LA Times Columnist Slams Intelligent Design as a "Ruse" and a "Ploy"

Newsbusters.org ^ | 30 July 2006 | Dave Pierre

[infoguy]

Under the corrupt cloak of a "book review," this Sunday's Los Angeles Times (July 30, 2006) continues its underhanded and one-sided assault on the theory of intelligent design (ID). "The language of life," by Robert Lee Hotz*, is a review of three new works that attack intelligent design. The review was promoted on the top of the front page of the "Sunday preview" edition under the heading, "Less than 'intelligent design': Darwin's believers debunk the theory." And rather than providing its readers an honest critique, the Times' "review" is nothing less than a full-on Darwin propaganda piece. Hotz begins his article as follows (emphasis/link mine),

In the border war between science and faith, the doctrine of "intelligent design" is a sly subterfuge - a marzipan confection of an idea presented in the shape of something more substantial.

As many now understand - and as a federal court ruled in December - intelligent design is the bait on the barbed hook of creationist belief ...

Objectivity? Forget it. You won't find it with Hotz. Hotz' hit piece on ID then continues by haphazardly labeling ID as a "ruse," a "ploy," a "disingenuous masquerade," and "dishonesty."

Hotz claims the works he's reviewing are written by "some of the nation's most distinguished thinkers." Well, one of the reviewed books is by well-known "skeptic" Michael Shermer, whose work has been cited numerous times for falsehoods and inaccuracy (for example, here, here, here, and here)). Shermer has also floundered considerably while defending Darwinism in public, as witnessed in a 2004 debate with Stephen Meyer on TV's Faith Under Fire (link with video). In 2005, Shermer struggled in a debate with William Dembski (link/audio). "Distinguished"? Sorry, Mr. Hotz.

As NewsBusters has already reported this year (link), the Los Angeles Times has never published a single article from a leading spokesperson of intelligent design theory.** (Leading spokespeople would include names such as Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Guillermo Gonzalez, Jay Wesley Richards, and acclaimed writer Lee Strobel.) Yet the Times has now published its tenth piece in the last 14 months attacking ID! (I'm using this count).

Is there balance at the Los Angeles Times on this issue? Not even close, folks. The Times is unequivocally disserving its readers. How many Times readers are aware that one of the world's most renowned atheists, Antony Flew, has recently become open to God largely due to the persuasive science of intelligent design?

 

* Hotz "covers science, medicine, and technology" for the Times, yet Hotz has a B.A. in English and an M.A. in theater history. Am I the only one to think it odd that the Times would find him well qualified to write on science, medicine, and technology?

** Stephen Meyer did co-author a 1987 op-ed in the LA Times (almost 19 years ago) on the subject of human rights; but the article does not delve into the topic of intelligent design. In addition, there was a book review in the Times over 8 years ago (1998) by Edward McGlynn Gaffney, Jr. His review, about a book on the 1925 Scopes trial, included brief references to intelligent design science. However, Gaffney's name would not be included among well-known proponents of ID.

[gondramB]

ID is real. Its beings used as a rused to force science to stop using the scientific method in teaching.

Good things can be used for bad pruposes.

[muawiyah]

This guy is one ignorant slob isn't he. Panspermia (particularly if it's a consequence of intelligent activity elsewhere in the cosmos) would be difficult to differentiate from "creation" if the only reference you had was Earth.

I'd suggest it's too early to abandon panspermia and fully embrace the "little Earth" hypothesis.

[Coyoteman]

Am I the only one to think it odd that the Times would find him well qualified to write on science, medicine, and technology?

Coulter is a lawyer and writes on evolution ===> Placemarker <===

[TruthBeforeAll]

The arrogance of these people is astounding. To think that it's not possible that an entity more intelligent and powerful than they, actually put humanity on this earth, shows what most of us already know. That they truly believe they are the most highly evolved beings in the universe. But that belief should really come as no surprise to anyone.

[budlt2369]

Do intelligent design people believe that cows could have evolved from buffalo? Or that Lions could have evolved from Tigers? Why can't evolutionists other than myself admit that Darwin was a Darwinist/Eugenicist?

"The great break in the organic chain between man and his nearest
allies, which cannot be bridged over by any extinct or living species,
has often been advanced as a grave objection to the belief that man is
descended from some lower form; but this objection will not appear
of much weight to those who, from general reasons, believe in the
general principle of evolution. Breaks often occur in all parts of the
series, some being wide, sharp and defined, others less so in
various degrees; as between the orang and its nearest allies-
between the Tarsius and the other Lemuridae- between the elephant, and
in a more striking manner between the Ornithorhynchus or Echidna,
and all other mammals. But these breaks depend merely on the number of
related forms which have become extinct. At some future period, not
very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will
almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout
the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it
will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may
hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon,
instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."


Darwin ch 6
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_darwin/descent_of_man/chapter_06.html

[Getready]

I'm not sure about the arrogance, but the axiomatic beliefs
some of the naturalists hold (I think goes under their own
radar)... might be considered here.
example:
1) the universe is ordered and is predictable
2) The human mind can understand "nature"
3) Human thought and rationalizaton is the final arbiter
of what "is"
4) Scientific method always brings out the truth.
5) Mathematics is a way of describing the universe, and is
always accurate
6) What experiments we have done accounts for all of
the natural order


Anyway, needless to say anyone who "believes" all the above
will certainly behave as if they have the corner on
knowledge. One thing is approximately true, that science
does many times correct itself, through the action of humans
bringing new repeatable information to light.

[youthgonewild]

Hotz is right on the money. I see the ID kooks are out in full force today.

[bmwcyle]

If you want to post the LA Times try not to use it as a believable source.

[RFC_Gal]

Are you talking about those that support ID or those that support evolution?

[gcruse]

When presented with a choice between ascribing events to conspiracy or stupidity, opt for stupidity. Conspiracies require brainpower.

[esopman]

Mr. Hotz is, himself, prima facie evidence of unintelligent design...

[PatrickHenry]

It's a slow weekend, so ...

Evolution Ping The List-O-Links

A conservative, pro-evolution science list, now with over 380 names. See the list's explanation, then FReepmail to be added or dropped. To assist beginners: But it's "just a theory", Evo-Troll's Toolkit, and How to argue against a scientific theory.

[infoguy]

"Coulter is a lawyer and writes on evolution."

Coulter hasn't been hired by anyone to write specifically on one topic. The point is that the Times had an opening for someone to write on specifically on science, medicine, and technology, and they chose a guy with a master's degree in theatre history. Why?

[budlt2369]

"Coulter hasn't been hired by anyone to write specifically on one topic. The point is that the Times had an opening for someone to write on specifically on science, medicine, and technology, and they chose a guy with a master's degree in theatre history. Why?"

Because people why act like Darwin wasn't a Darwinist need lots of practice.

[budlt2369]

"Coulter hasn't been hired by anyone to write specifically on one topic. The point is that the Times had an opening for someone to write on specifically on science, medicine, and technology, and they chose a guy with a master's degree in theatre history. Why?"

Because people who act like Darwin wasn't a Darwinist need lots of practice.

[onedoug]

I like Divine Design, which doesn't have anything against quantum mechanics per say,
(except that it doesn't unify gravity. Damn!...) but am more careful concerning these developmental "gaps".

Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay W Richards, The Prvileged Planet

[TexasCajun]

The author comes from a group that believes the anus is a sex organ!

[RoadTest]

LA Times must still believe the Hopeful Monster Theory.

[Dimensio]

To think that it's not possible that an entity more intelligent and powerful than they, actually put humanity on this earth, shows what most of us already know.

Who has stated that such a thing is not possible? Please provide specific quotations.