A Creationist Writes to The Lancet

[6_bleen_7]

A recent issue of The Lancet (25 March 2006, vol. 367, issue 9515) contained a laughable letter to the editor by one Dr. Noel T. Johnson, in response to an editorial in the January 7, 2006 issue, "Is intelligent design worth debating?" The sister, kayigo, wrote to PZ Meyers of Pharyngula requesting a rebuttal. As far as I know, Dr. Meyers hasn't

Comments

[kayigo]

Thank you. You said this far better than I could. Would you be willing to post this on the Lancet web site as a comment in response to this letter?
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606684201/fulltext

[6_bleen_7]

Thanks! I'll have to abbreviate it quite a bit and clean it up (i.e., make it less "chatty"). I may not be able to include links, which would be too bad, since I'd undoubtedly link to this.

[ejwise]

You argument is beautifully and logically crafted.

During my pre-service Masters teaching program, our Science methodologies prof made the statement that intelligent design is *not*, by its very nature, science. There are no scientific analyses or processes used in the framing of its argument; and that because of this, it *cannot* be considered a scientific theory. Thus, it has no place in the science curriculum. As a current event or controversial issue in a social studies course, sure.

It was nice when he said this, as it shut-up the pragmatically-minded Christians in my program. :)

[6_bleen_7]

I'm really glad I stopped teaching biology before this whole ID "controversy" got started. I only had to worry about refuting overt creationists, and fortunately I didn't get any of those.

The decision by Judge John Jones III-a Bush-appointed federal judge with impeccable conservative credentials-in the Kitzmiller ID trial is particularly illuminating (if a bit long for the casual reader). It contains explanations of why ID is scientifically vacuous in language easily grasped by scientific laypeople.

[inthane]

Nice little rant. I'm crying right there next to you.

I have always been convinced that we are the missing link between apes and civilized beings; give us another twenty thousand years of social and moral development and we might actually make something out of ourselves.

Sadly, I think we have at most about 50 years, barring any heretofore unknown technological barriers that might prevent a Vinge-style singularity from occurring...

[6_bleen_7]

Alas, a return to the "faith-based science" dominant in Europe during the Middle Ages could well constitute such a technological barrier.

[inthane]

Sorry, don't buy it. As much as flyover country and the confederate states would like to drag the rest of the country back into the 15th century, and the nadir of the Spanish inquisition, they can only do so much damage here - and the rising twin stars of China and India, assuming they don't end up swatting each other with nuclear hellfire, should provide ample technological advance to guarantee a pushover. And if they fall over, there are plenty of other societies not too far behind them...

[6_bleen_7]

Yeah, I was joking. In all seriousness, if the Fundies manage to stifle scientific research here, they still can't impede the forward march of progress in nations with a firmer grasp of reality. In fact, exodus of scientists to countries that allow, say stem-cell research has already begun. The worst I forsee happening is that we'll lose our superpower status, and although it would likely affect our standard of living, a little humility would do us a world of good.