First Things editor on Vatican evolution conference shutting out design theorists

In First Things (December 2008), editor Richard John Neuhaus comments on the decision not to invite intelligent design theorists like Michael Behe, author of Edge of Evolution to the Vatican conference next March:

So let's see now: The conference is strictly scientific. In that case, there would seem to be no reason for the Church to be sponsoring it, since there are numerous other institutions that attend to the strictly scientific. But then we are told the conference will also include philosophers and theologians, but only those who are rational - meaning, presumably, those who do not raise critical questions about the strictly scientific. We are told it will exclude scientific ideologues who reject that philosophers and theologians have to say about creation, history, teleology, and human nature, and will also exclude scientists who, on the basis of scientific evidence, contend, as the Catholic Church contends, for design and purpose in nature. The organizers seem to think they are being even-handed, but it is all quite confusing. One would not like to think that the purpose of the March conference is to secure for the Catholic Church a clean bill of health from Jeffrey Sachs and others who condemn any deviation from scientistic ideology as anti-intellectualism.

Actually, not inviting biochemist Michael Behe is scandalous. Behe, who happens to be a Catholic, is in no sense a philosopher; he is a biochemist, and the Darwin cult's howls of outrage against Edge are the best evidence that he is on to something and that his work should be seriously considered at such a conference.

However, I think the real purpose of the conference is precisely what Fr. Neuhaus hopes it isn't: Faith and science bores reassure each other that they are the clever ones - when they are merely the irrelevant ones.

Lots of faith and science bores are smart enough to read and understand Behe's Darwin's Black Box or Edge of Evolution (or for that matter Bill Dembski's Design Inference or No Free Lunch). But when talkng to me they they carefully avoid considering the arguments laid out therein, and utter instead some pious fatuity about God using evolution - like that was a new idea that had never occurred to anyone! And usually at considerable and entirely uncalled for length.

Come to think of it, Behe is a working biochemist, and the faith and science snooze fest might only be wasting his time.

First Things editor scolds New York Times over Dawkins's review

Apparently, in the most recent edition of First Things, Fr. Richard Neuhaus defends Mike Behe, author of Edge of Evolution. It's not on line yet, but Fr. Neuhaus says, among other things,

You usually know that somebody is losing the argument when he loses his cool and resorts to bluster, abuse, caricature, and the invocation of authorities who agree with him.

He is referring, of course, to Richard Dawkins's attempt to trash Behe's book in The New York Times. He notes the curious fact that the Times should never have given the book to Dawkins to review anyway, without giving Behe the right of reply (which it would never dare to do):

It is hard to know what purpose is served by the Book Review in having Dawkins review Behe, except, possibly, to ostracize anyone who presumes to raise questions about prevailing Darwinist orthodoxies and, perhaps, to pander to the smug prejudices of the presumed readership of the Times. That does not instill confidence in the Darwinist materialism that they are so desperately defending.

This is all particularly interesting because Neuhaus is not especially one of the ID think tank Discovery Institute fans.

Rather, it sounds (especially when you read the whole thing) as though he is beginning to get the same picture as so many of the rest of us: Darwinism is the Enron of biology. The fact that he scolds the New York Times over Dawkins's review is interesting in view of the question raised by some about whether Dawkins had actually read Behe's book.

Also: Cameron Wybrow, who got an honest review of Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution published in the Philadelphia Enquirer, found himself taking to task a completely silly review in the Winnipeg Free Press. Put it this way: It is impossible for U of Winnipeg molecular biologist Janice Dodd to consider the possibility that Darwinism might not be true. So she doesn't. Read her review, then Wybrow's comment.

I was travelling on a Toronto streetcar today with a fellow journalist who was musing about the sheer gullibility of Darwinists. Learned in history, he pointed out that Darwinists had originally attacked Mendel because Mendel cited statistics for genetics - instead of the vagueness the Darwinists so love. He and I believe in a traditional religion, but the Darwinists believe in magic.

Christian thinkmag wars over intelligent design?: I have cause for hope

The two ecumenical Christian thinkmags First Things and Touchstone seem to be sawing off the intelligent design controversy in a way that shapes up into a most interesting debate.

