John Solum

Hi everyone.

Here's a letter that appeared in today's Michigan Daily (the campus paper of the U of Michigan):

Here's the letter I'm going to submit in response. I'd really appeciate comments:

I’d like to comment on Nathan Lee’s letter to the editor (02/20/02) concerning the Intelligent Design (ID) movement. I question the motives of a movement that is attempting to force its way into the science classroom without first attempting to pass scientific muster. If an idea cannot stand up to scientific scrutiny, or if its proponents will not even submit their ideas to the scientific community, then that idea has no place being taught as science. The proponents of ID do not submit their work to scientific journals, in which potential research papers are subjected to a process of peer review, something that is vital to ensure quality research. Before proponents of ID claim that scientific journals will not publish ID articles because of their bias I challenge them to document their claims. I want to see the rejection letters from the scientific journals; I want to see evidence that they’ve at least attempted to get published. The theory of evolution has withstood over a century of continual testing, ID has yet to be subjected to scientific testing at all.

Mr. Lee’s claim that the theory of evolution can’t be proven indicates that he doesn’t understand what the scientific use of the word theory means. A theory is something that explains and interprets facts. The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution (for example the fossil record and DNA relationships). Mr. Lee’s claims that there is no evidence to support the theory of evolution are unsupportable, and I invite him to spend a couple of hours going through the Natural History Museum on central campus, and also to take a biology class. The museum, which displays just a fraction of the evidence for the theory of evolution , has fossils that record the evolution of whales from land mammals, amphibians from fish, birds from dinosaurs, as well as a nice display on human evolution.

Finally, Mr. Lee’s claims that the theory of evolution is the religion of atheism is ridiculous. There are scientists who accept evolutionary theory who are members of many religions, and in fact there are several religious associations of scientists including the American Scientific Affiliation and the Association of Christian Geologists (many members of which accept evolutionary theory). I also suggest that Mr. Lee research the views of members of the faculty at Christian colleges such as Hope College or Calvin college, many members of which are theistic evolutionists. It is not possible to evaluate the existence of God with science; science is the wrong tool for the job.

John Solum
graduate student, geological sciences

Darwin's Finch

"When evolutionists discovered that they had no evidence to support their claims, they decided to make up a new theory which didn't need any evidence to prove. They decided that instead of things evolving slowly over time, they just "spontaneously" evolved and that is why there is no evidence to support it."

Having recently seen this very argument used at Slate, I would bet the rent that the author of the letter has some ludicrous caricature of Punctuated Equilibrium in mind. You might want to call him on it.

Beelzebub

From Letter:Evolution carries no more proof than ID. In fact, the proof for evolution is few and far between.

I would say that even if the proofs for evolution are few and far between, the writer admits there is some. What proofs are there for ID?

crazyfingers

Nice!

John Solum

I've modified my letter to very briefly include punctuated equilibrium.

Thanks to Darwin's Finch, Beelzebub, and crazyfingers for the feedback.

pseudobug

John,
I think you did a nice job with the letter. The only thing that I might add would be a differntiation of the meaning of scientific "proof" with regard to a theory and why evolution is accepted as a scientific "fact". You might also consider adding something about the inability to form a testable/falsifiable hypothesis to demonstrate the existence of an intelligent designer.

Obviously, you will have to watch your the length of your response as most people have the attention span of a gnat if you get into too much detail.

Overall, though, it makes your point very well if you submit it as is.

Darwin's Finch:

It was interesting that you mention this:
I was reading "On the Origin of Species" the other night and stumbled upon this little diddy from Chuck:
You can find Charles' quote in context of his concept of speciation by <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/education/darwin/origin/oos4_8.htm" target="_blank">clicking here.</a>

Now, I'm a microbiologist and what I know about paleontology and the historical squabbles between the Natural Synthesis and Punk-eek camps could be written upon the head of a pin, but it seems to me that old Chuck was fairly prescient.

Basically, it appears to me that Chuck is describing the general principle of punctuated equilibrium.

Of course, from the misrepresentation of Darwin's thoughts, the concept of Punk-eek and the claim of "no transitional fossils" by the cretinists; they would have one think that even Gould's ideas "disprove" evolution.

Darwin's Finch

Pseudobug: Thanks for the link. Of course, you are absolutely right about Darwin's priority on P.E. or, perhaps, proto-P.E. However, it is invariably Gould these clowns butcher when they write such things. I wish he didn't so easily lend himself to such misrepresentation. Dennett may have been on to something when he pooh-poohed Gould's seemingly endless need to proclaim the next revolution within evolutionary theory; creationists always draw the wrong conclusions and a false measure of comfort from such pronouncements. Gould's attack on uniform gradualism was, as your quote from the Great One shows, a strawman and long antedated by Darwin himself.

John Solum

I just submitted my letter (I wanted to be sure to submit it early enough for it to be included in tomorrow's paper - if it's in there I'll let you know).

Here it is:

John Solum

Thanks for the suggestions pseudobug, I included both of them.

Good catch on the Darwin quote. Not too bad for a microbiologist.

John Solum

Well, the Daily didn't publish my letter, but they did publish one from another grad student in the department. Here it is:

"Many Christians who are also scientists ‘accept the theory of evolution”

To the Daily:

As both a Christian and a scientist, I am concerned about the recent letter to the editor by Nathan Lee regarding the teaching of evolution and intelligent design (Evolution has little proof; is the view of atheists, 2/21/02). Lee plainly states that “atheists believe evolution, and theists believe intelligent design.” I have found that many evangelical Christians feel this same way — that there is a conflict between science and their faith. I would like to say to Lee that this paradigm of conflict between science and religion is not historically or theologically accurate and that the two subjects of thought can be reconciled into a coherent whole.

Many Christians who are scientists in fact accept the theory of evolution as the method by which God created. I would like to encourage Lee to read some literature by John Polkinghorne, Davis Young, Howard Van Till and George Murphy. All are excellent scholars in both science and in theology. Additionally, I would recommend that he look up the American Scientific Affiliation (www.asa3.org) and other similar or related organizations and see the diversity of views held by Christians who are scientists.

Many, if not most, Christians in the science fields accept the theory of evolution.

Charles Carrigan

Rackham student"