The ID Report

By Kevin Wirth
ARN Director of Product Development

In a stunning announcement earlier this month it was revealed that the seminal papers outlining the probable cause of AIDS as published in the journal SCIENCE in 1984 were almost certainly falsified. SCIENCE, which is often cited as one of the most important peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world, will most likely be forced to retract the falsified papers it published (so much for the claim that peer-reviewed papers in leading science journals are the invincible bulwark of scientific investigation).

A letter submitted on December 9, 2008 to SCIENCE by the group Rethinking AIDS, stated in part:

"What prompts our communication today is the recent revelation of an astonishing number of previously unreported deletions and unjustified alterations made by Gallo to the lead paper. There are several documents originating from Gallo's laboratory that, while available for some time, have only recently been fully analyzed. These include a draft of the lead paper typewritten by Popovic which contains handwritten changes made to it by Gallo. This draft was the key evidence used in the above described inquiries to establish that Gallo had concealed his laboratory's use of a cell culture sample (known as LAV) which it received from the Institut Pasteur." [1]

The letter was signed by more than 40 Senior scientists.

But what is even more important is what happened during all those intervening years to the dissidents (now vindicated) who did everything they could to call attention to the problems related to flawed AIDS research. This behind-the-scenes story reveals much about what I consider to be the Achille's heel of science: Intolerance of Dissidents.

Dissent is concept many folks in the scientific community really don't want or care to hear about on issues where there seems to be an established consensus (and in fact, the very notion of the importance of consensus among scientists often creates additional stumbling blocks and challenges to scientific advancement). In fact, dissent is just the thing that creates confusion in the minds of students, the public, and especially those who control the purse strings for NSF and other major research funding grants. Unfortunately, if you challenge Big Science, you can quite often expect to get shut down.

Take the case of University of California at Berkeley retrovirus expert Peter Duesberg and Nobel Prize winner Walter Gilbert, who have been warning us for years that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS. Their amazing claims challenged the most basic assumptions of the medical community in evaluating the cause of AIDS and is in direct contradiction to conventional wisdom about the disease.

Dr. Duesberg earned his Ph.D. in chemistry in 1963 from the University of Frankfurt in Germany. His work on retroviruses resulted in the isolation of the first cancer gene in 1970, and soon after proceeded to map their genetic structure.

"On the basis of his experience with retroviruses, Duesberg has challenged the virus-AIDS hypothesis in the pages of such journals as Cancer Research, Lancet, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science, Nature, Journal of AIDS, AIDS Forschung, Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapeutics, New England Journal of Medicine and Research in Immunology. He has instead proposed the hypothesis that the various American/European AIDS diseases are brought on by the long-term consumption of recreational drugs and/or AZT itself, which is prescribed to prevent or treat AIDS. See The AIDS Dilemma: Drug diseases blamed on a passenger virus." [2]

The 1984 papers published in SCIENCE, were used as evidence that Duesberg and those who agreed with him must be wrong.

As long ago as 1993, Robert Root-Bernstein wrote an article titled "Rethinking Aids" in the Wall Street Journal (not in one of those really important peer-reviewed science journals) that echoed many of the same findings as Duesberg. [3]

In 1994, another paper (co-authored by Philip Johnson)titled "What Causes Aids," challenged many of the then standard assumptions concerning AIDS research in exquisite detail, and was published in the June issue of Reason that year. [4]

Fast forward more than ten years to a 2007 interview with Dr. Duesberg and we see that he was still challenging scientists to reconsider the causes of AIDS. Moreover, the interview reveals what Duesberg has been made to endure as a result of challenging the scientific establishment over the nature, cause, and future direction of AIDS. One of his critics referred to him as "nuts" and he has lost much of the funding he had enjoyed earlier in his career before he began publishing his heretical views.

Regardless of whether Duesberg's claims are accurate, his challenges seem credible enough and are certainly worthy of investigation. Fortunately, he's not alone: many other scientists agree with him.

"...other scientists think differently and strongly respect Dr. Duesberg's ideas - including Nobel laureates in chemistry Kary Mullis and Walter Gilbert. Duesberg, Mullis, and Gilbert all point out that there is no direct experimental evidence that HIV causes AIDS, and that there are numerous problems with the HIV-AIDS theory. For example, not everyone infected with HIV gets AIDS, and not everyone with AIDS symptoms is infected with HIV. In fact, the symptoms of AIDS vary from continent to continent, and a medical diagnosis of AIDS is often made simply by testing positive for HIV antibodies in the presence of a disease such as tuberculosis or cancer. However, instead of engaging in scientific debate, according to Dr. Duesberg, the only response from the scientific establishment has been to cut off funding to further test his hypothesis."

ANALYSIS

Unfortunately, Duesberg's ideas were met with tremendous resistance over the years from within the medical community, which has resulted in a series of responses that mirror the way Darwin skeptics are also treated. That pattern speaks volumes about the nature of bigotry and discrimination directed towards dissenters.

Duesberg makes a comment in his interview that provides some hard-learned insight on the treatment dished out to dissenters:

"Scientists are selected for instincts that help them to get funding, recognition, invitations to meetings, access to publications and awards. None of these are available to scientific minorities. On the contrary, minorities are excommunicated at many levels from the consenting majorities, even from personal contacts with mainstream colleagues. Those are strong incentives for scientists not to "examine" unpopular ideas."

So much for scientific integrity.

The question I'm asking my readers to consider is this: could the same treatment towards dissidents exist in other areas of science? More importantly, could science be WRONG about other sacred cows in their orthodoxy corral?

Like, for instance, Darwinism?

The takeaway lesson from the treatment meted out to Duesberg and other dissidents is that the AIDS-HIV issue is just symptomatic of what goes on in the scientific and medical community whenever someone challenges orthodox views. The sad part is, many scientists don't seem to be learning the key lesson here about the value of dissent. Instead of closing ranks around orthodoxy, you'd think scientists would figure out after incidents like the AIDS fiasco that that if they could be wrong about something as big as the AIDS-HIV connection, perhaps they could be wrong about a few other cherished notions as well.

And let's not forget that the AIDS-HIV error was promoted in a peer-reviewed journal. And not just any Journal, we're talking about one of the most prestigious science journals on the planet. This is one of the issues Darwin critics are faulted for - it is widely claimed that their views should not be tolerated because they don't publish in the same circles as everyone else who dutifully follows the orthodox scientific bandwagon. The AIDS blowup demonstrates that the argument for heavy reliance on peer review as a defining factor of reliability is subject to enormous failure. Sure, it may serve science well in most instances, but it's certainly not infallible. What this incident does is show us just how clearly peer review is used as a mechanism to maintain control of an idea regardless of other data that contradicts the orthodox view.

When dissenters are slapped down by self-styled Saviors of Science, regardless of the venue, it's amazing how the same patterns of behavior emerge, indicating that it might just be the peer review process and resulting discrimination that should be investigated rather than the alleged stupidity or warped conclusions of the dissenters.

Consensus and unity about the cause of AIDS, or the reality of evolution are far more important to many scientists than listening to the persistent nagging of those pesky dissenters who keep raising their hands and insisting that there are problems with how we view the scientific data. Amazingly, it matters little how qualified a dissenter may be. The treatment of dissenters within the scientific and academic community is quite often so politically motivated that one wonders how anyone manages to conduct good science in the first place. And the treatment of dissenters ranges from censorship, turning them into "outsiders," denying them funding, to slaughtering their careers.

The best thing we can do, according to the scientific dogmatists, is marginalize dissenters as pseudoscientific idiots with improper motives, and dismiss them as crackpots for being so stupid as to dare challenge what every other qualified expert already knows and takes for granted.

And there's the rub.

This seems to be a familiar refrain no matter what the context of dissent might be where Big Science is concerned. Since it's unlikely that the leadership in the scientific and academic communities are going to acknowledge that their distaste for dissent is not appropriate, it's up to the "misinformed" and largely "ignorant" public to put the pressure on. We need to take aim at intolerance of dissidents by nipping it in the bud.

How do we do that?

If you have a child who attends a university where dissent is either not allowed, or where any form of discrimination against those who dissent is tolerated, perhaps you might consider sharing your thoughts with the appropriate administrators. Let your views be known. Don't let it pass. Academic freedom is a precious right, and it can be underscored by the insistence of Parental Patrons who subsidize universities through tuition payments. I'm firmly convinced that money is a language most university officials understand (especially these days...), and if you organize enough parents to challenge behaviors that should not be tolerated, it will have an impact.

Meanwhile, it's time to consider the staggering results of the refusal of the scientific community to listen to the voices of dissent. How many lives have been lost, damaged, or otherwise put at risk over the AIDS fiasco, and how many millions of research dollars flowed in the wrong direction? One can only begin to wonder how many other research programs are similarly flawed, despite the overwhelming evidence of "peer-reviewed" findings.

For more info, please be sure to read Dr. Duesberg's FAQ list and papers.

