BOOK REVIEWS Yet another evolutionist attack on Intelligent Design “… put the Biblical issues to one A review of side. The last thing we should want Creationism’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 organism 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 Icons of evolution 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 Discovery Institute (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.