Draft of anti-ID letter to the editor

In reply to the Dan Erickson letter printed in the July 8th edition:The quality of intelligent design theory is thin at best.Many intelligent design (ID) proponents do not state who the designer is. But the possibilities seem to come down to either God or extraterrestrial aliens. I must presume that Mr. Erickson is one of the former. The Raelians would be an example of the later.ID proponents range from young Earth creationists (YECs) to varieties of old Earth evolutionists. My experience, from on-line debates, is that YECs will grasp at any concept that seems to go against the hated concept of evolution, regardless of how contrary to YECism it may be.Michael Behe, PhD in biochemistry and professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University, is an example of the evolutionist variety of IDer. He is on record as accepting the ancient (4.45 billion year) age of the Earth, the bulk of the theory of evolution (ToE), and that humans and the great apes share a common ancestor. He, in my opinion, is the one who has forwarded the most coherent biological argument for ID. But that argument is but one of “God of the gaps”. That is, there are allegedly details in evolution that evolutionary theory can not adequately explain, which requires the input of a designer. In other words, the designer has to some degree influenced the pathways of evolution.Mr. Erickson notes that “A Harris poll done in 2005 found that 64 percent of American adults (and about half of those who are college graduates) agree that ”human beings were created directly by God.’” Sorry, but scientific study of “the creation” strongly indicates that those people are wrong.References/further reading:The Discovery Institute
Discovery Institute - WikipediaMichael Behe -
Michael Behe - WikipediaThe Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District case -
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - WikipediaThe Of Pandas and People book:
Of Pandas and People - Wikipedia

Elvis analogy unsuited to intelligent design theoryThe June 21 letter, “Intelligent design shouldn’t go near the science column,” implied that those who advocate for intelligent design are on an intellectual par with folks who claim to have sighted Elvis Presley. Yet the writer ignored the facts that no proponent of intelligent design believes in a “flat, geocentric world” and that only a small minority of intelligent design advocates are “young Earth creationists.” It’s also obvious that the writer’s Elvis-sighting analogy carried no weight. A Harris poll done in 2005 found that 64 percent of American adults (and about half of those who are college graduates) agreed with the statement that “human beings were created directly by God”. There are hundreds of scientists with earned PhD degrees who opt for intelligent design over neo-Darwinism.What if the majority of Americans believed Elvis was still alive and even 10 police detective testified that the evidence convinced them that this was the case? No, it would not mean Elvis was really alive, but it would require those who disagreed with this claim to respond, not with mockery, but with rational argument.In the same way, intelligent design cannot be dismissed by ridicule. Nor is it adequate to simply claim that intelligent design is no scientific because in considers more than a naturalistic explanation of origins. Intellectual honesty requires folks on both sides of this debate to acknowledge that very intelligent people disagree with them. The discussion should then continue with an effort to honestly weigh the evidence and discover the truth. This means refusing to make “a priori” assumptions which rule out certain conclusions, even supernatural ones.Dan Erickson
Chisholm