Science, to its credit, did post the following articles at no charge to the public:
http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/cohen/cohen.dtl

REFERENCES

[1] Press Release dated 12/9/08 from the group "Rethinking Aids"
http://rethinkingaids.com/Content/QA/tabid/146/Default.aspx

[2] http://www.duesberg.com/

[3] Robert Root-Bernstein, "Rethinking AIDS"
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/hiv/rrbrethinking.htm

[4] Johnson, et.al, "What Causes AIDS"
http://www.duesberg.com/articles/kmreason.html

For readers who would like to find out more about what happens to Darwin Dissenters, and many others who have suffered discrimination for being Darwin skeptics, I recommend grabbing a copy of "Slaughter of
the Dissidents," which can be ordered here.

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book about her experience as an Expelled University professor which is scheduled to be released sometime in early 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2008 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are permitted with attribution.

by Kevin Wirth
ARN Director of Product Development

It looks like the fallout from the movie "Expelled" is stimulating many critics to rehash the same old baloney I've been reading in other sources, which includes some rather spectacularly vacuous comments. Take for example the 10+ page hatchet job Michael Shermer and friends are peddling in their latest issue of SKEPTIC magazine (Volume 14, No. 2). In that issue, Shermer and his minions downplay the significance of the ongoing discrimination dished out to Drs. Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Guillermo Gonzalez and others. For today, I'm just going to focus on SKEPTIC's coverage of the controversy surrounding Caroline Crocker's contract with George Mason University (GMU).

Carrie Sager and Andrea Bottaro team up on page 59 (The Expelled Case of Caroline Crocker: Academic Freedom Martyr or Pseudoscience Hack? ) to let their readers know that Caroline Crocker shouldn't have been so disappointed to find her contract terminated because, after all, "the facts show that her contracts were allowed to continue through their natural terms and simply were not renewed." I suspect this is the spin handed out by GMU to Sager and Bottaro, who then sympathetically put on a sad face and remark that "Although this indeed must have been disappointing for Dr. Crocker, it is certainly not uncommon."

True enough - teaching contracts DO generally come with an expiration date, and when they do expire it should come as no surprise to anyone. However, did these two reporters do their due diligence on this story? Doesn't look to me like they did. Did they dig deep enough to discern whether Crocker found herself in a hostile work environmnt? Did they uncover anything that might even suggest anyone had it in for her? They appear to have missed the most important aspect of what allegedly transpired with Dr. Crocker's contract dispute at GMU. There are some very important elements of Dr. Crocker's story they somehow failed to uncover and report on for their SKEPTIC magazine readers.

According to documents I have read, Dr. Crocker was evidently the victim of a bait-and-switch ploy in which GMU first presented her with a three year contact, and then modified that agreement to just one year without any discussion or consent from her. Many of the details concerning this matter are well documented in a LETTER dated August 15, 2005 from Dr. Crocker's former attorney Ed Sisson to GMU President Dr. Alan G. Merten. That letter alleges that the new one-year contract was supposed to make a simple adjustment with regard to additional teaching responsibilities she had agreed to undertake, however, the timeframe of that new contract had also (unknown to Crocker) been reduced from three years to one. According to the Sisson letter, Crocker signed the new contract, assuming that the three year term that had been offered to her in the earlier contract was still in place.

So, while what Sager and Bottaro reported was technically true (Crocker's new contract DID run for a one-year term), it appears that they have fallen far short of informing their readers about the whole story. If the terms of the new contract were changed in the manner claimed in Sisson's letter, then it was not just a simple matter of her suffering a small dose of disappointment. In fact, if the version of these events in Sisson's letter are accurate, it dramatically changes the entire account of what happened from a simple contract expiration to a much more sinister example of deception and discrimination. Had Sager and Bottaro bothered to contact either Mr. Sisson or Dr. Crocker before publishing their article, perhaps this all-important document (and other supporting docs) might have surfaced and spared SKEPTIC's reporters from unnecessary embarassment.

If this presumptive style of fact gathering and reporting holds true for whatever else Shermer and Co. put together in this issue of SKEPTIC magazine, then I shudder to think about any additional "facts" that managed to escape their notice. I guess it's easy to write an article where the "facts" conveniently seem to align with their presumptions of Crocker's naivete. No need to dig further if it looks like she was simply disappointed because her contract expired. Happens all the time, right?

Meanwhile, as Shermer and other critics continue to dismiss the claims of discrimination as unsubstantiated, thousands of competent and qualified scientists, professors, and students continue to be harassed and discriminated against all across the USA for the crime of being a Darwin Doubter.

For readers who would like to find out more about what happened to Drs. Crocker and Gonzalez, and many others who have suffered discrimination for being Darwin skeptics, I recommend grabbing a copy of "Slaughter of
the Dissidents," which can be ordered here. Readers looking for more information about Crocker and other victims of similar discrimination can find it here.

Take in the You-Tube video of Caroline Crocker's former attorney Ed Sisson as he talks about her case in May of 2006.

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor, contributor, and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," which documents her experience as an Expelled University professor -- scheduled to be released sometime in 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are permitted with attribution.

A response to Ed Brayton's post, found here

By Kevin H. Wirth

Brayton and a host of others in the blogosphere have made much ado about the alleged persecution of ID and creationist educators and scientists ever since the dismissal of Guillermo Gonzalez last year from Iowa State University (ISU) and the release earlier this year of the movie 'Expelled'. It seems some critics of the Gonzalez incident and the movie have taken the position that the claims of rampant discrimination and persecution against educators, students, and scientists by Darwinian supporters is just a manufactured form of psychological hype concocted by ID advocates to get some unwarranted sympathy for their cause.

After investigating many case studies and publishing some,[1] I can say with some degree of confidence that contrary to what these critics suggest, this isn't about hype at all, and in fact, the full extent of this situation remains largely under-reported. The practice of discrimination and elimination of Darwin skeptics from our science labs and academic institutions is widespread and, contrary to Mr. Brayton's implacable assertions, shows no signs of dropping off. In fact - the situation is becoming worse thanks to folks like Brayton who view it as a non-issue.

For example, Brayton claims that the ID movement "has a long history of false or unsupported claims of persecution (which shouldn't surprise us, I suppose; after all, their religion has its origin in an act of alleged martyrdom)."

Thanks to the newly released book, "Slaughter of the Dissidents", those claims are no longer unsupported. Of course, I'm pretty sure Brayton and other critics of his ilk will do their best to show us all how the case studies in that book are not really good examples of persecution at all. Go ahead Ed. Have at it.

In his blog, Brayton brings up the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, who was let go from ISU last year after his release of the film "Privileged Planet," and a no-confidence vote from his faculty peers. Gonzalez and his supporters claim that he was targeted for tenure denial because of his ID views, which have been characterized as "religious" by both his critics and former faculty.

Brayton goes on to say

"Here's what those screaming persecution won't say: they have not one iota of evidence that tenure was denied because Gonzalez is an ID advocate. None. They are presuming that to be the case because it fits the story they've been falsely claiming for years, that the evil Darwinian priesthood is out to destroy anyone who believes in God. It is convenient for them to cry persecution, but there simply is no evidence for it. And here's something else they won't say: people get denied for tenure every single day, all over the country, for a million different reasons, some fair and some unfair."

These statements bear taking a closer look.

Was there really "not one iota of evidence that tenure was denied because Gonzalez is an ID advocate"? I'll let readers judge this one, and refer to the spate of emails that were obtained through the Discovery Institute's Freedom of Information Act request. You can read those letters online [2] and also in Dr. Bergman's just published book on the subject. Those emails reveal not only a degree of hostility towards Guillermo's views, but also includes some insight into their voting intentions based on how his views were perceived. Consider the following email excerpts between some of Gonzalez's colleagues:

Harmon to Franzen 09/23/05: "...you have a nice writing touch and produced the best letter to the editor on intelligent design... It is a topic that is simmering in my blood, but as a colleague of Gonzalez, I am uncertain of how best to react. He will be up for tenure next year, and if he keeps up, it might be a hard sell to the department... By the way, I don't have trouble voting for tenure based on his astronomy...but here he is claiming ID is a proper branch of science, and so I think he opens it up in his tenure consideration."

and

Wilson to Struck 02/17/04: "In less happy news, Guillermo has a book coming out in April on Astronomy, Earth's privileged place in the universe and intelligent design. Steve K. is very upset about possible impacts. I guess I'm rather sad that he wants to be so very public about something that I see as intellectually vacuous, though it may be spiritually satisfying.

...I am not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enought to be willing to take the risk... He's definitely a mixed bag, and who knows how this will go. At least it will get full daylight at the 3yr review, not hit folks as a surprise at the final tenure decision."

These comments (and many others that I urge you to read) don't exactly indicate that Guillermo's views were not going to pose "one iota" of a problem for his then upcoming tenure review. If you believe that then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... These and other comments were made by many who were going to vote on whether to approve tenure for Gonzalez.

So did Gonzalez's views on ID play a role in his tenure denial? I think the email evidence alone makes it pretty clear that yes, they not just kinda did, but they absolutely did. We don't need to know what the actual faculty vote was... it's pretty evident from reading those emails and noting the declaration against ID that was circulated and supported by many of his ISU faculty colleagues.

But then there's the other interesting comment from Mr. Brayton...

"They are presuming that to be the case because it fits the story they've been falsely claiming for years, that the evil Darwinian priesthood is out to destroy anyone who believes in God."

