BOOK REVIEWS

Yet another evolutionist attack on

“… put the Biblical issues to one A review of side. The last thing we should want ’s Trojan Horse to do, or seem to want to do, is to by Barbara Forrest and threaten the freedom of scientific Paul R. Gross inquiry. … We can wait until we Oxford University Press, have a better scientific theory … New York, 2004 before we need to worry about whether and to what extent that theory is consistent with the Bible” Lita Cosner (pp. 37–38). The implication is that ID’s scientific model need not be biblical; reationism!’ has become the though their scientific research ‘Cnearly Pavlovian response of may end up corroborating biblical evolutionists to Intelligent Design (ID). teaching, this is not the goal of most The first few chapters are dedicated One does not have to read much further ID researchers. to tracing the history of the Discovery than the title of Forrest and Gross’s But this does not deter Forrest Institute and its attempts to bring ID book to see that it will argue that ID and Gross from calling ID researchers into the scientific mainstream. Other simply tries to put a scientific façade “fanatics” and their theory “a new than being littered with the sort of on creationism to sneak it perniciously variant of the old (anti)scientific abusive ad hominem that one comes past the scientific community and into creationism—a no-holds-barred to expect from evolutionists talking the schools. There is nothing new in commitment to particular, parochial about ID, there is no real problem this accusation, and indeed, nothing beliefs about the history and fabric of with this part of the book. However, new in the book that has not been the world and the place of humanity in like other parts of the book that are presented as an argument against ID it” (p. 16). This sort of name-calling primarily descriptive, one could easily and been shot down by creationists and commences very early in the book, and visualize a similarly conspiratorial spin ID theorists alike. the reader is wearied of it by the end; on evolutionist lobbying and public The book criticizes the ‘Wedge’, a every page is filled with innuendo and relations. strategy put forward by the Discovery mud-slinging. Institute to further their progress in Not only is ID false and motivated Peer review as a test of science and the public arena. by religious fanaticism in the eyes of scientific validity the authors, but it threatens scientific Creationism masquerading progress in that it constitutes “a threat One of the primary attacks as science ? to the integrity of education and in the evolutionists use against ID is that The authors of this book equate ID end to the ability of the public to judge its proponents do not publish in with creationism, and while they are scientific and technological claims” peer-reviewed scientific journals. not mutually exclusive, they are not (p. 9). The acceptance of ID will, The authors assert that “acceptance identical. Most in the ID community they argue, lead to the inability of the into secular academia is impossible accept the evolutionary timeframe layperson to differentiate between without a sound scientific research of millions of years, and some are scientific and unscientific claims, program, buttressed by peer-reviewed even theistic evolutionists, differing leading to an inability to manage publication of new results in the from mainstream evolutionists only “such urgent policy problems as worldwide scientific literature” (p. 38). in believing that God directed the environmental preservation and They assert that it would not be hard evolution of the various species. ID improvement, energy resources, for ID researchers to get their findings need not be grounded in the biblical management and support of scientific published “provided that they meet text as most forms of creationism research” and about every other issue the minimum standards of objectivity claim to be; the authors quote Philip that is in any way dependent on and technical competence” (p. 39). Johnson recommending that those science. The authors stop just short of But peer review, while important, doing scientific research in ID areas: saying that ID is unpatriotic. is not flawless, and the bias of the

JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010 15 Book Reviews

reviewers for secular journals prevents misleading and error-ridden. But as According to the authors, Miller otherwise-worthy research from being will be shown later, the authors seem to and Urey showed that “abiotic synthesis published. And when the supernatural object only to misleading simplification of the molecular building blocks of life is excluded from science by definition, when it comes to ID arguments, and are is possible”; and they argue that this is those who propose a supernatural fine with evolutionist deception. the case even with an atmosphere that origin for the universe will be branded In response to Wells’ point that a more closely resembles what we now as unscientific, however rigorously mutation for a fundamentally different think the early Earth’s atmosphere was their research conforms to any other body plan would have to occur early like, certain amino acids are produced, requirements.1 in development precisely when the albeit in lower quantities (p. 102). They The authors attack Paul Chien and is least tolerant of such ignore the fact that the amino acids Michael Behe, both ID researchers, mutations, the authors argue that such produced are too dilute, contaminated for not having published their claims mutations do in fact occur (p. 93). This and racemic to build anything much, in peer-reviewed journals, but the would be fascinating if the authors had let alone biological informational 5 bias is so strong against ID that their actually given any sort of example polymers. claims would be laughed out of secular or source which describes such a The discovery of the inaccuracy scientific circles. They even record an mutation; such unsubstantiated claims of Haeckel’s embryo illustrations is example of this; in 1999, the Discovery are common in the book. seen as a prime example of the self- Institute played a part in organizing correcting nature of science, and the the International Symposium on inclusion of Haeckel’s embryos in the Origins of Animal Body Plans textbooks today is fine because the and Their Fossil Records, and many The authors argue that Wells, in general principle is sound (pp. 104– evolutionists attended, not knowing his Icons of Evolution, has slandered 105). But even the authors say they about the link to ID. As soon as one perfectly good evidence for evolution should no longer appear in textbooks: of the evolutionists at the conference in each case. Eugenie Scott is cited “There is no particular reason why recognized ‘creationist arguments’ and as saying that if Wells was attacking Haeckel’s old drawings should still the names of known ID researchers, atomic theory rather than evolution show up in a textbook. They are he became alarmed at the presence (and the latter is “as basic to biology not needed. They prove nothing. of non-evolutionists. They accused as atoms are to physics” in Scott’s But they are easy to reprint, the the ID researchers of subterfuge and view), no one would give any credence point they are supposed to make is refused to have their papers published to the claims that the evidence for it roughly correct, they cost nothing, alongside ‘creationist’ papers, and were is “erroneous, misleading, and even and the authors and publishers so biased against any non-evolutionary fraudulent.”4 of textbooks are not often as explanations that the scientific merit was not even considered (pp. 58–60). So it is extraordinary that the authors expect ID researchers to become published in evolutionary journals 1 which are clearly too biased to look past the abstract of a paper that proposes a non-naturalistic origin of first life or more complex life-forms. 2 Jonathan Wells Not content only to label ID proponents closet creationists, the authors also accuse them of being conspiracy theorists; Jonathan Wells is called ‘CRSC’s full-time conspiracy theorist’ for claiming there is a systematic attempt to exclude ID 3 from the scientific discussion (p. 87),

