The Journal of Clinical Investigation describes itself as "a top-tier journal publishing biologically significant findings with clinical relevance." Ushma S. Neill, the Executive Editor of the journal, has given us a fresh editorial entitled, "Don't be stupid about intelligent design."

Let's not be stupid, okay? Let's learn from the experts.

After making sure the political prism is firmly in place, along with a few weak arguments, Neill writes, "As the onus is on us to make sure we are well informed, let us go over several intelligent design myths about how evolution is not able to explain our current state."

Okay, so here are the arguments that, according to Neill, are being proposed by ID:

1. Evolution is only a theory, and not fact. [1]
2. We can't see evolution occurring before our eyes.
3. Mutations only eliminate traits and cannot produce new features.

Anyone who has followed this debate for some time knows these are not the standard ID arguments; these are typical creationist arguments. And that should not surprise anyone, as Neill admits getting these "ID" arguments from John Rennie's [2] article entitled, "15 answers to creationist nonsense." In other words, the executive editor of JCI is out to inform others from a position of misinformation. Instead of quoting and citing from ID authors (like Dembski and Behe), Neill borrows from an anti-creationist article in a popular science magazine.

Neill then adds:

An oft-cited, specious argument regards how life at the microscopic level is too intricate to have evolved. In particular, they point to the example of bacterial flagellum, with its intricate, interdependent motor proteins that couldn't possibly have formed by evolution.

Okay, I guess that's a workable, albeit sloppy, way of presenting the IC argument about the bacterial flagellum. But let's consider the responses:

However, not all flagellum are complicated,

Er, that's "not all flagella are complicated." Not all editor are confused. Unfortunately, Neill doesn't cite examples of these non-complicated flagellum flagella.

and not all components are required for the appendage to work.

That depends on how you define "˜work.' If we focus on flagella as motility structures, well, removal of only one of the 20-or-so parts (shared by all bacteria with flagella) does eliminate this function.

And many of the proteins are present elsewhere in the body.

Someone needs to inform the executive editor of JCI that bacteria don't have bodies.

Summary - the article begins with the alarm cry and then ends with the call to action. Standard propaganda tactic. The only reason it is worth commenting on is where it appears.

What is useful about such editorials is that you, the readers, get to see the "peer reviewers" in action. Always remember that these are the people who are supposed to have this magical ability to objectively review the ID arguments. Had they kept quiet, a few of you may have bought into that argument. Let's hope for some more editorials; more data are good.

1. Neill adds, "However, the National Academy of Sciences defines a scientific theory as a "well-substantiated explanation . . . that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." Readers may want to think what's behind these appeals to authority here.

2. John Rennie is an editor for Scientific American who attacked university presidents as "cowards" because they wouldn't agree to deny a college education to students who did not sufficiently learn about evolution in high school.

[BTW: Neill also writes, "The science curriculum is being changed to incorporate intelligent design in Ohio, New Mexico, Minnesota, Kansas, and Pennsylvania "” it is important to make sure this does not spread to other states, and that it is overturned in the states where it is taught." Can a critic please tell me where intelligent design is being taught and how is it being taught? Thanks.]

This entry was posted on Thursday, October 27th, 2005 at 9:03 pm and is filed under The Debate. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/trying-not-to-be-stupid/trackback/