Brayton cavalierly dismisses complaints about persecution against Darwin skeptics as patently false on it's face, claiming that "the evil Darwinian priesthood" is just a conjured up boogeyman in the IDers overly imaginative Monsters Inc. closet.

Oh really?

I guess Brayton isn't aware of the numerous comments made by many prominent Darwinians that actually take aim at people who do believe in God (which, by the way, is illegal discrimination if such comments form the basis for denying someone a job, a place to live, etc. etc.). A lot has been said on this topic by many Darwinians, but I'll pull out two choice examples - just so everyone clearly understands that this concern is not just another figment of ID imagination gone wild or another manufactured plot to gain sympathy.

Example #1

Both James Watson and Francis Crick used the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 as an opportunity to "mount an attack on religion" as one observer put it. [4]

Watson: "There is a conflict between truth by revelation and truth by observation and experiment. I think the big fight eventually in our country is not going to be between Republicans and Democrats, but between those who think secularly and those who think in a fundamentalist way.'[5]

And...

Speaking to The Telegraph, Crick, 86, said: "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.

His co-discoverer, Watson, 74, told the Telegraph that religious explanations were "myths from the past".

"Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely," said Watson. "Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours." [6]

For such venerated men of science to come out and publicly underscore not only their distate for religion, but their hope that their work clearly shows that religion has no merit, places ID concerns outside of the boogyman category and into the real world.

Crick and Watson's commentary is just a mild reflection of other sentiments I've run into from other Darwinians, but they will suffice to make the point that Brayton is off key in singing his tune.

Way off.

Example #2

Of the many Darwinians who have gone on record with anything to say on this subject, few comments are more clearly anti-religion than the one made a few years back by Richard Lewontin, who famously said:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." [7]

This comment makes it pretty clear that Lewontin (and many other scientists) value their approach to viewing the universe far beyond any other consideration, and especially any evidence indicating the universe might reveal the handiwork of an intelligent designer. I think he makes it pretty clear that EVEN IF the evidence indicates something contrary to what the scientific assumptions of naturalistic materialism dictate, then we need to hold on to those assumptions anyway, and furthermore, at any cost.

So much for the integrity of science.

You can't find a much better example of straight talk about what we should do with any ideas coming from those crazy fundies. I hold this up as exhibit "A" that scientific integrity gets thrown out the window simply as a matter of philosophical convenience by many Darwinians. In other words, what Lewontin and others who are completely committed to naturalistic materialism are saying is, even if an Intelligent Designer were to show up and demonstrate in a one-time instance how he could create a living machine, they would have to disallow it just because it doesn't fit within their framework of naturalism. If it can't be explained by a naturalistic process, then it simply need not be contemplated, period. And furthermore, anyone who argues about it or says wait a minute -- goodby and good riddance, 'cause we don't need to hear any more of your blathering.

Of course these quotes simply serve to light the fuse for the more heinous acts of discrimination endured by many Darwin Doubters who have been victimized over the years.

IDers and creationists have been maligned over the years for their beliefs, and I think it's well past time for everyone to recognize that this is not acceptable, and yes that includes you as well Mr. Brayton. I'm not talking about teaching religion in a science class, I'm talking about everyone's right to hold whatever 'religious' views they want, and the right to express those views appropriately. And I'm talking about going where the evidence might lead us, regardless of what assumptions most other scientists may have. Science does not always move forward on the basis of a democratic vote of the majority, nor is it advanced by the malfeasance of elitists who think they know better than everyone else. Science advances through the introduction of novel ideas, not the outright rejection of them.

SIDEBAR -- I find it fascinating that most ID critics take the position that ID isn't science, and therefore we shouldn't contemplate any of the ideas advanced by ID supporters. If inquiry were really at the core of the approach used by such critics, you would think they'd at least be willing to consider finding a way to investigate ID concepts in a manner that suited them better. But I don't see any of that going on, in fact, I most often see a very strong animus towards anything remotely suggestive of ID notions. Not exactly what you'd expect from people who claim to be interested in what really makes the universe tick.

Finally, Brayton does us the service of bringing to our attention the unfortunate account of Dr. Sean Carroll, another professor who was denied tenure at the University of Chicago simply because some of the UC faculty didn't like the way he brushed his teeth, evidently, because for all appearances, Brayton thinks he seemed worthy of being granted tenure. Brayton goes on to say that Carroll didn't 'whine' about being 'persecuted', but got on with his life, and advises others who find themselves in a similar pickle to simply "Get over it and get a new job."

That's well and good for a professor who doesn't mind starting another 5-7 year cycle attempting to gain tenure somewhere, if he can. Carroll probably won't have a problem with doing that, but you can be sure that's not going to be true of many Darwin skeptics -- they often find it much more difficult to find another really good position at another University, even if they are able to teach their subject material competently. But for those who worked hard, and like Carroll, were not expecting any problems gaining tenure, there is a HUGE issue here, and Brayton blithely passes over it like it was nothing at all. If you were told you had to do xyz to gain tenure at any academic institution, and then met all of those criteria, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to expect to gain tenure. In nearly any other circumstance where the terms of achieving advancement are defined, failure to deliver it when the criteria are met would be considered a breach of contract, except, of course, in academia. That Carroll did not complain is his choice, but that doesn't mean everyone else in a similar circumstance should respond in exactly the same manner he did - especially if discrimination was involved. No one who works hard and meets the expected criteria for tenure, and has good reviews along the way, should have to wake up one day only to learn he's going to get the axe just because the people he worked with didn't like something as inconsequential as the way he parts his hair or the color of his socks. Much less what his personal religious beliefs happen to be. Keep in mind here that Gonzalez did not teach his religious views to his students -- his only "crime" was writing a book and kicking out a movie that claims our planet enjoys some rather unusual and improbable characteristics. That his conclusions would contribute to the decision to terminate him from his position at ISU is unthinkable.

When a prof is on tenure track, I think he/she has the reasonable expectation of knowing what is required to achieve it. If all the requirements are met, then tenure should be granted, pure and simple. No faculty vote by jealous or sanctimonious peers should in any way challenge that achievement. Unfortunately, as we see in Brayton's own example of Carroll, such is not the case. Rather than suggesting someone who has been unjustly denied an earned tenure should "just get over it", I would prefer to see a different course of action undertaken -- one that calls for a correction in an obviously flawed tenure process. And while yes, it is healthy to move on, it's not at all healthy to let someone beat on you and go their merry way without any consequences -- especially if discrimination was indicated.

This is where the example of Carroll diverges from that of Gonzalez. Technically, Brayton is correct - people are denied tenure all the time who seem to deserve it. But when there is evidence of illegal discrimination, that's a horse of a different color. And as I have already demonstrated, it appears certain that Gonzalez was a victim of discrimination, and the emails clearly show that he was in a very hostile work environment. His colleagues made it very clear that they didn't appreciate his 'religious' views. If they ousted him because of his alleged 'religious' views (real or not), then it's religious discrimination, period.

Brayton characterizes Gonzalez and others who have been denied tenure as "whiners," which places an unsavory label on educators who protest when they've been unjustly discriminated against. Victims of discriminiation have every right to cry 'foul!' as loud as they want to when they suspect their rights have been violated. To characterize this as 'whining', as Brayton does, is a slap in the face to everyone who values the supposedly protected freedoms we all assume each of us is entitled to.

Brayton's comment is like saying "I just saw someone mug and beat Joe Blatz -- but he should just get over it and move on."

I wonder, would Brayton say the same thing to an Indian population who complained because their treaty rights had just been violated? Or would he say the same thing to a black person who was denied a place to live simply because of the color of his skin (and had biting emails from neighboring property owners talking about how uncomfortable they would feel living around a black person)? Evidently he would.

Shouldn't we at least be speaking out against those who we know very likely perpetrated a crime, and maybe even see what we can do to make sure it doesn't happen again? In my view, it's at least immoral to deprive someone of something they've earned, even when discrimination is not part of the picture. It's even more immoral, in my view, to suggest that we should ignore or dismiss the plight of those who have a reasonable expectation of rights (i.e., protection against illegal discrimination) granted to us all.

There's a difference, Mr. Brayton, between whining and standing up for your rights.

And if we keep handing out "get out of jail free" cards to perpetrators of discrimination today (as both Gonzalez and Carroll eventually did), it will only embolden them to continue doing more of the same tomorrow. So Mr. Brayton, you'll pardon those of us who don't agree that this is all about a bunch of "whiners" complaining about a "persecution complex." This is about a very real wrong in need of radical correction before it gets worse. And don't think you're immune just because of the side of the fence you're sitting on either. The very same freedoms Gonzalez is entitled to apply to you as well. If you fail to honor the protection of those freedoms for people you disagree with ideologically, you also fail to protect them for yourself and the rest of us as well.

[1] see the newly released book "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Dr. Jerry Bergman, which presents several case studies of educators and students who have faced discrimination and persection. You can order a copy here.

[2] you can download the Gonzalez emails online at: www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/cases/gonzalez/emails.zip

[3] removed

[4] Do Our Genes Reveal the Hand of God? In the London Daily Telegraph, by Roger Highfield, 3/20/2003

[5] Nobel Laureates Opine on DNA, Politics, and the Christian Right. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0803.htm

[6] Ibid, at 4.

