I get a weekly news report from Bob Park of the American
Physical Society. Below is one point of his "What's New"
dated Dec. 27:
======================================================================
From: SMTP%"whatsnew@aps.org" 27-DEC-1996 14:31:23.61
To: DKOETKE
CC:
Subj: What's New for Dec 27, 1996
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 1996 20:22:01 GMT
From: whatsnew@aps.org (What's New)
Message-Id: <199612272022.UAA12037@aps.org>
To: dkoetke@exodus.valpo.edu
Subject: What's New for Dec 27, 1996
WHAT'S NEW by Robert L. Park Friday, 27 Dec 96 Washington, DC
4. BOOK REVIEW: INTELLIGENT DESIGNER MEETS THE BLIND WATCHMAKER.
So maybe creation didn't take place 10,000 years ago. "Darwin's
Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution" by Michael
Behe concedes that, but not much more. There is, he contends, an
"irreducible complexity" in nature that must have come from an
"intelligent designer." As if by grand design, the response to
Behe was already in the works; "Climbing Mount Improbable" by
Richard Dawkins delights in showing just how complexity comes
about -- one tiny step at a time. His chapter on the evolution
of the eye alone is worth the price of the book. Interviewed for
the Chronicle of Higher Education, Dawkins dismissed intelligent
design as "a pathetic cop-out" and Behe as simply too lazy to
figure out how things work. But to attribute natural events to
supernatural forces is not merely lazy, it defines anti-science.
Besides, any intelligent designer who would wrap the prostate
gland around the ureter must have a wicked sense of humor.
THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY (Note: Opinions are the author's
and are not necessarily shared by the APS, but they should be.)
==================================================================
Two things strike me immediately as worthy of response (perhaps
other physicists would like to join in a group letter?):
1. Park is using the somewhat-discredited argument from imperfection
which many on this list have poked holes in.
2. The statement "to attribute natural events to
supernatural forces is not merely lazy, it defines anti-science"
seems to have the obvious problem that the author presumes to know
what is "natural" and what is "supernatural" from the outset.
What I find mildly amusing is that folks at the ICR sometimes argue
against evolution by saying "it isn't science", while Dawkins et al.
(or at least Bob Park) have the same objection to the work of Behe.
These sorts of demarcation arguments don't seem very productive to
me.
Are there any other physicists who are interested in a formal
response? Loren, are you there?
Stan Zygmunt
Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
Valparaiso University