Lancet editorial and letter
This is an e-mail I just sent to PZ Myers at Pharyngula. I would be interested in your comments as well.
In a recent issue (Lancet 2006; 367:2), the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, included an editorial entitled, "Is intelligent design worth debating?" The answer was a resounding "No", and the editors compared evolution to gravity as a clear-cut scientific principal.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606678987/fulltext
Alas, the most recent issue (Lancet 2006; 367:984-985) contained a letter to the editor entitled "Debating intelligent design" which I will copy in full below.
You will recognise this as the same old Discovery Institute song and dance. I would appreciate your help in two matters.
1) I, frankly, do not possess the biological background to respond to this as it deserves. Would you, or someone you know, be willing to write to the Lancet and squash this idiot?
2) The author, Noel T. Johnson, states that he has no conflict of interest. However, given the fact that he is in Edmonds, Washington, I find it hard to believe that he does not have some affiliation with the ID crowd. Do you, or anyone out there, recognise this name?
Thank you for whatever information you can provide. I find Pharyngula consistantly informative and amusing, and I am gaining a better appreciation of Our Squidy Friends.
Sincerely, KayIgo
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Lancet 2006; 367:984-985
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68420-1
Debating intelligent design
Noel T Johnson a
Your Editorial (Jan 7, p 1)1 concisely describes and aptly comments on gaps in the evidence supporting Hwang Woo Suk's published achievements in cloning. On the following page,2 you appear to call for debate on Darwinism versus intelligent design. But, given your position that Darwinism is already “clear cut”, and given the quoted poll indicating that most Americans do not share this view, the message that comes through is really a call for more effective preaching to support your position. The juxtaposition of the two Editorials is serendipitous because the link between evidence and truth is at issue in both.
I too was fed a steady diet of Darwinism through medical school and beyond, but did not question it until recently. Aside from the well established phenomenon of natural selection within species, I have found much of the evidence nearly as whimsical as the illustration accompanying the second Editorial. In fact, the historical trail of Darwin proponents is littered with disproved claims about missing links.3 Accordingly, I find your comparison of Darwin's theory to Newton's description of gravity astonishing.
But the implications of the theory are too important to be treated dismissively. For instance, if life truly is the result of random forces, conditions, and elements, where do we find the moral authority to govern our behaviour? Morality is linked to behaviour4,5 and behaviour to health.
The Lancet could go a long way towards fulfilling its resolution to engage the public by sponsoring a pro/con debate on Darwinism. Why not invite a distinguished proponent and opponent of Darwinism to update the case for and against in a page or two? If Darwinism clearly comes out the winner, it should be obvious. At that point, why would anyone need to bother with intelligent design?
I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
References
1. The Lancet. Writing a new ending for a story of scientific fraud. Lancet 2006; 367: 1. Full Text | PDF (29 KB) | CrossRef
2. The Lancet. Is intelligent design worth debating?. Lancet 2006; 367: 2. Full Text | PDF (38 KB) | CrossRef
3. Rowe T, Ketcham RA, Denison C, Colbert M, Yu X, Currie PJ. Forensic paleontology: the archaeoraptor forgery. Nature 2001; 410: 539-540. MEDLINE | CrossRef
4. Dervic K, Oquendo M, Grunebaum MF, Ellis S, Burke AK, Mann JJ. Religious affiliation and suicide attempt. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 2303-2308. MEDLINE | CrossRef
5. Seigar ME, Quinlan DM, Wexler SD. Abortion applicants: characteristics distinguishing dropouts remaining pregnant and those having abortion. Am J Public Health 1977; 67: 142-146. MEDLINE
Back to top
Affiliations
a. Pacific Sleep Center, 22005 76th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98026, USA
____________________________________________________________________________
In a recent issue (Lancet 2006; 367:2), the British Medical Journal, the Lancet, included an editorial entitled, "Is intelligent design worth debating?" The answer was a resounding "No", and the editors compared evolution to gravity as a clear-cut scientific principal.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673606678987/fulltext
Alas, the most recent issue (Lancet 2006; 367:984-985) contained a letter to the editor entitled "Debating intelligent design" which I will copy in full below.
You will recognise this as the same old Discovery Institute song and dance. I would appreciate your help in two matters.
1) I, frankly, do not possess the biological background to respond to this as it deserves. Would you, or someone you know, be willing to write to the Lancet and squash this idiot?
2) The author, Noel T. Johnson, states that he has no conflict of interest. However, given the fact that he is in Edmonds, Washington, I find it hard to believe that he does not have some affiliation with the ID crowd. Do you, or anyone out there, recognise this name?
Thank you for whatever information you can provide. I find Pharyngula consistantly informative and amusing, and I am gaining a better appreciation of Our Squidy Friends.
Sincerely, KayIgo
_____________________________________________________________________________
The Lancet 2006; 367:984-985
DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68420-1
Debating intelligent design
Noel T Johnson a
Your Editorial (Jan 7, p 1)1 concisely describes and aptly comments on gaps in the evidence supporting Hwang Woo Suk's published achievements in cloning. On the following page,2 you appear to call for debate on Darwinism versus intelligent design. But, given your position that Darwinism is already “clear cut”, and given the quoted poll indicating that most Americans do not share this view, the message that comes through is really a call for more effective preaching to support your position. The juxtaposition of the two Editorials is serendipitous because the link between evidence and truth is at issue in both.
I too was fed a steady diet of Darwinism through medical school and beyond, but did not question it until recently. Aside from the well established phenomenon of natural selection within species, I have found much of the evidence nearly as whimsical as the illustration accompanying the second Editorial. In fact, the historical trail of Darwin proponents is littered with disproved claims about missing links.3 Accordingly, I find your comparison of Darwin's theory to Newton's description of gravity astonishing.
But the implications of the theory are too important to be treated dismissively. For instance, if life truly is the result of random forces, conditions, and elements, where do we find the moral authority to govern our behaviour? Morality is linked to behaviour4,5 and behaviour to health.
The Lancet could go a long way towards fulfilling its resolution to engage the public by sponsoring a pro/con debate on Darwinism. Why not invite a distinguished proponent and opponent of Darwinism to update the case for and against in a page or two? If Darwinism clearly comes out the winner, it should be obvious. At that point, why would anyone need to bother with intelligent design?
I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
References
1. The Lancet. Writing a new ending for a story of scientific fraud. Lancet 2006; 367: 1. Full Text | PDF (29 KB) | CrossRef
2. The Lancet. Is intelligent design worth debating?. Lancet 2006; 367: 2. Full Text | PDF (38 KB) | CrossRef
3. Rowe T, Ketcham RA, Denison C, Colbert M, Yu X, Currie PJ. Forensic paleontology: the archaeoraptor forgery. Nature 2001; 410: 539-540. MEDLINE | CrossRef
4. Dervic K, Oquendo M, Grunebaum MF, Ellis S, Burke AK, Mann JJ. Religious affiliation and suicide attempt. Am J Psychiatry 2004; 161: 2303-2308. MEDLINE | CrossRef
5. Seigar ME, Quinlan DM, Wexler SD. Abortion applicants: characteristics distinguishing dropouts remaining pregnant and those having abortion. Am J Public Health 1977; 67: 142-146. MEDLINE
Back to top
Affiliations
a. Pacific Sleep Center, 22005 76th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98026, USA
____________________________________________________________________________