[7] Lewontin, Richard. Billions and Billions of Demons in New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin skeptics.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2008 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are permitted with attribution.

by Kevin Wirth
ARN Director of Product Development
August 7, 2008

In a recent Washington Post article titled "Evolving Toward a Compromise" by Amy Binder and John H. Evans (Saturday, July 26, 2008, p. A15) the authors make several assertions and claims about issues related to Intelligent Design and science education that are in dire need of reassessment. You can read the article here

First, they note that a proposal before the Texas Board of Education calls for the inclusion of "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, but then state that the proposal is "understood" by nearly everyone to be a "strategic effort to get around First Amendment restrictions on teaching religion in science class."

One wonders what Binder and Evans could possibly mean when they state that the effect of implementing the proposals before the Texas Board of Education could help promoters "get around" the First Amendment, and how it could possibly include "teaching religion in science class." The proposal before the Board clearly and unequivocally addresses improving science education, but does call for clarification and honesty about the issues related to evolution. Are Binder and Evans suggesting there is no need to address such concerns? If so, the majority of Americans would disagree with that assessment.[1] And, exactly how does the Texas proposal advocate teaching religion in our school science classes? Evans and Binder don't take the time to elaborate.

For one thing, the presentation of the evidence for speculative stories about historical evolution is in dire need of a much more forthright presentation. Students have been taught for decades now that all the evidence for the fact of historical evolution is clear and well established. However, anyone who bothers to read the books written by leading experts in paleontology, for example, will see plenty of cause for concern with promoting such a view. The degree and depth of controversy, and lack of consensus about how nearly every vertebrate evolved would provide any student (much less the rest of us) with a hefty dose of reasonable skepticism about any claim that historical evolution is well established. Reading those accounts provides insight into the futility most paleontologists and other scientists encounter as they imaginatively place round evidence into square holes while attempting to reconstruct how the various vertebrate groups evolved.

These accounts are nothing less than stunning in their admissions of ignorance. Is anyone reading this stuff? What about Binder and Evans?

From reading such books (PS - none of them were written by folks with a "religious" agenda), it's pretty clear that historical evolution is most firmly established in the imaginations of those who promote the idea (see the sample reading list at the end of this article). There are almost endless suggestions about the evolutionary history of the vertebrates, but far less consensus exists than the average American is led to believe by most staunch defenders of Darwinian views.

Reading these books reveals that we don't know who the first true bird was, we have no clue how the "land egg" developed, or where the jawed fishes came from, and we have no idea who the precursors of Trilobites (arguably the most numerous fossilized critter on the planet) were. And this is just for starters! A more thorough reading reveals the massive depth and extent of our collective ignorance concerning how, when, and where most vertebrates evolved. Like I said, taken all together, it's stunningly and incredibly clear how little we really know about the historical evolution of the vertebrates.

Surely such things are worth pointing out to students, and they just as surely have nothing at all to do with "religion." Is this what Binder and Evans suggest amounts to a "watering down" of evolution? I'd say there isn't much water to begin with (but plenty of hot air...), and it's worth noting that the advocates of Intelligent Design didn't write this stuff.

Next, Binder and Evans go on to say that a constant drubbing of Intelligent Design advocates may be counter productive, as "crushing one's opponents...can create feelings of persecution and solidarity among them and deepen their commitment to their cause." They go on to suggest that such an approach may not be the best tactic to "protect the science curriculum or the separation of church and state."

I find it interesting that many Darwinians expect us to accept historical evolution as fact when it is based on speculations built upon conjectures mixed with extrapolations - and admonish those of us who would dare be skeptical of such claims. They expect us all to agree with invisible evidence concocted from guesswork, but when there is a real issue to be dealt with (ie, discrimination against Darwin Doubters), they say it's just a figment of our imagination. Such as the suggestion that "feelings" of persecution are being generated by Darwin skeptics who are in fact losing their careers and are being summarily expunged from academia all across America.

These are not "feelings" of persecution - the very real persecution against Darwin skeptics is a widespread FACT that Binder and Evans for some reason seem unable to admit. I'll soon be publishing a book on this subject by Dr. Jerry Bergman called "Slaughter of the Dissidents"(due out in August, 2008)[2]. This book clearly documents what these alleged "feelings of persecution" actually look like in the real world case studies where degrees are denied and belief in evolution is required if you plan to keep your career in many fields of science. We're talking rampant and widespread discrimination, not just some allegations of hurt "feelings" from people with a need to bond with others who share the same persecution complex.

This is a real issue in dire need of being corrected in our culture if the "free exercise clause" of the First Amendment means anything at all. The practice of rejecting Darwin skeptics has been well documented for decades, but has only recently begun to percolate into the sphere of public consciousness.

"There are certainly a good number of scientists who now reject the concepts of evolution -- not on religious grounds, but on strictly scientific grounds. Most of them are keeping their own council. Outwardly they support evolution (so as to be in step with their peers) but inwardly they have second thoughts on the subject. It is not too easy to take a stand against the beliefs of the majority, and expose oneself to ridicule, especially when one's job and academic and professional prospects are on the line. It is only the very brave and those highly placed scientists whose standings are universally acknowledged (and thus, secure) that can afford to contradict the general trend."

Cohen, I.L. 1984. Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. New Research Publications, Inc. New York, p.213-214.

Finally, Binder and Evans make the rather lame claim that we should allow educators to explain to students that Evolution does not teach values, suggesting that "We are not asking teachers to discuss what morality should look like but, rather, to explain that morality does not logically flow from evolutionary theory."

Um... wrong again, and incredibly so. Naturalistic evolution when advocated as a fact beyond question (which is how it is typically presented to students today) cannot help BUT teach a moral view. That would include the notion that if life is the product of chance naturalistic and purposeless processes, then logically none of us have any reason to hold to ANY morals whatsoever, except those which we in a democracy deem necessary for civil co-existence. Whatever your views of morality might be, the notion of not having any moral accountability is significantly different from the implications one might reach if we consider the possibility of a moral accountability to, say, a Creator.

Besides, why should our schools teach as fact an unproven and unfalsifiable notion (like historical evolution) and thereby provide students with an excuse to reach the conclusions of ardent evolutionist Aldous Huxley, who based his life on the premise (fueled by evolutionary assumptions) that he had no moral accountability whatsoever:

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

Huxley, Aldous. 1937. Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for their Realization. Harper and Brothers, New York, p.270.

Binder and Evans provide us with a remarkably ignorant assessment of not only the facts, context, and meaning associated with the important issues surrounding this debate, but also offer us vacuous remedies which I hope my readers will recognize as sorely ill advised.

[1] One-third of Americans think evolution is 'definitely false'; over half lean one way or another or aren't sure. Only 14% expressed unequivocal support for evolution. PLoS Biol 4(5): e167 - http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040167

[2] Bergman, Jerry. 2008. Slaughter of the Dissidents, Leafcutter Press, Port Orchard, WA. www.slaughterofthedissidents.com

Some of the books that show the depth of how little scientists really know about the evolution of vertebrates include:

Anderson, Jason S., and Hans-Dieter Sues. 2007. Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution. Indiana University Press

Feduccia, Alan. 1999. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press.

Stahl, Barbara. 1985. Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution. NY: Dover Publications.

Seattle area writer, publisher, and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is the editor and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman. He has investigated and researched issues related to the persecution of Darwin skeptics since 1982.

Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of the forthcoming book "Slaughter of the Dissidents" is featured on the front page of the Toledo Blade today. The story covers the movie Expelled as well as Dr. Bergmans charge that many educators are treated unfairly for their dissent over aspects of evolution.

Readers can also go to the book's website at www.slaughterofthedissidents.com

During this past week a new war was declared that went unnoticed by most Americans. And it was announced in the most unlikely venue of movie theatres all across America, where previews of the new movie "Expelled", starring Ben Stein, were being screened. I attended one such showing in Seattle on March 24th, and while I was struck with the Fahrenheit 9/11-like approach it takes, I was more smitten with the impact this movie is going to have on American culture in coming days and years. Mark my words, the debate between evolution and Darwin skeptics is about to take a seminal turn with the release of this film, which I consider to be a significant tipping point with far reaching and long lasting effects.

Years ago Rosa Parks got on a bus and sat where she shouldn't have - a form of protest letting the world know she'd had enough. Ben Stein, about as unlikely a candidate as Rosa for similar notoriety, has now done much the same thing, only this time the issue isn't about racial prejudice, it's about prejudice against those who question any aspect of evolution. And this time the vehicle for the protest isn't a bus, but a documentary.

In this must-see documentary, Stein traverses across America and even to Paris and Germany in search of experts who can provide him with rational answers to questions about why it is that Darwin skeptics are treated so poorly and why dissent over evolution is such a no-no. He ends up taking a contemplative review of the Holocaust and then sits down one-on-one with Richard Dawkins (one of the most outspoken atheists of our day) in what starts out as a needling of Dawkin's views on God but ends up with Dawkins making some very embarassing admissions about Intelligent Design, which leaves viewers thinking - wait a minute - Dawkins is not arguing against the notion of Intelligent Design, just one particular brand of ID. You'll need to see the movie to learn which brand he opposes. The movie injects lots of humor via appropriately placed 1950's era black and white film snippets, and many belly laughs are to be had. And, during Ben Stein's sobering reflections on the Holocaust, you'll be able to hear a pin drop anywhere in the theatre.

