses were not shy about
refusing to be pushed into that corner. ¡°Saying over and over that
it is a religion vs. science debate doesn¡¯t make it so,¡± said one.
¡°Sure, you can find politicians and creationists to bash, but to be
taken seriously, you must address the critics of Darwin who hold
prestigious scientific positions within our universities and science
organizations such as the National Academy of Sciences.¡± Another
called the magazine¡¯s tactics ¡°propaganda.¡± Those supportive of
the magazine¡¯s assessment were outnumbered nine to five. Many of
the anti-evolution responses appeared reasoned and informed, not the
work of religious dogmatists; they argued that the dogmatic Darwinist
position is the real fundamentalism.
The Great Unconvinced: Curtis Dahlgren had some fun in
an op-ed piece for Renew
America, commenting on the apparent chagrin with which an alumni
paper from the University of Wisconsin wrote,
¡±Putting Faith in Science,¡± the subhead
of which is, ¡°Intelligent design – an alternative theory of life
supported by many Christians – argues that science alone can¡¯t explain
the mysteries of our existence. And most Americans agree.
Why has science been so unconvincing?
Dahlgren accused the accusers of blind faith,
retorting, ¡°So who is calling whom ¡®stupid¡¯?¡±
Poll Homeostasis: Lest one think blog entries do not
represent a scientifically-valid sample, Evolution
News listed polls from 1982 to 2005 that show ¡°skepticism of
evolution continues to remain at a very high level in the United States¡±
despite the fact that ¡°For years Darwinists have been doing their best
to remind the world of the good news that evolution and religion can be
compatible.¡± In another piece, Evolution
News argued that students reject evolution because of the science,
not religion. In a third piece, Evolution
News noted that the pace of scientists willing to sign their Dissent from Darwin list is
accelerating (see also a separate list for doctors).
Some
anticreationists may be having second thoughts about the
Darwin-in-your-face strategy. Portraying evolution doubters as
backwoods flat-earthers and fundamentalists who want to destroy science
isn¡¯t accurate, said pro-evolution science historian Ronald Numbers in a
recent PBS
interview. When asked by the PBS interviewer if the evolution war
represents another science vs. religion split, he said:
To me, the struggle in the late 20th
Century between creationists and evolutionists does not represent
another battle between science and religion because rarely do
creationists display hostility towards science. If you read
their literature, you¡¯ll rarely come across an anti-scientific
notion. They love science. They love what science can
do. They hate the fact that science has been hijacked by agnostics
and atheists to offer such speculative theories as organic
evolution. So, they don¡¯t see themselves as being antagonistic
to science any more than many of the advocates of evolution – those who
see evolution as God¡¯s method of creation – view themselves as hostile
to Christianity.
That¡¯s a remarkable admission for
someone who had recently signed on with Elliot Sober and other staunch
anticreationists in a ¡°call to action¡± against intelligent
design.11Attie, Sober, Numbers et al., ¡°Defending
science education against intelligent design: a call to action,¡± Journal of Clinical
Investigation, 116:1134-1138 (2006). doi:10.1172/JCI28449.
We hope you see that CEH also loves
science. When you compare who wants rational discussion about
these important issues and who wants to browbeat their listeners into
submission, the choice is clear. We also like to keep
our sense of humor. Apparently the irony was lost on poor Ms. Amy
Adams who, in her submission to the Stanford
Medicine Magazine anticreationist barrage, summarized her thoughts
on evolution as, ¡°Evolution in a nutshell.¡±