The design factor

Published: Saturday, January 14, 2006 at 6:01 a.m.
Last Modified: Friday, January 13, 2006 at 11:20 p.m.
The Sun is well ahead of the national media in printing thoughtful and pertinent letters (Robert Ausband, Jan. 6, and earlier ones) reflecting "middle ground" views on the evolution-intelligent design/creationism debate.
If even one more big media article drags out, yet again, the Scopes MonkeyTrial, I may totally lose it. It is a dead issue.
But biblical creationists have appropriated the ID label and called it a "theory," which is wrong.
The ID pioneers did not offer a specific, testable alternative scientific theory, nor did they claim to.
They did argue that the presently known fossil record does not support certain Darwinian predictions on how evolution would be found to proceed; that random chance variation is an inadequate means for natural selection to have produced observed evolutionary changes, and that there is a design factor in the evolutionary process.
I subscribe to two national news magazines and two science ones. None of these have printed letters distinguishing ID from creationism or saying that inquiry into ID possibilities does not automatically mean rejection of evolution.
My strong impression is that no letter gets printed that questions Darwin's theory on any grounds other than "religious" ones.
Lance Lazonby, Melrose

Reader comments posted to this article may be published in our print edition. All rights reserved. This copyrighted material may not be re-published without permission. Links are encouraged.

Comments are currently unavailable on this article

▲ Return to Top