While most Americans are likely aware of some level of conflict between evolution and creation in our culture, most have not been informed about the degree of ubiquitous and absolute seething hatred and intolerance that has been growing ever more hostile in academia and the halls of science against Darwin skeptics for the past several decades. Academia largely regards Darwin doubters as the intellectual lepers of our day, and have exacted untold misery as their nefarious acts of discrimination, persecution, and good-old-boy politiking have been allowed to run rampant against students, scientists, and professors. I'm not kidding when I say it's been a career bloodbath, and is perhaps THE reason why there seem to be so few people in science and academia today who openly challenge any aspect of evolution. For those who have managed to survive with their careers intact, rather than risk professional suicide, many prefer to stay in the closet.

Expelled will bring all of this home to viewers, and will provide them with a glimpse of what has been going on by presenting case studies of a handful of victims of this discrimination. What Expelled does not explore is the agonizing after-effects created by the treatment extended to many other victims. Not mentioned in this movie is the fact that some marriages and families have collapsed under the strain, and some have been driven to such depths of desperation and depression as a result of how they were treated that they committed suicide. And though Expelled hints at the likelihood that other victims have been discriminated against, viewers might wonder if the movie exaggerates the idea of widespread discrimination and persecution. Well, as someone who has studied and investigated this issue for over a quarter century, allow me to add my two cents: Expelled reveals just the tip of the iceburg. There have been literally thousands of instances where qualified students have been denied degrees, scientists and science writers have been fired, and professors have been denied tenure (or were moved to their University basement if they already had tenure) only because they questioned some aspect of evolution.

Even our government, which is sworn to uphold the rights and freedoms of Americans, has largely stood idly by to what can only be described as one of the most blatant forms of discrimination currently being practiced openly in America today. And now the release of "Expelled" not only opens a window on the wall of demagaugery but has already become a very hot topic even before it's release on April 18th.

Blogster and University of Minnesota Associate professor PZ Myers, one of the more strident opponents of Darwin skeptics and featured in the film, found himself on the receiving end of a mild form of the same treatment he likes to dish out to Darwin Doubters - he was expelled from the screening of "Expelled". Though claiming that he found such treatment to be laughable, his brand of hatred for those who question evolution is no laughing matter. And believe me when I say that when American moviegoers view Expelled next month, they won't be laughing either as they leave theatres.

This is the kind of rhetoric Myers throws out on his web site:

"The only appropriate response should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy, far-right politicians … I say, screw the polite words and careful rhetoric. It's time for scientists to break out the steel-toed boots and brass knuckles, and get out there and hammer on the lunatics and idiots."
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/03/get_meaner_angrier_louder_fier.php

(note - this is a blended quote from two different Myers sources)

Myers, ever on alert for others who share his appetite for roasting evolution skeptics, is quick to post comments on his blog from others who are like-minded. Take this one for example:

"I'd like to suggest a very simple strategy for American liberals: Get mean. Stop policing the language and start using it to hurt our enemies. American liberals are so busy purging their speech of any words that might offend anyone that they have no notion of using language to cause some salutary pain." http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/80507/?page=1

This is an open call to encourage even more hate speech directed at Darwin Doubters of all stripes.

But Expelled reveals that this is much more than simply a war of words: real people are losing real careers right and left, all because they dare to dissent against one or more aspects of evolution.

And while PZ Myers critcizes Expelled, saying

"Unlike watching a movie, being awarded a professorship should require some substantial understanding of a discipline"

I would counter by suggesting that Expelled pulls back the hypocrisy of such misleading statments by revealing that "understanding of a discipline" is NOT the issue here. Many people with plenty of understanding and competence have been egregiously eviscerated from their careers simply because they dared to dissent. Make no mistake, this debate is not just a polite dialogue about a conceptual disagreement - its all about how to rid the planet of those lying, stupid, ignorant fundies. As Expelled gets viewed nationwide, I predict both sides will see this event as a defining moment of truth: can we really afford to allow our freedoms to get thrashed in the name of militant and arrogant demagoguery? If there was ever any need of evidence for the depth of hatred harbored against people who disagree about evolution, the PZ Myers blog has plenty to offer. The hate speech alone ought to give any rational American pause. We don't tolerate such talk against minorities on the basis of race or sexual preference, so I have to ask why we would tolerate it against Darwin skeptics? The answer is (according to those of Myers' ilk) because they are perceived to be "religious kooks", and that is considered to be reason enough for them.

Here's a wake up call to my readers: If you think Myers' comments (and those from others who respond to his blog) are directed only against "fundamentalist" creation science advocates, think again. The intolerance extends way beyond that small group to include evolutionists who have doubts (because they give comfort to the "enemy") -- that means literally anyone who is skeptical about any aspect of neo-Darwinian logic is a target of Myers-like inquisitioning. Who are the likely targets? If you are a teacher, and you want to share periodical articles from widely respected and refereed science journals -- articles that question some aspect of evolution -- you are a target. If you are a student, you will be asked "Do you fully believe in evolution?" If you say no - then kiss your GPA goodbye, look for a special love note in your school transcript, brace yourself for hard questions during your oral exams (designed to deny you a degree), and forget about that summer science project you were hoping to participate in. Do you question evolutionary suppositions based on non-religious reasons (as is true of many evolutionists and ID advocates?) Too bad - you too are a target, and worse, your doubts will be earmarked as "religious" no matter how much you might protest.

As Expelled makes clear, declaring yourself a Darwin skeptic in today's culture is the absolute kiss of death for those seeking a career in many university and scientific venues in America today.

But, as bad as all that is, why else is Expelled so important? Two big reasons.

First, for the simple reason that it marks a turning point. No longer will Americans be able to say they are unaware of what is going on with regard to this issue - this movie will forever be remembered as the vehicle that brought this issue out of the background and into the mainstream. And second, because at the end of this movie, Ben Stein issues a call to action. This is where the value factor of this movie hits home. The movie is not just an expose. It ends with Stein issuing a challenge to viewers: now that you've seen this, what are you going to do about it?

Incredibly, those who oppose Darwin skeptics are already coming out of the woodwork with their own call to action because of this movie using flaming rhetoric much like that of PZ Myers. And we have "Expelled" to thank for this, because it has taken an issue that has been simmering in the background and exposed it publicly for what it is. Critics like Myers relish the thought of tearing this movie apart:

I will go see this movie, and I will cheer loudly at my 30 seconds or whatever on the screen, and I will certainly disembowel its arguments here and in any print venue that wants me. That's going to be fun.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_movie_star.php

However, Myers and Co. fail to acknowledge the legitimacy of a central claim in this movie - that freedom of expression is under attack. No amount of "disembowelment" will get around that point, in fact, it simply underscores it.

That's why I say that for Darwin skeptics of all stripes, Expelled is our vehicle, and Ben Stein is our Rosa Parks.

That's not meant to be quaint, PZ - its meant to let you know that you're going to find yourself kicked out of more than a movie screening down the road.

Oh, and I should also mention that a new book will be coming out soon called "Slaughter of the Dissidents". That book will add even more insight to this issue as it chronicles the despicable and often heart-wrenching forms of intimidatiion, bigotry, prejudice, attacks on our freedoms, and outright discrimination that has been an ongoing blight in academia for years. It will pick up where Expelled left off. Stay tuned to this blog for more info on this in coming weeks.

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is the publisher and editor of the new book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman. He has investigated and researched issues related to the persecution of Darwin Doubters since 1982.

Michael Ruse - Victim of Self Deception
by Kevin Wirth

As an observer of the debate on origins, one of the most disconcerting things I see are statements that are poorly made by those who are educated and informed, and who should know better. In this report, I'd like to take Michael Ruse to task for being overly effusive to the point of overkill on matters he should know better about. Not everything Michael says is overdone, but in this case, one of his arguments simply ignores the obvious.

In his book, 'Taking Darwin Seriously' (1998), here is what Michael says at one point:

"To the working scientist, and not just the biologist, it is simply ludicrous to think that there is any question about the natural origin of organisms from forms very different than those they now bear - ultimately from inorganic materials. This is as much a fact of nature as that the earth goes around the sun or that water is composed of oxygen or hydrogen. But it is certainly not a fact to many non-scientists, especially not to those influenced by North American evangelical Christianity."

Ruse, Michael in "Darwin's New Critics on Trial" in Taking Darwin Seriously. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY (1998), p.280.

This 'fact of nature' that Ruse alludes to refers to the concept that life arose from inorganic materials. Oh – and note that many ‘non-scientists’, especially those ‘influenced by North American evangelical Christianity’ are especially beguiled and deceived.

Well, since ‘Taking Darwin Seriously’ was first published almost 10 years ago now, I hope I’m not too late to use Mr. Ruse’s commentary as a talking point, especially since those who share his viewpoint continue to harp on about how ill-informed most Darwin skeptics are concerning the ‘fact’ about the ‘natural origin of organisms’ from ‘inorganic materials’.

