Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steven Pinker — Let’s show some proper deference to Darwin!

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Is this vapid appeal to authority all the Darwinians have left?

Creationism piece no way to honor Darwin’s birthday
July 20, 2009

Letter to BOSTON GLOBE

SHAME ON you for publishing two creationist op-eds in two years from the Discovery Institute, a well-funded propaganda factory that aims to sow confusion about evolution. Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design’’ seriously, and in the famous Dover, Pa., trial in 2005, a federal court ruled that it is religion in disguise.

The judge referred to the theory’s “breathtaking inanity,’’ which is a fine description of Stephen Meyer’s July 15 op-ed “Jefferson’s support for intelligent design.’’ Well, yes, Thomas Jefferson died 33 years before Darwin published “The Origin of Species.’’ And Meyer’s idea that the DNA code implies a code maker is just a rehash of the ancient “argument from design’’ – that an eye implies an eye maker, a heart implies a heart maker, and so on. Darwin demolished this argument 150 years ago.

In a year in which other serious publications are celebrating the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth and the sesquicentennial of “Origin,’’ the Globe sees fit to resurrect his long-buried opposition.

The advantage that traditional newspapers have over the Internet competition is quality control. If the Globe repeatedly gives its imprimatur to the latest nonsense from an anti-science lobbying organization, what’s the point of going to it for reliable, intelligent commentary?

Steven Pinker
Cambridge

Comments
And yes, I realize my analogy is flawed. I was going for humour, not accuracy.Tajimas D
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
08:51 PM
8
08
51
PM
PDT
Diffaxial: I think you are misunderstanding Meyer's argument. His argument is not that Jefferson believed in a Creator God, so we should too. What he means is that the author of the 'seperation of church and state' phrase believed in a Creator God for scientific reasons. Consequently, it's unlikely he himself would have interpreted the seperation of church and state doctrine to mean that the government could not support the idea of a designer from a scientific standpoint.tragic mishap
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
08:40 PM
8
08
40
PM
PDT
In his zeal to complain, I think Pinker got his facts wrong. I believe Judge Jones used the term "breathtaking inanity" to refer to some of the school boards member's behavior, never to ID theory itself. Also, Pinker is again way off when he says "Virtually no scientist takes “intelligent design’’ seriously..." For just one example, take a look at the Letters section (p 5-6) of the July 6th issue of Chemical and Engineering News. Of six letters published in response to the Editor's heavy-handed dismissal of ID, five acknowledged flaws in evolutionary theory and, it seems to me, all five were supportive of ID too.Gage
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
Apparently Meyer and Dembski didn’t get the memo.
That's because George McCready Price and Henry Morris collected up all the memos that were bound for American churches and stuffed them into a giant strawman which they proceeded to nail to a cross. (And I don't say that flippantly. Many Christians now seem to consider creationism as important as the crucifixion.) Either that, or the memo was written in a language that they couldn't understand. Like biologese.Tajimas D
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
08:39 PM
8
08
39
PM
PDT
WmAD:
Is this vapid appeal to authority all the Darwinians have left?
It strikes me that Meyer's citation of Jefferson's purported embrace of ID is also an appeal to authority. (Goose, gander, sauce, etc.)Diffaxial
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT
William Dembski:
Is this vapid appeal to authority all the Darwinians have left?
No, Darwinians could, for example, argue that ID can't make any predictions in the form Pr(Observation,ID) without using religious assumptions (for those that haven't already done so, please refer to Cornelius Hunter's post on religious assumptions to find out what they entail).Hoki
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT
Steven Pinker is a clown, without the humor.GilDodgen
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:49 PM
7
07
49
PM
PDT
Dr. Dembki, Kairosfocus introduced the term FCSI (aka FSCI) on this forum. I may have missed it but do you or the other EIL members use this term. If so could you please share your thoughts on it?sparc
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT
Pinker's rant is in direct proportion to the inability to provide evidence supporting the conclusions of he and his fellow ideological bigots. So what else is new...Upright BiPed
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:11 PM
7
07
11
PM
PDT
"Darwin demolished this argument 150 years ago." Apparently Meyer and Dembski didn't get the memo.prhean
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Why does everyone, Pinker included, mention the Dover decision? Do federal courts now decide what is science and what is not? He does come across as a whiny atheist who can't understand why everyone doesn't agree with him.Barb
July 20, 2009
July
07
Jul
20
20
2009
06:50 PM
6
06
50
PM
PDT
1 3 4 5

Leave a Reply