Denyse O'Leary, "Darwinism - An Intellectual Scandal in Science?" (2005)

> <table class="bg_rightnav" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" width="100%" border="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="nav_right">The following article is located at:<br> http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/9.21.html

> <strong><font size="3"><font color="#00257e"><font face="Arial"><span class="title">Darwinism - An Intellectual Scandal in Science?<span>
> <font>Here's what happens when scientists, honest about their work, publish articles that contradict Darwinism in respected scientific journals.
> <font color="#4c66a4"><span class="byline">Compiled by Denyse O'Leary | Posted 0921/04
> <br>

Ocn August 4th, 2004, Dr. Steve Meyer, a geologist, published an extensive, peer-reviewed essay, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories" in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239).

… one might have expected some letters to the editor … . But in fact, the storm that broke out seemed to be modelled on the Caribbean hurricanes.

(Don't go to sleep! This gets better.)

The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C.

(Do keep reading. You won't regret it. Promise!)

In the article, Dr. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture talks about the Cambrian explosion, over 500 million years ago, in which almost all of the basic body plans of animals appeared. Bang! Just like that! And these basic animal types are pretty much what we have today, except for the ones that have gone extinct. So the Cambrian explosion is not good news for Darwinian evolution (Darwinism).

But so what?

So Meyer reviews the possible explanations and proposes intelligent design as an alternative to Darwinism.

(Intelligent design theory assumes that some intelligence is needed to create the universe and life, rather than only natural law acting on random events. Christians, Muslims, and other theists assume that the intelligence is God's, but that's a separate issue.)

Given the sleepy nature of a journal like Proceedings, one might have expected some letters to the editor fussing about arcane problems with intelligent design theory. But in fact, the storm that broke out seemed to be modelled on the Caribbean hurricanes.

NCSE, a Darwin lobby dedicated, it seems, to shutting down discussion about the failures of Darwinism, was quick to denounce this unprecedented event. "It's too bad the Proceedings published it," said executive director Eugenie Scott, "The article doesn't fit the type of content of the journal. The bottom line is that this article is substandard science."

But things got worse. Meyer's article attracted the attention of the Panda's Thumb blog. If you want to see the possible demise of science, go to the Panda's Thumb blog, a site dedicated to protecting Darwinism that has abused ID-friendly scholars in such unscholarly terms that viewing the Thumb can feel like watching thousands of years of civilization rushing down the drain.

Faced with much angry response, the Proceedings shamefully bowed to the pressure and disowned Meyer's article, pledging not to run any more such articles in the future

Interestingly, contrary to Eugenie Scott's claim, the journal's directors did not claim that Meyer's article was "substandard science," but that it was "inappropriate" for the journal.

One good thing about this whole episode is that it dredged up some pretty ugly stuff that needs to be confronted if indeed the 21st century belongs to biology, as some have claimed.

For example, for years, Darwinists sniped at ID-friendly scientists that they did not get papers published in peer- reviewed journals.

Now the sordid truth is revealed: Science journals dare not publish an ID-friendly paper, because they will be assaulted from all directions by Darwinists. Remember this incident, the next time you hear any such claim.

Worst of all, editor Richard Sternberg was viciously attacked for publishing a paper that had in fact passed peer review. Fortunately, Sternberg, who risks being fired, has had the good sense to reply to his critics.

After completely discrediting the numerous allegations that have been made against him, he notes that a number of scientists have told him that "in their opinion sooner or later the design issue will have to be debated in a reasoned manner."

Yes indeed. I said the same in By Design or by Chance?.

"The current intelligent design controversy is a struggle within science between empiricism (what the evidence shows) and naturalism (the belief that no evidence that shows design can be admitted). … Surely, all the evidence must support naturalism! Unfortunately, many in science today seem incapable of a rational discussion of the problem of what happens when the evidence doesn't support it. Contrary evidence piles up, increasingly strained interpretations are invoked, the issues are politicized in order to gain time, and dissenters (real or imagined) are persecuted and suppressed. (P. 243)

All you who value freedom of thought, try to make the time to go to Center for Science and Culture and read Meyer's paper. Read it and pass it on, before today's intellectual brownshirts find some way to stop you.

Denyse O'Leary is an award-winning Canadian science writer/journalist living in Toronto. She can be reached at [email protected]
> Read brief excerpts from her newest book <span class="ui">By Design or by Chance? The Growing Controversy On the Origins of Life in the Universe<span> (Augsburg Fortress, 2004) at http://www.designorchance.com/press.html.

By Design or by Chance?: The Growing Controversy on the Origins of Life in the Universe > Do we exist by design or by chance? What does modern science really show? Award-winning journalist O'Leary explains in clear and simple terms why increasing numbers of scientists now accept intelligent design.<p>

Used with permission of the author. Copyright © 2004 Christianity.ca.