Response to Professor Wise about Intelligent Design
Sarah Levy and Anika Smith, Contributing Writers
Issue date: 4/18/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 2 next >
It is a remarkable thing when your opponents make your points for you, and for that we are grateful for Professor John Wise's response late last week.
Incredibly, Wise paints the faculty at SMU who called for the cancellation of the conference as martyrs for free speech. He wrote that "even scientists have a First Amendment guarantee to the right to express themselves." Who could argue with that? By all means, express yourself - but don't disallow other scientists to do the same and then claim that they are threatening your First Amendment rights.
We wonder whether Professor Wise thinks the First Amendment rights of scientists extend beyond his own cadre of Darwinists to scientists who are proponents of Intelligent Design. If so, he should be concerned when calls for censorship like his own lead to the persecution of professors like Nancy Bryson, who lost her position after teaching criticisms of Darwin's theory that life developed through an undirected process of natural selection and random variations. There are many other documented cases of scientists who lost their jobs because of their views on Darwinism. If First Amendment rights for scientists apply anywhere, they certainly apply here.
Instead of attempting to understand the arguments of his opponents, Wise introduces a red herring, suggesting that we don't have to choose between religion and science. No one was suggesting any such thing. ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis. Ask Dr. Michael Behe, who spoke at this weekend's Darwin vs. Design conference. He was a Catholic when he was a Darwinist and remains a Catholic as a proponent of Intelligent Design. What changed was not his religious belief, but the mounting evidence on the side of ID.
Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion). It begins with observations of the kinds of information produced when intelligent agents act. Design theorists recognize that high levels of specified and complex information is a hallmark indicator that an intelligent agent was at work. Design theorists then hypothesize that if an intelligent agent was at work, we will find high levels of complex and specified information in biology.
Incredibly, Wise paints the faculty at SMU who called for the cancellation of the conference as martyrs for free speech. He wrote that "even scientists have a First Amendment guarantee to the right to express themselves." Who could argue with that? By all means, express yourself - but don't disallow other scientists to do the same and then claim that they are threatening your First Amendment rights.
We wonder whether Professor Wise thinks the First Amendment rights of scientists extend beyond his own cadre of Darwinists to scientists who are proponents of Intelligent Design. If so, he should be concerned when calls for censorship like his own lead to the persecution of professors like Nancy Bryson, who lost her position after teaching criticisms of Darwin's theory that life developed through an undirected process of natural selection and random variations. There are many other documented cases of scientists who lost their jobs because of their views on Darwinism. If First Amendment rights for scientists apply anywhere, they certainly apply here.
Instead of attempting to understand the arguments of his opponents, Wise introduces a red herring, suggesting that we don't have to choose between religion and science. No one was suggesting any such thing. ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis. Ask Dr. Michael Behe, who spoke at this weekend's Darwin vs. Design conference. He was a Catholic when he was a Darwinist and remains a Catholic as a proponent of Intelligent Design. What changed was not his religious belief, but the mounting evidence on the side of ID.
Intelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion). It begins with observations of the kinds of information produced when intelligent agents act. Design theorists recognize that high levels of specified and complex information is a hallmark indicator that an intelligent agent was at work. Design theorists then hypothesize that if an intelligent agent was at work, we will find high levels of complex and specified information in biology.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 81
netescapist
posted 4/18/07 @ 5:33 AM CST
Its a shame to hear "ID scientists" cry for a "fair hearing". Can scientific ideas be judged on the pulpit? I think not. ID proponents will have to do serious research the old fashioned way, publish papers and earn the respect of the established scientific community. (Continued…)
Miles
posted 4/18/07 @ 9:15 AM CST
I am so tired of the Discovery Institute and their proponents dishonest portrayals of what they are pushing and what their motives are.
First of all intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory, it is an assertion or an article of faith. (Continued…)
Dave
posted 4/18/07 @ 9:53 AM CST
Actually, it doesn't appear that "ID starts with science."
To the contrary, so far it appears that ID starts and goes on, and on, and on, and on as a PR campaign. (Continued…)
Christopher
posted 4/18/07 @ 11:32 AM CST
Levy and Smith:
Let's end this word game.
What does the theory of ID state I have seen various definitions?
What (where?) are the repeatable tests with reproducible results supporting ID? What does ID predict about the future (relating to how organisms will evolve via an intelligence)? How is ID dynamic enough to account for future undiscovered evidences? Scientific theories encompass these principles. (Continued…)
Steve
posted 4/18/07 @ 11:56 AM CST
ID supporters Sarah Levy and Anika Smith have produced an advocacy article for the lay public. This is no surprise, because it's all ID supporters do. (Continued…)
Stephen Elliott
posted 4/18/07 @ 12:24 PM CST
Hi,
I really do not know where best to start in forming a response.
ID is not scientific. It never was and never will be. Have you heard of the "wedge document"? If not then google it. (Continued…)
J-Dog
posted 4/18/07 @ 12:34 PM CST
Anika Smith - What an excellent choice to write a response! It's almost as if it were "designed" that way! Wow! What are the odds that a Discovery Institure "fellow" and contributer would take the time to try and whitewash Id!? (See link below)
http://www. (Continued…)
Gary Hurd
posted 4/18/07 @ 12:39 PM CST
The authors of this letter have made two serious errors regarding intelligent design creationism. The first is the claim, "ID starts with the science, not with any religious basis. (Continued…)
Rich
posted 4/18/07 @ 12:52 PM CST
Ms. Smith says "Wise equates doubting Darwinism with doubting the validity of science itself. This is just silly. Intelligent Design scientists use the scientific method"
Could she please tell us
1) What whs thinks the scientific method is
and
2) How ID is using it. (Continued…)
Brian Spitzer
posted 4/18/07 @ 1:01 PM CST
This letter is written as a response to "Response to Professor Wise about Intelligent Design", by Sarah Levy and Anika Smith.
Levy and Smith claim that "[i]ntelligent Design, like any scientific theory, uses the scientific method (observation, hypothesis, experiment, and conclusion). (Continued…)
Post a Comment