although this is well documented in Courtesy of www.wikipedia.org Dr Jerry Bergman’s book Slaughter of the Dissidents.2 They quote from a Fish Salamander Tortoise Chick Hog Calf Rabbit Human 2002 sermon3 which understandably simplified some scientific concepts for The authors argue that Haeckel’s forged embryo drawings are a prime example of the self- a lay audience, and accused it of being correcting nature of science, but say they should no longer be used in textbooks.

16 JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010 Book Reviews

scrupulous as those of the primary scenarios. They claim that he misuses public research funds and use their scientific literature must be” probability arguments, because groups to impose their agendas on (p. 105). even though evolution involves low public schools. The authors admit that the probabilities, improbable things In Chapter 7, the authors peppered moth photos were staged, but happen all the time. They use the reprint a poll commissioned by the only to show the way that camouflage example of a zygote with a specific (DI) and argue helps moths of the proper color set of 23 pairs of chromosomes, and that it is an inaccurate representation (pp. 107–109). The problem with this argue that every time the zygote of mainstream views on teaching is that moths do not rest on the tree will have one of the possible sets, origins. The clear implication is that trunks in the daytime, but hide under although all of them are equally DI purposely designed the poll to the leaves. And even if this were not improbable. But this is equivocation, give a misleading impression of the the case, the moths would not be an and a faulty description of Dembski’s views of Americans on the subject example of evolution even by the most argument. Improbability is not the only (pp. 181–184). They mock ID academic generous definition, since the melanic criterion for design; “what is needed conferences and apply the same moths existed all along; they only to eliminate chance is that the event in conspiratorial tone to their description became more common when pollution question conform to a pattern.”7 And of the topics discussed. discoloured the tree trunks.6 not just any pattern, but a specified In the case of each icon, the authors pattern that rules out chance. Religious motivation give a strawman version of the ID ID proponents are accused of being argument against the evolutionist’s Preying on the ignorant? creationists hiding behind junk science evidence, and proceed to knock it who are motivated by their religion, down, liberally adding ad hominem Another common accusation in not scientific inquiry. Of course, first attacks against ID and creationists in the book is that since ID cannot hold author Barbara Forrest’s membership the process. There is nothing in this its own in scientific discussions, ID of the New Orleans Secular Humanist part that creationist writings haven’t proponents simply bypass the process Association (NOSHA) makes her answered adequately already; indeed, altogether, and go straight to the the epitome of scientific objectivity. if they were really trying to give a uneducated and credulous public with Everyone is biased, so to be biased strong reply to creationists, one would their publications. “Wedge books toward religion is a bad thing only to expect them to take these creationist are aimed first and foremost at that people who see a grand conspiracy responses into account. portion of their audience who are, unfortunately, uneducated about the theory. They make a big deal of DI’s William Dembski way science works and about the benefactors and allies being religious current state of evolutionary science, creationists, and DI’s occasional The authors are only slightly less that is, those who will actually believe statements indicating the religious hostile towards William Dembski. that ‘Darwinism’ has failed” (p. 114). motivation behind their work. They grudgingly acknowledge that The authors accuse the ID proponents of “… the method of technical going directly to the public, bypassing The Wedge’s progress argumentation employed by peer review, because they know that The authors dedicate part of the Dembski cannot be described … their ideas will never pass peer review. as rabble-rousing, or as trifling. In last chapter and the afterword to a The authors over and over again insult survey of the Wedge’s goals and mathematical inquiry … Dembski’s the intelligence of the average person how far they have progressed toward style can appear straightforward, in nearly every way possible. reaching them. They lament any real using available methods of progress, and celebrate any obstacles, scholarship in his fields. He has Everything but science? such as court cases which have blocked been very well educated and is ID from public schools. This includes competent in their use” (p. 117). The authors document large the case for which Forrest served as an They acknowledge that he grants from private foundations ID expert witness against ID. responds in detail to critics of his research has received and how the money was used. The conspiratorial theory (p. 124). This does not mean that Conclusion they respect his writing, however; they tone of the section highlights the say that his writings are characterized religious motivations of some of the With all the scrutiny of the ID by a “unique mixture of evangelical foundations. They argue that the ID proponents’ credentials, one might Christian fervor, abstract philosophical- movement is not about actual science, expect both authors to have scientific mathematical argument, and brash self- but about gaining political power and degrees. But Barbara Forrest is not a confidence” (p. 119). public respectability which would lead scientist, but a philosophy professor, They specifically attack his to public research funds and access which makes the authors’ complaints arguments involving very small to public schools. That is, in contrast hypocritical; to be consistent, if only probabilities for various evolutionary to evolutionists, who have access to scientists are allowed to promote ID,

JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010 17 Book Reviews

then only scientists should be allowed to attack it. The Fall and the At 350 pages, with nearly 100 additional pages of notes, Creationism’s Trojan Horse is a weighty book, inspiration for science though if pretentious wordiness and ad hominem attacks were excluded to leave only the substance of the book, A review of it would be considerably lighter. If it The Fall of Man and the were further pared down to eliminate Foundations of Science the arguments to which creationists by Peter Harrison and ID proponents have responded, it Cambridge University Press, would be much lighter still. Yet that Cambridge, 2007 hasn’t stopped well-known atheistic evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott from praising it. But Lael Weinberger it should not be surprising—it reflects the vacuity of their own case. or too long, the history of science Throughout, events are reported and religion has languished, either with an air of conspiracy which F dominated by caricatures or else academically respectable scholars ignored completely. Peter Harrison, should not adopt. It would be easy to historian of science at Oxford write a book about evolution in the University, is a leader in reanalyzing the public schools and in the courthouse neglected contributions of religion— with a similar conspiratorial style, and especially, the Reformation—to interpreting every action as being science. Harrison’s earlier work, The solely for the money or public prestige Bible, Protestantism, and the Rise of a victory would afford. Natural Science (Cambridge 1998) Fall and the curse of God corrupted all aspects of the world. Man was References advanced the arresting thesis that the straightforward reading of the spiritually fallen and lost fellowship 1. See Kulikovsky, A.S., Creationism, Science Bible promoted by the Reformation with God. Man was mentally fallen and Peer Review, J. Creation 22(1):44–49, legitimized the study of nature and and did not have the clearness of 2008; creation.com/peer. was thus essential to the emergence of mind that God gave in the ‘very good’ 2. Bergman, J., Slaughter of the Dissidents: The modern science.1 Now, in The Fall of Shocking Truth about Killing the Careers of creation. Man was physically fallen Darwin Doubters, Leafcutter Press, 2008; Man and the Foundations of Science, and subject to degeneration in a way review by To, L., J. Creation 23(2):37–40, Harrison’s thesis is that the way people that was not present before the Fall. 2009. viewed the Fall impacted the way they Finally, the natural world itself was 3. Jonathan Wells, Darwinism: Why I went for viewed science. More specifically, he fallen and subject to degeneration in a second Ph.D., Unification Sermons and argues that the Augustinian emphasis contrast to its good order and condition Talks by Reverend Wells, tparents.org/library/ on the depraved and fallen nature unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm, 25 May before the Fall. As a result, Harrison 2010. of man, revived by the Protestant explains, “Adam’s offspring” was Reformation, was instrumental in 4. Scott, E., “Fatally Flawed Iconoclasm”, entirely dependent on “divine grace, Science 292:2257–2258, 22 June 2001; spurring on the scientific revolution. not merely for their salvation (healing), Available online at: ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ but also for knowledge (illumination)” ib160/scott.pdf, 25 May 2010. Augustine versus Aquinas (p. 39). Augustinian epistemology thus 5. See Bergman, J., Why the Miller-Urey research Harrison starts by reviewing emphasized the dependence of man on argues against abiogenesis, J. Creation God for all knowledge. 18(2):28–36, 2004; creation.com/urey. the various interpretations of the Fall and its effects that were offered On the other hand, Aquinas offered 6. See Wieland, C., The moth files, Creation a more minimal estimate of the Fall’s 25(1):14–15, 2003; creation.com/moths. from the Patristic era through the Middle Ages. There were essentially effects. Aquinas believed that the 7. Dembski, W., The Explanatory Filter: A three- fall corrupted man’s spiritual and part filter for understanding how to separate two major schools of thought that and identify cause from intelligent design, emerged, positions that came to moral faculties, but left his reason arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_explfilter.htm, 25 be associated with Augustine and intact. Aquinas distinguished between May 2010. Aquinas, respectively. On the one hand, ‘natural gifts’ and ‘supernatural gifts’. Augustine represented a strong view of The supernatural gifts were lost at the the Fall’s effects. He believed that the fall, the natural gifts were unaffected.

18 JOURNAL OF CREATION 24(3) 2010