Our response to the letters to the editor

I’ve been waiting to post here on our blog our answers to the previous letters to the editor talked about here. However, we learned that the newspaper chose not to publish our letter. On the positive side, they did publish Dr. Scott’s letter.

I realize our letter is long, but I was hoping it would have been published as a guest column like Mr. Fisher’s opinion was. There was so much to respond to that there was no way to keep it short.

Thanks to all who contributed your ideas. Feel free to provide constructive criticism of this letter so that we can be prepared the next time this rolls around.

—————

We appreciate McNally, Siwinski and Fisher’s responses to “Intelligent Design Creationism a ‘Con.”” One of Florida Citizens for Science’s missions is to educate the public about science and dispel misconceptions and distortions that can get in the way. The three letter writers brought up some interesting, if woefully misguided, points that we’re happy to respond to.

Siwinski’s letter indicates that he believes there is a conspiracy afoot to promote what he calls Darwinism and muzzle intelligent design. Intelligent design (ID) proponents are free and even encouraged to do the work to show their ideas are viable. Contrary to Siwinski’s assertion that ID evidence is voluminous, there is very little such evidence published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. Books filled with disproved attacks on evolution and marketed directly to the general public certainly aren’t convincing any scientists actively working in the biology field today. We challenge ID proponents to quit putting on publicity events and start submitting their evidence to the scientific community where it belongs.

Also in response to Siwinski’s letter, ID promoters were given ample opportunity to support their cause in Dover, Pa., during a prominent court case pitting ID against evolution. Not only did ID lose in a big way, it was proven with evidence presented in the courtroom that ID is, in fact, just another form of creationism. ID defenders could have presented evidence otherwise, but couldn’t. Their public relations machine couldn’t be brought to bear in a court of law where evidence is paramount.

McNally’s letter illustrates a very common misconception concerning evolution. The word “theory” as used in science is actually an incredibly strong label. Rather than the common use of theory, meaning a guess or hunch, a scientific theory is an explanation of a related set of observed facts and how those facts fit together. The scientific theory of evolution has been around for more than a century and is strengthening almost on a daily basis as new research and facts are published in the scientific journals.

McNally also refers to missing links. The term “missing link” is sorely outdated. The robust fossil record gathered so far (more is being discovered each year) is like a puzzle with pieces and sections missing here and there, but the overall picture is complete enough to show that, without a doubt, life has changed over the past four billion years.

It’s unfortunate that writer Fisher tries to mix religion and science in his opening sentence, claiming that we castigate “those who believe in the creator.” Nothing could be further from the truth as members of Florida Citizens for Science come from all backgrounds, including those who devoutly believe in God. Please take note of the Clergy Letter Project, which demonstrates that a wide swath of those with deeply held religious beliefs also make room for sound science. Science, by its very nature, takes no position on individuals’ faiths. Fisher is just trying to take a cheap shot and stir up emotions.

Fisher then launches into a string of quotes that are meant to overwhelm the reader with supposed contradictions concerning the viability of evolution. His first example—seemingly dually quotes between Gould and Mayr—is actually an example of good science, rather than the strife he makes it out to be. There have always been long-running debates about many of the specific mechanics of evolution. This is a healthy debate that over time can resolve itself as each side presents evidence through research for their views. However, both Gould and Mayr stood behind evolution as a whole, never doubting its validity. For example, there is still a very healthy debate about the specific mechanics of gravity, but I would think Fisher wouldn’t doubt that gravity exists. At least I hope not.

The final point we will cover is Fisher’s carelessness in using a quote from Dr. Eugenie Scott’s book Evolution vs. Creationism. He gets the title of the book and the date of publication wrong, and he chops off the last half of Dr. Scott’s sentence. On page 14 is the following complete quote: “What about the theory of evolution? Is it scientific? Some have claimed that since no one was there to see evolution occur, studying it cannot be scientific. Indeed, no paleontologist has ever observed one species evolving into another, but as we have seen, a theory can be scientific even if its phenomena are not directly observable.”

Please don’t just accept our word that any of the above is true. Visit a science museum, thumb through science textbooks and read about the exciting science news that flows out nearly every day. We are part of an amazing universe full of puzzles to be solved! You are welcome to visit our website at www.flascience.org to learn more about science in Florida.