A Response to Priests Of Scientific Orthodoxy
Human Events, Sept. 15

Leland Smith's criticism [August 25] of  Joseph A. D'Agostino's "American
Scene" article titled "Science vs. Darwin" (June 2) is merely a
continuation of the propaganda war being waged against the intelligent
design movement by the priests of scientific orthodoxy.

He begins by falsely equating the intelligent design movement with creation
science.  The former asserts only that the data of nature, particularly in
the biological realm, bear marks of intelligent design.  It says nothing
about the designer except that he (or they or she or it) was intelligent,
and nothing about the means by which the design was implemented.  Creation
science, on the other hand, appeals to the Bible as authoritative
revelation and seeks to interpret the data of nature consistently with
that revelation.

The difference between the two is clear and simple, yet countless apologists
for Darwinism keep forcing the comparison.  Smith even goes so far as to
claim falsely that intelligent design involves a specific design scenario
that "closely resembles the creation stories of ancient religions."
Darwinists do this because casting intelligent design as a religious
movement makes it an easier target.  It is about politics, not science or
truth.

Smith boldly declares that "intelligent design may exist but cannot be
examined for want of means."  Now think about that.  If there is no means
to discern whether something has been intelligently designed, on what
basis do paleontologists and archaeologists regularly conclude that
markings, structures, and various artifacts were intelligently designed?
Does not the search for extraterrestrial intelligence depend on the
assumption that intelligently generated radio signals can be distinguished
from naturally generated ones?  Closer to home, can one determine by
studying Mount Rushmore that it was intelligently designed, or must one
rely solely on old news reports about its construction?

Obviously, the scientific community accepts the proposition that intelligent
design can be detected.  So why does it cry foul when one hunts for design
in biological systems or in the cosmos?  The answer offered by Smith is
that "we must insist that descriptions and explanations of life and our
universe be devised from our four senses of perception that can be tested
by suitable rigorous means."  But if that criterion does not exclude from
science other hunts for intelligence, why should it do so in this
particular case?

The reason for this double standard is that many fear the religious
implications of such an investigation.  It is true that evidence of
intelligent design in life or in the cosmos may have religious implications,
but it is unbecoming of science to allow fear of those implications to
cause it to close its eyes by outlawing the investigation.

The role of science is to follow the evidence wherever it leads and let
the implications fall where they may.  The intelligent design movement
seeks to restore true science.

Ashby Camp
Tempe, Ariz.
AshbyLCamp@cs.com