More on ID/IOT

James Q. Wilson weighs in on the Dover Area School District decision:

When a federal judge in Pennsylvania struck down the efforts of a local school board to teach "intelligent design," he rightly criticized the wholly unscientific nature of that enterprise.

He gets details about evolution wrong. However:

Mr. Wilson has taught at Harvard, UCLA and Pepperdine, and is the author, among other books, of "The Moral Sense"

Apparently he doesn't teach biology. (My bet is philosophy.)

That being said, it's interesting to read the first few responses to his piece:

...continued in full post...

Mr. Wilson defines a scientific theory correctly then, through deft slight of hand, applies it in a non-scientific manner in order to prop up evolutionary theory. In his eye example, for instance, he asks hard-nosed questions regarding the possible evolution of the eye. But the those questions must also be posed to his own evolutionary example.

Where does Mr. Wilson get his information regarding so-called "light-sensitive plates" and what evidence is there regarding the behavior of such pre-historic creatures with these plates that would lead him to conclude (oops, almost said believe) that such plates, "enabled them to move toward and away from illumination"? How does he know any evidence that he has about such creatures is accurate? Or is he merely speculating in a confident tone?

      – Joseph Stublarec - Southington, Conn.

Problem with this objection: all the proposed intermediate steps between a light-sensitive spot and a fully-functional eye have been observed in nature. Not all in the same creature, of course, but with living examples to examine, you can tell that a: all the intermediate forms can exist, and b: each incremental step represents a real improvement in function.

The steps for the theory of evolution seemed logical enough, but the probability that million to one chemical reactions, one on top of another, could happen by random chance was astronomical. The odds became so high that it was more logical to believe in a nudge by the hand of God. It still makes sense to me. Three weeks for evolution and 1 minute for intelligent design.

      – R. Lemont - Barrytown, N.Y.

Two points here: Firstly, any number of studies have shown that random variation and selection – accumulating small change – can build up huge changes in an astonishingly short time. Secondly, unless there's some sort of how to the "nudge by the hand of God", this "alternative" is non-scientific woolgathering. Teach it in a philosophy class if you like, but it's not science.

What It's Really About

This struggle does not primarily center on Darwinism, vs. Intelligence Design. It centers on the right, and duty, of parents to freely teach religion to their children, without fear that secular educators will not overwhelm undeveloped minds with anti-religious arguments.

      – R. L. Hails Sr. - Olney, Md.

It would seem Mr. Hails has not gotten the memo about ID/IOT. It's not about religion. It's science. It says so right in their press releases.

There are others, but this is a good sample of the objections to Wilson's piece.