Maybe it would help Mr. Ruse and his cohorts if they took a closer look at how many in the scientific community and elsewhere have gone on record on this topic with cautionary remarks. To assist Ruse and others, I have provided a number of quotes that they can take issue with, should they choose to.

"The origin of life by chance in a primeval soup is impossible in probability in the same way that a perpetual machine is in probability. The extremely small probabilities calculated in this chapter are not discouraging to true believers ... [however] A practical person must conclude that life didn't happen by chance."

Yockey, Hubert P. in Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge University Press, (1992), p.257.

"The 'warm little pond' scenario was invented ad hoc to serve as a materialistic reductionist explanation of the origin of life. It is unsupported by any other evidence and it will remain ad hoc until such evidence is found... One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not yet been written."

Yockey, Hubert P.. A Calculation of the Probability of Spontaneous Biogenesis by Information Theory in Journal of Theoretical Biology, 1977, 377-398, p. 396.

"A natural and fundamental question to ask on learning of these incredibly interlocking pieces of software and hardware is: 'How did they ever get started in the first place?' It is truly a baffling thing. One has to imagine some sort of a bootstrap process occurring, somewhat like that which is used in the devleopment of new computer languages - but a bootstrap from simple molecules to entire cells is almost beyond one's power to imagine. There are various theories on the origin of life. They all run aground on this most central of all central questions: 'How did the Genetic Code, along with all the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?' For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer."

Hofstadter, Douglas R. in Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Goldern Braid. Vintage, New York, NY (1980), p.548.

"it appears unlikely that a self-replicating ribozyme [an RNA molecule having some enzyme activity] could arise, but without some form of self-replication there is no way to conduct an evolutionary search for the first, primitive self-replicating ribozyme"

Joyce, G.F. in Prospects for Understanding the Origin of the RNA World, Gesteland and Atkins, ed. Cold Spring Harbor Press, New York, NY (1993), p.19.

"The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal) and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it. The discovery of ribozymes has made it easier to imagine an answer to the second of these questions, but the transformation of an 'RNA world' into one in which catalysis is performed by proteins, and nucleic acids specialize in the transmission of information, remains a formidable problem"

Smith, John Maynard and Szathmary, Eors in The Major Transitions in Evolution. W.H. Freeman and Co., Oxford, (1995), p.81.

"The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear. As we have seen, investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future"

Orgel, Leslie. 1994. The Origin of Life on the Earth in Scientific American, 271(0):, 77-83, October.

"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve.... Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation"

Haskins, Caryl P.. 1971. Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970 in American Scientist, 59(0):, May.

"When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established."

Popper, Karl. 1978. Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind in Dialectica, 32(3):, 339-355, .

"In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimate. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic"

Demirsoy, Ali and Kalitim ve Evrim in Inheritance and Evolution. Meteksan Publishing Co., (1984), p.39.

"What gambler would be crazy enough to play roulette with random evolution? The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Durer's 'Melancholia' is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecule leading to the formation of the eye; besides, these errors had no relationship whatsoever with the function that the eye would have to perform or was starting to perform. There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it."

Grasse, Pierre in "Chapter IV: Evolution and Chance" in Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York, NY (1977), 2nd edition, p.104.

"Any living being possesses an enormous amount of "intelligence," very much more than is necessary to build the most magnificent of cathedrals. Today, this "intelligence" is called "information," but it is still the same thing. It is not programmed as in a computer, but rather it is condensed on a molecular scale in the chromosomal DNA or in that of any other organelle in each cell. This "intelligence" is the sine qua non of life. If absent, no living being is imaginable. Where does it come from? This is a problem which concerns both biologists and philosophers, and, at present, science seems incapable of solving it."

Grasse, Pierre in "An Introduction to the Study of Evolution" in Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York, NY (1977), 2nd edition, p.2.

"The origin of life on the surface of the Earth is a unique historical event whose character cannot be established by experiments in contemporary laboratories ... Many scientists have taken this position on the origin of life. Jacques Monod, the distinguished French molecular biologist, said as much in 1970 in his elegant book Chance and Necessity. There is no way, he argued, that an event as improbable as the emergence of life on Earth could be analyzed by science, which is able to deal only `with events that form a class. ... A decade later, Francis H.C. Crick, co-originator of the structure of DNA, put the argument more specifically: the chances that the long polymer molecules that vitally sustain all living things, both proteins and DNA, could have been assembled by random processes from the chemical units of which they are made are so small as to be negligible, prompting the question whether the surface of the Earth was fertilized from elsewhere, perhaps from interstellar space. `Panspermia' is the name for that"

Maddox, J. in What Remains to be Discovered: Mapping the Secrets of the Universe, the Origins of Life, and the Future of the Human Race. Touchstone, New York, NY (1999), Reprint, p.131.

"The late biologist Gerald Soffen, who oversaw the life-seeking experiments carried out by NASA's Viking probes to Mars, once outlined the early milestones in the evolution of living processes: development of organic compounds, self-replication of those compounds, appearance of cells isolating the compounds from their environment, photosynthesis enabling cells to use the sun's energy, and the assembly of DNA. ‘It's hard to imagine how these things could have happened," Soffen told me before his death in 2000. "Once you reach the point of a single-cell organism with genes, evolution takes command. But the early leaps — they're very mysterious.’ "

Easterbrook, Greg. The New Convergence in Wired Magazine, December 2002.

"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve... The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery... Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."

Haskins, Caryl P.. Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970 in American Scientist, May 1971, 298-307, p. 305.

"The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going"

Horgan, John. In the Beginning in Scientific American, February 1991, -, p. 125.

"It was already clear that the genetic code is not merely an abstraction but the embodiment of life's mechanisms; the consecutive triplets of nucleotides in DNA (called codons) are inherited, but they also guide the construction of proteins... so it is disappointing that the origin of the genetic code is still as obscure as the origin of life itself."

"It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means."

Orgel, Leslie E.. The Origin of Life on the Earth in Scientific American, October 1994, 77-83

"Now we know that the cell itself is far more complex than we had imagined. It includes thousands of functioning enzymes, each one of them a complex machine itself. Furthermore, each enzyme comes into being in response to a gene, a strand of DNA. The information content of the gene (its complexity) must be as great as that of the enzymes it controls."

Salisbury, Frank B.. Doubts About the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution in American Biology Teacher, September 1971

"Take some matter, heat while stirring and wait. That is the modern version of Genesis. The 'fundamental' forces of gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak nuclear forces are presumed to have done the rest... But how much of this neat tale is firmly established, and how much remains hopeful speculaion? In truth, the mechanism of almost every major step, from chemical precursors up to the first recognizable cells, is the subject of either controversy or complete bewilderment."

Scott, A.. Update on Genesis in New Scientist, 1985, 30-33, p. 30.

"And then what of the ' primitive soup' required for Chemical Evolution? If such an environment ever existed on Planet Earth for any appreciable time, it would require relatively large quantities of nitrogen-containing organic compounds (amino-acids, nucleic acid bases and so on). It is likely that such nitrogen-rich soups would have given significant quantities of ' nitrogenous cokes', trapped in various PreCambrian sediments. (The formation of such 'cokes' is the normal result obtained by heating organic matter rich in nitrogenous substances.) No such nitrogen-rich materials have yet been found in early PreCambrian rocks on this planet. In fact the opposite seems to be true: the nitrogen content of early PreCambrian organic matter is relatively low (less than 0.15%). From this we can be reasonably certain that: * there never was any substantial amount of 'primitive soup' on Earthwhen ancient PreCambrian sediments were formed; * if such a 'soup' ever existed it was only for a brief period of time. Subtract from the basic concept of the Chemical Evolution Theory the ideas of substantial amounts of 'primitive soup' and a long period of time, and there is very little left"

Brooks, J. in Origins of life. Hertfordshire, (1985), p.118.

"It is true that some of the simpler amino acids have been found in complex mixtures generated under conditions simulating those that might have been present on the primitive Earth. Even nucleotide letters have been found in mixtures that are said to be plausible simulations of probiotic products. But all such 'molecules of life' are always minority products and usually no more than trace products. Their detection often owes more to the skill of the experimenter than to any powerful tendency for the 'molecules of life' to form"

Cairns-Smith, A.G. in Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1993), Reprint, p.44.

"Sugars are particularly trying. While it is true that they form from formaldehyde solutions, these solutions have to be far more concentrated than would have been likely in primordial oceans. And the reaction is quite spoilt in practice by just about every possible sugar being made at the same time - and much else besides. Furthermore the conditions that form sugars also go on to destroy them. Sugars quickly make their own special kind of tar - caramel - and they make still more complicated mixtures if amino acids are around."

Cairns-Smith, A.G. in Seven Clues to the Origin of Life: A Scientific Detective Story. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, (1993), Reprint, p.44.

"Many investigators feel uneasy about stating in public that the origin of life is a mystery, even though behind closed doors they freely admit that they are baffled. There are two reasons for their unease. First they feel it opens the door to religious fundamentalism...Second, they worry that a frank admission of ignorance will undermine funding"

Davies, Paul C.W. in The Fifth Miracle: The Search for the Origin and Meaning of Life. (0), p..

