Nature Suffers the Wrath of Darwinists Scorned
There's no doubt that Nature got an earful for publishing an article in which writer Geoff Brumfiel didn't adaquately skewer the theory of intelligent design. Nor do the letter writers think he delivered a satisfactorily vicious enough savaging to the theory's proponents. One letter writer proclaimed:
ID creationism is not science, despite the editors' suggestion that ID "tries to use scientific methods to find evidence of God in nature". Rather, advocates of ID pretend to use scientific methods to support their religious preconceptions.
Another was aghast that Nature published a short sidebar that actually verified some of the persecution scientists suffer for criticizing Darwinian evolution or even mentioning ID.
I was disturbed by your News Feature "Who has designs on your students' minds?", in which the proponents of ID are mostly portrayed as a persecuted minority. They are said to be afraid to reveal their identity and to be frequently censured into silence by anti-democratic scientists and administrators.
No one thinks for a second that the overwhelming majority of letters that Nature likely receivedd were pro-ID. So, it was no surprise that this week Nature has published this whole slew of anti-ID letters. Interestingly, they did not publish a letter by CSC Director Stephen Meyer --who was interviewed for their ID article at length-- that corrects some of the misconceptions in the piece.
Contrary to Brumfiels’ report, the inference to design in biology is not based upon ignorance or religion, but instead upon standard uniformitarian methods of reasoning and biological evidence. Cells contain miniature machines, complex circuits and sophisticated information processing systems‹exquisite nanotechnology that in any other realm of experience would immediately, and properly, trigger recognition of prior intelligent activity.You'd think they would have published at least one letter representing the minority viewpoint though.
Instead you get the same threadbare complaints that Darwinist can't seem to get over. Intelligent design isn't science because we said so. Intelligent design shouldn't ever be discussed on college campuses, let alone publicly. Whoa, hold the presses. Here's a new one, intelligent design is an argument from laziness. (Since when is it lazy to postulate a new theory? Or, criticize an inadaquate one?)
When they're not whining the Darwinists make some pretty mighty claims.
But after a century of close scrutiny, evolutionary theory has passed so many litmus tests of validation that evolution is as much a fact as respiration and digestion.Let me catch my breath! I almost choked on my lunch when I read that one.
At least one letter writer agress with us one thing, natural selection's complete inability to explain biological diversity.
However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity. Building a straw man based on natural selection alone makes it easy for opponents to poke holes in evolution. But features of the genome, such as genomic parasites or non-coding introns, which aren't so evolutionarily favourable (nor obviously 'intelligent' innovations), can be more readily explained by models that include random genetic drift and mutation as substantial evolutionary forces.