Fanning the Fires

The following, captioned "Intelligent Design", appeared in the KC Star on May 19, 2005:

For all those apologists who claim there is no controversy about evolution, either keep drinking the Kool-Aid or read Francis Hitching's book, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong or Michael Denton's book, Evolution: a Theory in Crisis.
Evolutionists have fobbed on us all kinds of lies (Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's drawings, primordial soup, etc.) and leaps of faith (amino acids can easily group into proteins, scales can easily turn into feathers, morality evolved easily from animal culture, etc.). I say keep the debates alive.
John Lagle
Kansas City

It is beyond me why the Star prints such tripe. Perhaps, exposing the letter's fantasies will get the Star to quit printing such junk or immunize readers from the letter's distractions. More than likely, nothing will happen. Anyway, here goes, point-by-point:

Apologists(?) If one doesn't accept the idea of a "controversy about evolution", how are they tagged "apologists". People who see no controversy between religion and evolution need not apologize.

Drink the Kool-Aid or read(?) I suppose the "Kool-Aid" reference suggests that either one blindly follow authority down a perilous path to perdition or be saved by the grace of the written word. Well, let's look at the texts cited. The first, Hitching's The Neck of the Giraffe, is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html, thusly:

Research on Hitching turned up the following: Hitching is basically a sensational TV scriptwriter and has no scientific credentials. In The Neck of the Giraffe, he claimed to be a member of the Royal Archaeological Institute, but an inquiry to that institute said he was not. He implied in the "Acknowledgements" of The Neck of the Giraffe that paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould had helped in the writing of the book, but upon inquiry Gould said he did not know him and had no information about him. Hitching also implied that his book had been endorsed by Richard Dawkins, but upon inquiry Dawkins stated: "I know nothing at all about Francis Hitching. If you are uncovering the fact that he is a charlatan, good for you. His book, The Neck of the Giraffe, is one of the silliest and most ignorant I have read for years."

The seconded text named as a source of enlightenment, Denton's Evolution: a Theory in Crisis is discussed in http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html, thusly:

Evolutionary pattern and process stands vindicated from Denton's assault. It does not win out by default, being implausible but socially established and lacking a superior alternative - rather, it is a plausible process with no contenders, and is backed up strongly by empirical evidence. There is debate within evolutionist circles about systematics, tempo, and the roles of genetic drift and preadaptation, and still plenty of work to be done fleshing out stories about the development of certain structures, but none of this in any way puts macroevolution and the pattern of non-teleological common descent in a crisis situation. Rather, they are indicators that evolutionary biology is still a field which offers work to be done, just like any other field.

In a later book, Nature's Destiny, Denton himself refuted his contentions in Evolution. See
http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho29.htm.

Lies and Leaps(?) In the letter's second paragraph, it is alleged that evolutionists have "fobbed" us with "lies…and leaps of faith". Again, point-by-point:

1. Java Man. See the following Web sites: http://www.eastjava.com/books/mystery/html/search.html and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/java.html.
A recent book, Java Man: How Two Geologists Changed Our Understanding of Human Evolution, University of Chicago Press, has the e-word in its title. No lie there.

2. Peking Man. See http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/peking.html.

3. Nebraska Man. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html. The following quote from this URL is not that of an apologist.

"Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and somewhat incautious, but not incompetent or dishonest. The whole episode was actually an excellent example of the scientific process working at its best. Given a problematic identification, scientists investigated further, found data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist approach)."

4. Haeckel's drawings. See http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html. The following quote from this site shows the ability of science to police its ranks, another contrast to the creationist or intelligent design approach.

"Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b)."

5. Primordial Soup. See http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/SUA02/primordial_soup.html.
Whaddaya know! A laboratory trial replicates what could have occurred on early Earth.

6. Amino acids. Leap of faith: "Amino acids can easily group into proteins?" Basic chemistry tells us that proteins are composed of amino-acid molecules. Without the grouping of amino-acid molecules into proteins, easy or not, we'd still be in the soup primordial.

7. Scales into feathers. Leap of faith: Scales can easily turn into feathers? Perhaps scales and feathers have both evolved since the reptile to bird transformation. How does easy matter?

8. Morality and animal culture. Leap of faith: morality evolved easily from animal culture? Linking morality to animal culture transcends evolutionary biology, but if animals have culture, couldn't they also have morals?

Rather than keeping the debates alive, perhaps it would be better to let leaping dogs lie. As for making points about the "controversy", the letter fails. Scientists have better pursuits.