"Some scientists say, just throw energy at it and it will happen spontaneously. That is a little bit like saying: put a stick of dynamite under the pile of bricks, and bang, you've got a house! Of course you won't have a house, you'll just have a mess. The difficulty in trying to explain the origin of life is in accounting for how the elaborate organisational structure of these complex molecules came into existence spontaneously from a random input of energy. How did these very specific complex molecules assemble themselves"

Davies, Paul C.W. and Adams, Philip in More Big Questions. ABC Books, Sydney, (1998), p.53-54, 47-48.

"The great diversity of these opinions reflects their largely subjective nature. Individual viewpoints often reveal idealogical, philosophical, or religious biases more than they express objective appraisals, for the simple reason that not enough elements are available for objective analysis"

De Duve, Christian. in Blueprint for a Cell: The Nature and Origin of Life. Neil Patterson Publishers, (1991), p.212.

"In fact, the probability of the formation of a protein and a nucleic acid (DNA-RNA) is a probability way beyond estimate. Furthermore, the chance of the emergence of a certain protein chain is so slight as to be called astronomic"

Demirsoy, Ali and Kalitim ve Evrim in Inheritance and Evolution. Meteksan Publishing Co., (1984), p.39.

"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts"

Grasse, Pierre in Evolution of Living Organisms Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York, NY (1977), 2nd edition.

"If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution-which is so well supported by the fossil record-and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion"

Horgan, John in The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Knowledge in the Twilight of the Scien. Little Brown & Co, London, (1997), p.138.

"Essentially, the same amino acid chain being found also in other animals and even in plants, we have a case in histone-4 where more than 200 base pairs are conserved across the whole of biology. The problem for the neo-Darwinian theory is to explain how the one particular arrangement of base pairs came to be discovered in the first place. Evidently not by random processes, for with a chance 1/4 of choosing each of the correct base pairs at random, the probability of discovering a segment of 200 specific base pairs is 4-200, which is equal to 10-120. Even if one were given a random choice for every atom in every galaxy in the whole visible universe the probability of discovering histone-4 would still only be a minuscule ~10-40"

Hoyle, Fred in Mathematics of Evolution. Acorn Enterprises, Memphis, TN (1999), p.102-103.

"Life cannot have had a random beginning ... The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the power of 40,000, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth, this simple calculation wipes the idea entirely out of court"

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe in Evolution from Space. A Theory Of Cosmic Creationism. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY (1984), 2nd edition

"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make the random concept absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics on which life depends are in every respect deliberate. ... It is therefore almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect in a valid way the higher intelligences to our left, even to the extreme idealized limit of God."

Hoyle, Fred and Chandra Wickramasinghe in "Chapter Nine: Convergence to God" in Evolution from Space: A Theory Of Cosmic Creationism. Simon & Schuster, New York, NY (1984), 2nd edition, p.141, 144.

"Geological and geophysical evidence is insufficient to allow us to state with any precision what conditions were like on the surface of the primitive earth. Arguments concerning the composition of the primitive atmosphere are particularly controversial. It is important, therefore, to state our own prejudice clearly. We believe that there must have been a period when the earth's atmosphere was reducing, because the synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions"

Miller, Stanley L. in The Origins of Life on the Earth. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ (1974), p.33.

"However, it is now held to be highly unlikely that the conditions used in these experiments [i.e., the modeling of strongly reducing atmospheres] could represent those in the Archean atmosphere. Even so, scientific articles still occasionally appear that report experiments modeled on these conditions and explicitly or tacitly claim the presence of resulting products in reactive concentrations "on the primordial Earth" or in a "prebiotic soup". The idea of such a "soup" containing all desired organic molecules in concentrated form in the ocean has been a misleading concept against which objections were raised early (see, e.g., Sillen 1965). Nonetheless, it still appears in popular presentations perhaps partly because of its gustatory associations"

Mojzsis, Krishnamurthy, Arrhenius in "Chapter 1 of the RNA World" in Before RNA and After: Geophysical and Geochemical Constraints on Molecular Evolution. Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, (1999), 2nd edition, p.6.

"Oparin believed that the organic molecules from which life originated collected as a “soup” in surface waters...However, a basic problem is that a high concentration of complex organic molecules would be required. This violates the second law of thermodynamics, which basically tells us (in this context) that it would be more energetically favorable for such a mixture of organic compounds to disintegrate into simple parts than to collect into a multitude of complex, organized molecules"

Murck, B.W. and Skinner B.J. in Geology Today: Understanding our Planet. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY (1999), p.442.

"The origin of the [genetic] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal) and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it. The discovery of ribozymes has made it easier to imagine an answer to the second of these questions, but the transformation of an 'RNA world' into one in which catalysis is performed by proteins, and nucleic acids specialize in the transmission of information, remains a formidable problem"

Smith, John Maynard and Szathmary, Eors in The Major Transitions in Evolution. W.H. Freeman and Co., Oxford, (1995), p.81.

"The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence one can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts. The complex genetic apparatus in present-day organisms is so universal that one has few clues as to what the apparatus may have looked like in its most primitive form."

Dickerson, Richard E.. Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life in Scientific American, September 1978, p. 77.

"Considerable disagreements between scientists have arisen about detailed evolutionary steps. The problem is that the principal evolutionary processes from prebiotic molecules to progenotes have not been proven by experimentation and that the environmental conditions under which these processes occurred are not known. Moreover, we do not actually know where the genetic information of all living cells originates, how the first replicable polynucleotides (nucleic acids) evolved, or how the extremely complex structure-function relationships in modern cells came into existence"

Dose, Klaus. The Origin of Life: More Questions Than Answers in Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1988, p. 348.

"But the most sweeping evolutionary questions at the level of biochemical genetics are still unanswered. How the genetic code first appeared and then evolved and, earlier even than that, how life itself originated on earth remain for the future to resolve... The fact that in all organisms living today the processes both of replication of the DNA and of the effective translation of its code require highly precise enzymes and that, at the same time the molecular structures of those same enzymes are precisely specified by the DNA itself, poses a remarkable evolutionary mystery... Did the code and the means of translating it appear simultaneously in evolution? It seems almost incredible that any such coincidence could have occurred, given the extraordinary complexities of both sides and the requirement that they be coordinated accurately for survival. By a pre-Darwinian (or a skeptic of evolution after Darwin) this puzzle would surely have been interpreted as the most powerful sort of evidence for special creation."

Haskins, Caryl P.. Advances and Challenges in Science in 1970 in American Scientist, May 1971, 298-307, p. 305.

"A spaceship approaches the Earth, but not close enough for its imaginary inhabitants to distinguish individual terrestrial animals. They see growing crops, roads, bridges, and a debate ensues. Are these chance formations or are they the products of an intelligence?' It is not at all difficult to formulate examples of events with exceedingly low probabilities. A roulette wheel operates in a casino. A bystander notes the sequence of numbers thrown by the wheel over the course of a whole year. What is the chance that this particular sequence should have turned up ? Well, not as small as 1 in 10^40000, but extremely small nonetheless. So there is nothing especially remarkable in a tiny probability. Yet it surely would be exceedingly remarkable if the sequence thrown by the roulette wheel in the course of a year should have an explicit mathematical significance, as for instance if the numbers turned out to form the digits of pi to an enormous number of decimal places. This is just the situation with a living cell which is not any old random jumble of chemicals"

Hoyle, Fred. The Universe: Past and Present Reflections in Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 1982, 1-35, p. 15.

"If living matter is not, then, caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces and radiation, how has it come into being? ... I think, however, that we must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it"

Lipson, H.. A Physicist Looks at Evolution" in Physics Bulletin, 1980, -, p. 138.

"Unfortunately, catalytic reactions of the required type in aqueous solution are virtually unknown; there is no reason to believe, for example, that any intermediate of the citric acid cycle would specifically catalyze any reaction of the citric acid cycle. The explanation of this is simple: noncovalent interactions between small molecules in aqueous solution are generally too weak to permit large and regiospecific catalytic accelerations [of the type required by living systems]. To postulate one fortuitously catalyzed reaction, perhaps catalyzed by a metal ion, might be reasonable, but to postulate a suite of them is to appeal to magic."

Orgel, Leslie E.. Self-organizing biochemical cycles in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 2000, 12503-12507

Finally, I would throw in this reminder.

"Expectancy leads to self-deception, and self-deception leads to the propensity to be deceived by others...Indeed, professional magicians claim that scientists, because of their confidence in their own objectivity, are easier to deceive than other people."

Broad, William and Nicholas Wade in Betrayers of the Truth: Fraud and Deceit in the Halls of Science. Touchstone, New York, NY (1982), p.108 ff.

And so… this brings me to an issue that Ruse himself and others are well aware of: the point about self-deception.

First, the reader will note that many of the quotes I've presented are spread across recent decades, and many are not current within the past few years. I rest confidently in the knowledge that nothing has changed in the realm of scientific discovery in the area of origin of life scenarios that would significantly modify the comments presented here. And if anyone would care to challenge this, I welcome it. The point is, there are a plethora of obstacles that must be overcome before Ruse or anyone else can honestly make the claim that we understand how life arose, or that it is an established fact that inorganic materials spontaneously gave rise to organic ones when we currently have no clue how that would be possible.

