Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery Institute, demonstrates his lack of integrity with his dishonest note in the Washington Post entitled
Blind Eye Toward Intelligent Design.
My critique of his letter follows, extensive discussion and smackdown is at The Panda's Thumb.
He writes:
"There really is a scientific case against Charles Darwin's theory of evolution,"
To the extent that a modern synthesis has replaced Darwin's theory of evolution, that is correct. Beyond that, there is no scientific case against the modern theory of evolution.
"and another for the alternative of intelligent design,"
Since intelligent design advocates do not have a comprehensive hypothesis, that assertion is inaccurate as well. The self-described Discovery Institute seems quite unwilling to discover things.
"but you will not find them in The Post."
It's bad enough that the Post has been suckered in by the Bush Administration. We don't need anti-science folks getting the Post to do their bidding as well.
"Instead, we have Peter Slevin ["Evolution's Grass-Roots Defender Grows in Va.," Metro, July 20] regaling us about a group of underemployed 1960s activists who were looking for a cause and picked the defense of Darwin's theory. On June 3 a Post editorial derided "The Privileged Planet," a film about cosmology, as "religious" -- an untrue description that nonetheless has the apparent merit of ending discussion on any number of questions these days."
Gratuitous insults do not a scientific argument make.
"Darwin apologists are happy to opine on religion and politics, of course. What they will not do is address the growing evidence against Darwin's theory."
As soon as some evidence is gathered against the theory of evolution as it is used today, it will be scientists who change the theory to fit these newly discovered facts.
"More than 400 brave scientists now question that theory publicly."
Not really, the DI often repeats this lie, but the statement these people signed was so vague that there is no meaning to it and the signers are not who the DI claims they are. Most of the 400 are not scientists and few are doing any research in biology.
"Whether to teach the evidence both for and against Darwin's theory is the only question before most school boards -- not intelligent design."
There is no evidence for ID. There are arguments for ID. Unfortunately, an anti-science movement, spearheaded by a lawyer, is making its best effort to confuse the difference. Apparently Philip Johnson has managed to confuse Chapman -- or Chapman knows he is repeating lies.
"Intelligent design is another matter, and it is almost always misrepresented in the media."
Maybe an honest statement about the science of ID from the DI would help clear this up. Certainly dishonest books like Johnson's don't help.
"Simply put, intelligent-design theorists contend that scientists have uncovered demonstrable indicators of design in nature."
Yes, they do contend that, but they forget to identify the actual indicators that they claim demonstrate design. Every supposed indicator has, upon further review, been shown not to need a designer.
"The theory holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
It's not a theory. On top of that, it is critically missing a definition of intelligent or a description of the agent.
"It goes no further. It is not creationism. It is not religion."
Of course not, it is merely an attempt by Johnson and the DI to subvert the First Amendment by lying about the purpose to the DI claims. Nothing in ID is supported by evidence and ID only makes sense in light of creationism.
"The only religious believers in all this are the Darwinists who refuse to air the strengths and weaknesses of Darwin's theory and who seek to punish the scholars and teachers who do."
More invective as a replacement for evidence. Even if the current theory of evolution were replaced because of better evidence, it would not give the ID folks a foot in the door. ID has no evidence to support it, but it is suffering from a number of pieces of evidence that ID doesn't fit with. ID is, in short, a religiously motivated lie.
Also at No Free Lunch