In the regular feature "Public Square" in the May 2007 edition of First Things, Editor in chief Fr. Neuhaus addresses the recent book Darwin's Conservatives by the Discovery Institute's John G. West, taking aim at the idea that conservatives should be Darwinists. Neuhaus chides West for going "too far" in insisting that "mainstream Darwinists" have a monopoly on what neo-Darwinism means. Indeed, Neuhaus hastens to assure readers, "superbly credentialed scientists" such as physicist Stephen Barr and genome mapper Francis Collins think that Christianity is compatible with neo-Darwinian theory:

It is possible that they are a minority among contemporary scientists who address these questions. But there is no reason, intellectually or strategically, to concede that another minority, that of stridently atheistic ideologues, defines what is "mainstream Darwinism".

Unless, of course, the atheists are a majority, which happens to be the case. In my experience, the tiny knot of genuinely orthodox Christians who hope to rescue Darwinism as it actually is for Christ have no influence whatever.

Meanwhile, Touchstone (A Journal of Mere Christianity), to which I also subscribe, has regularly carried features sympathetic to the intelligent design guys. They even permitted Anika Smith and Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute to review the materialist work, Intelligent Thought: Science Versus the Intelligent Design Movement in the April 2007 edition. I wouldn't have done that myself, as I find it a unbalanced - even though I had little time for Intelligent Thought editor John Brockman's frantic media release caterwauling about "Visigoths at the gates" (the ID guys, who have invaded his nightmares apparently).

The same edition of Touchstone also features "A New Noah", an excellent sendup by Anne Barbeau Gardiner of Darwinist E. O. Wilson's condescension to Christian cretins on the subject of the environment, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth. Wilson goes so far as to call the environment "The Creation" even though it presumably all just happened by accident and is meaningless. And we Humans just made up God, ... oh, and I nearly forgot, free will is an illusion and all that.

Wilson, Gardiner notes, is contemptuous enough of us cretins' intelligence to make clear that the world would be better off with many fewer of us. Note the irony that his appeal to you and me to save life on earth doesn't include yours or mine.

Right then. The book was allegedly written to Southern Baptist "pastors", and therein lies its primary usefulness. It is likely to prove an excellent crap detector: Any pastor who takes Wilson seriously should be defrocked.

I am glad to say that Gardiner's review could probably have appeared in First Things. Thus, the quarrel between the two mags is not a question of Christianity vs. b.s. The reivew is not, alas, in the online Touchstone archives.

But reviewing the growing rivalry between the two magazines, I dare hope for some fireworks.

Incidentally, Salvo, the Christian pop sci and culture mag from the same stable as Touchstone is planning an issue on the intelligent design controversy (its fourth edition), for the fall.

(Note: You have to have a subscription to First Things to view May's edition until (I gather) the end of July.)

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

My other blog is the Mindful Hack, which keeps tabs on neuroscience and the mind.

NEW!! Evolution in the light of intelligent design - look up intelligent design topics here.

Animations of life inside the cell, indexed, for your convenience.

Anti-God crusade ... no, really! My recent series on the spate of anti-God books, teen blasphemy challenge, et cetera, and the mounting anxiety of materialist atheists that lies behind it.

Catholic Church A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

Collins, Francis My review of Francis Collins’ book The Language of God

Columnists weigh in on the intelligent design controversy A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

Darwinism dissent Lists of theoretical and applied scientists who doubt Darwin

Gilder, George A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

Intelligent design academic publications.

Intelligent design-friendly students should be flunked, according to bio prof Evolutionary biologist’s opinion that all students friendly to intelligent design should be flunked.

Intelligent design controversy My U of Toronto talk on why there is an intelligent design controversy, or my talk on media coverage of the controversy at the University of Minnesota.

Intelligent design controversy timeline An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

Intelligent design and culture My review of sci-fi great Rob Sawyer’s novel, The Calculating God , which addresses the concept of intelligent design.

March of the Penguins A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

Origin of life Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Peer review My backgrounder about peer review issues.

Polls relevant to the intelligent design controversy A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

Stove, David O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove’s critique of Darwinism.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment will be accepted if I think they contribute to a discussion. For best results, give your name or some idea who you are and why we should care. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudesby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.