Second, many critics of IDers and Darwin skeptics lament what they describe as the laborious and often inaccurate use of quotations to support their contentions regarding the errors of Darwinism or Origin of Life arguments. I hope that the sheer weight of quotations offered here from qualified skeptics (which is just scratching the surface) will put any such allegations to rest. The point is, Ruse is wrong when he arrogantly claims that ….

“the natural origin of organisms from forms very different than those they now bear - ultimately from inorganic materials… is as much a fact of nature as that the earth goes around the sun…”

In fact, the idea of the natural origin of organisms remains one of the mostly hotly debated topics within science today. The notion that life spontaneously arose from inorganic beginnings by chance is not only an unproven speculation, but runs contrary to everything science tells us. And, Ruse’s baseless allegations to the contrary are at best merely a posturing of insistence that one would expect of a true-blue Darwinian.

What all the foregoing comments inexorably lead us to is the conclusion that we are still totally in the dark with respect to even imagining how life could have begun (without an Intelligent Designer). I hope Ruse takes his own advice, noted here, to heart:

Descartes hypothesized a demon who deceives us, even about that which we think self-obvious. Could not our theistic belief in a Creator fall prey here? What right have we to think that our belief in a good god who would not let us be deceived about his existence is not caused by an evil spirit who is misleading us?...

Recognizing that our senses can mislead or deceive us about the world, we must distinguish between the real world as we can in some sense discover (common sense reality) and the world in some absolute sense (metaphysical reality)…

Consider this. It is certainly the case that organisms are sometimes deceived about the world of appearances and that this includes humans being deceived. Sometimes we are systematically deceived, as instructors in elementary psychology classes delight in demonstrating. Moreover, evolution can often give good reasons why we are deceived.

Ruse, Michael in "Darwin's New Critics on Trial" in Taking Darwin Seriously. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY (1998), p.295-296.

Indeed - IDers and Darwin skeptics are not the only ones capable of being deceived. The first step, for anyone with an unfounded addiction to an idea, is to admit the possibility that they might have it all wrong.

by Kevin Wirth
ARN Director of Media Relations and Product Development

Here is a claim frequently made against IDers:
"People in intelligent design do not understand what science is."
Nissimov, Ron. 2000. "Baylor Professors Concerned that Research Center is Front for Promoting Creationism in Classroom." The Houston Chronicle, June 2.

This claim is often leveled against Intelligent Design (ID) supporters, scientists, and academicians, and like most broad swipes against any large group, it's a false claim with little merit that can easily be disproved.

If the remark were somewhat tempered, with the addition of just one word, I might be more willing to tolerate it. Something like: "SOME people in intelligent design do not understand what science is"

But even then, I'd have to say that such IDers would be in the minority. The fact is that most folks within the ID movement really DO understand, and more important - ACCEPT - the basic principles of science, the precepts of scientific discovery, and so on. People who administer this false claim against IDers typically fail to make some very important distinctions.

1) Many ID scientists practice science in exactly the same manner as their non-ID counterparts. Where the IDers differ with their non-ID brethren lies in the conclusions they reach. After all, we don't accuse all vegetarians of failing to understand the benefits of eating meat simply because they don't choose to. Vegetarians are completely capable of understanding everything about meat-eaters - they have simply decided to take a different path. If someone claimed that all vegetarians didn't understand what it means to be a meat eater, or what the benefits are, I think we could easily see the sham in such a preposterous notion - so why not apply the same logic when considering IDers?

2) Many practicing IDers have advanced degrees in fields that qualify them to render comments that may not be in accord with the mainstream. And after all, it is only by stepping outside of the mainstream that new discoveries are made.

3) IDers take on an additional perspective that others are unwilling to adopt. This doesn't mean that IDers are unable to understand what science really is, or refuse to practice good science. What it means is they bring a unique approach to the table that many others do not. The fact that someone is willing to contemplate ID concepts doesn't mean the individual is deficient in their understanding of science - on the contrary - they are typically quite capable in their chosen field. They are compelled, however, to see the evidence of science in a different light - a non-Darwinian one.

Critics often attempt to dismiss or marginalize IDers by relegating them into the same category as flat-earthers, tea-leaf readers, and horoscope technicians. People who understand science do not agree with such concepts - and that includes most IDers.

Academic Freedom Championed at JCE
© 2006 by Kevin Wirth
www.arn.org
Note: You can download a PDF version of this report by clicking here

One of the adversaries of Intelligent Design (ID), Dr. Eugenie Scott, is on record stating that, in her view

“A very popular American tradition is the ‘fairness’ or ‘let’s let all sides have their say’ and so forth. This is a wonderful cultural tradition – it’s irrelevant in science…It sounds really unfair, but it isn’t the job of the high school teacher to decide that students need to be exposed to views that are on the fringe of science. The job of the high school teacher is to try to communicate the consensus view of science – otherwise, you’re really misleading those kids.”

Many are inclined to accept this clearly stifling and unproductive educational approach, were it not for evidence and sentiments to the contrary. Thankfully, we have a recent example that Scott’s claims are without merit in the current issue of the Journal of Chemical Education (JCE). It seems that William Howard (University of Alaska) made some waves last year in his peer reviewed article about Potassium-Argon dating methods. This month, a letter appears in JCE by one Karen Bartelt of Eureka College, taking Howard to task for implying that “there is a controversy about the validity of radiometric dating”, calling his piece, among other things, “a caricature of critical thinking”, noting that “to cast doubt on the accuracy of K–Ar dating, Howard sets up nonsense criteria—red herrings—that inculcate doubt in his audience, but are irrelevant.”

Howard, equal to the challenge, responds to Bartelt, noting that

Radiometric dating is a well-established field of science, but this fact should not be used to intimidate someone from asking questions. Scientific knowledge advances only when well-established practices are questioned, and questioning radiometric dating is the responsibility of all professional scientists everywhere.

When teaching chemistry, I introduce my students to a number of theories, such as Atomic Theory, Quantum Theory, Valence Bond Theory, Molecular Orbital Theory, Crystal Field Theory, and more! These theories are well-established and supported by a great deal of experimental evidence. Nevertheless, I encourage my students to question the experimental support and to think of new experiments that could potentially falsify the theories. This activity is extremely important for producing first rate scientists. The students are well aware that these theories are not “controversial”, and that we question these ideas simply as an intellectual exercise.

There is an extremely valuable lesson here, and it runs counter to the tune currently being played out by adversaries of ID. In the view of Dr. Eugenie Scott and others like her, it seems likely that ID doesn’t qualify as an idea that can effectively stimulate students in their discovery of what real science is and is not.

But the exchange between Howard and Bartelt becomes an even more valuable lesson as the original reviewers of Howard’s paper respond to Bartelt’s complaints. Their comments provide us with some extraordinary insight that opponents of ID would do well to heed.

Reviewer Reed Howald notes that

Karen Bartelt’s letter is not a fair evaluation of the William A. Howard paper. There are educational advantages of getting students involved in the scientific analysis of even controversial topics like the potassium–argon method of dating minerals.

I trust that student discussion of the potassium–argon method of dating minerals can be valuable in teaching the scientific method.

However, the comments of referee reviewer Richard Firestone adds these pearls of wisdom:

Karen Bartelt’s letter criticizing the paper by William Howard that I reviewed goes too far. I may have been naïve about Howard’s intentions, and I agree with her concerns about intelligent design, but this paper must be considered on its merits, not on perceived intentions. The Howard paper should be credited for teaching students to be critical in their analysis of data.

Students should be taught to be very critical of established analytical procedures. Results should be analyzed with an eye on whether they are reasonable, not only precise. A Ming vase dated to 700,000 B.C.E. would make no sense, no matter how careful the measurement seems. Howard’s intentions may be clear to Bartelt, but I don’t think that he crossed the line with his arguments. Bartelt’s concerns are shared by many of us, but are we going to reject this paper on the basis of our perception of the author’s intentions? It is not the job of the Journal of Chemical Education to create a litmus test for what papers might or might not have hidden intelligent design meanings. (emphasis added)

Notice that Bartelt’s interpretation of Howard’s motivation or intentions are dismissed by Firestone – as they should be. Motivations are ultimately irrelevant when determining the validity of any scientific theory. In the ID debate, many opponents claim that ID advocates have ‘religious’ motivations, which should have absolutely no impact on the scientific validity of ID. Many valid ideas in science have come to us as the result of dreams and imagination. In the end, motivation and inspiration of an idea are not important in the scientific enterprise – what truly matters is whether an idea can stand on it’s scientific merits alone.

The entire JCE exchange is well worth reading, and is very instructive on the value of presenting students with ways to critically analyze even established practices of science.

Now, if we could just get our courts to agree…

About the author:
Kevin Wirth is a correspondent for Access Research Network (ARN) and can be reached at kwirth@arn.org

Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, has just posted his "quick and dirty review" of the Kitzmiller decision, including his Top 10 list of what's wrong with it. I recommend it as a preface to reading a more detailed analysis of this landmark court decision. You will also find amicus briefs and other related documents as you work your way through his review.

Actually - it's not very quick, but, it IS very helpful. Thanks Casey. ;>)

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1405