Chemists in stew about intelligent design
by Tas Walker
The article seemed to contradict itself. It appeared in the April 2007 issue of
Chemistry in Australia, the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical Institute
(RACI), and began:
‘One rarely reads creationist perspectives on science first hand in journals
such as Chemistry in Australia.’1
Yet it was entitled ‘A creationist’s view of the intelligent design
debate’, and was published in the journal.
It was a well-written piece by John Ashton, a Fellow of the Royal Australian Chemical
Institute, a Chartered Chemist, a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Food Science
and Technology, strategic research manager for the Sanitarium Health Food Company,
and a creationist. Ashton continued:
‘Secular and atheistic views have dominated western education for years and
it is now very difficult to get a theistic based theory taught or discussed …
However, I believed there is a sufficient case for the alternative view that in
the beginning God’s creative power brought everything into existence to warrant
teaching the evidence for this view in science classes.’
Food-poisoning bacteria
Fancy publishing a religious view in a scientific journal! Excepting, as Ashton
explained, this is not just a religious view. It has practical application
for chemists and their scientific research.
‘Over the past 30 to 40 years a number of new strains of food poisoning bacteria
have evolved. That is before the 1970s or thereabouts, they did not exist (or were
at least unknown)—now they are a threat to food safety. The evolution of these
bacteria has been traced to the transfer of genetic information (toxin genes or
acid resistance genes etc.) from one type of bacteria to another. And it is a similar situation for all the observed cases of evolution including
mutations. They all involve either transfer of existing (i.e. created) genetic information
from one to another or the loss of some pre-existing (created) genetic information.’
Thus, a creationist scientist like Ashton formulates the problem of food-poisoning
bacteria quite differently from a materialist/naturalist scientist (note that CMI
advises against words like ‘evolution’ or even ‘micro-evolution’
to describe such variation
within the kind). They are working from different worldviews, lead to different
scientific models, and make different predictions. Understanding the origin, adaptation
and behaviour of bacteria is clearly an important issue for chemists dealing with
food problems.
The supposed origin of
the first living cell from non-living chemicals is also relevant to chemists,
a discipline referred to as chemical evolution. Ashton says:
‘Darwinian evolution also requires abiogenesis, that is “living cells”
spontaneously arising from non-living molecules (chemicals). Again, as George Javor,
Professor of Biochemistry at the Loma Linda Medical School in California, points
out, this has never been observed despite experimental attempts, and on the basis
of current biochemical knowledge is absolutely impossible.’
Again, Ashton stresses that this is an issue with application to chemical problems
in the modern world.
‘Oxford-educated philosopher Ronald Laura and myself have also shown that
an intelligent design or “blueprint” based model is more effective in
predicting adverse health and environmental outcomes resulting from new technologies
than are conventional reductionist science models.’
Lots of responses
So the publication of the creationist’s view in Chemistry in Australia
seemed to have been welcomed by the editor as relevant and thought provoking. Predictably,
the journal received a lot of responses, both for and against, but mostly against.
Associate Professor Rob Brooks, President of the Australasian Evolution Society
said:
‘I am sure your intentions in publishing Ashton’s piece were honourable.
Creationists cynically and repeatedly appeal to our liberal intuition that it is
best to air all sides of an argument. However, when one side conscientiously adheres
to the scientific method and another tries to make contradictory claims in the name
of science without adhering to the central evidence and refutation based principles
of the scientific methods, it is no longer a debate in any sense. I believe you
have been ill-served by Professor Ashton’s cynical exploitation of your desire
for openness.’2
Cynical, unscientific, exploited. Hmmm. Brooks made a point of attacking the character
of the author, but let’s see how he refutes the scientific arguments:
‘The article itself is riddled with red-herrings and just about every logical
fallacy that one could care to mention. Every one of these arguments has been patiently
debunked by evolutionary biologists, and in some cases by the courts.’
Readers will notice the common evolutionary tactic of
elephant-hurling. I.e. no specific refutations, just more assertions and
insults to Ashton … and the editor. But he made his most persuasive point
at the beginning of his letter:
‘It is my concern that Professor Ashton and the editors who made the decision
to publish this piece have done your magazine considerable harm.’
Harm! This is standard tactics by evolutionists. ‘We can’t discuss this
issue because we would be a laughing stock.’ ‘Our reputations would
be shattered.’ ‘We would set science back to the dark ages.’ This
is their stock-in-trade whenever their evolutionary stranglehold is challenged in
the slightest way. And they keep using it because it is so successful. It silences
debate from the public square.
Another letter by Christopher Barner Kowollik, Past Chair of the RACI Polymer Division
said much the same thing.
‘I fear greatly for the reputation of our society. This feature article—although
it may not represent the official position of the RACI, which I most sincerely hope—has
already done damage to the cause of exact science. Colleagues, PhD students and
post-doctoral fellows at UNSW I have been in contact since this article appeared
were plainly shocked.’3
Fear! Damage! Shock, horror!
‘While other learned and scientific societies are actively distancing themselves
(including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, the National Science Teachers’ Association, the American Geophysical
Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers
to name but a few) from such scientific nonsense, the RACI is happy to have such
views printed in their magazine.’
But Kowollik failed to present even one clear scientific argument refuting ‘the creationist nonsense’, resorting to more elephant hurling:
‘I will not go any way into refuting even the most untenable (and made up)
arguments put forward in this feature article, as this has been done by other authors
and the most eminent biologists in the world on multiple occasions before.’
Of course not. Note ‘and made up’. This seems to imply that he is accusing
his fellow member of being a liar.
Yet, as an expert on polymers (big molecules formed from joining lots of
small molecules), Kowollik should be in a position to address the huge problem for
chemical evolution: that biological polymers would not form in an alleged primordial
soup, and would break down (but he does not have the answer; see
Origin of life: the polymerization problem).
The materialist stronghold
This exchange again illustrates the stranglehold that the materialists/evolutionists
have on our scientific institutions and on suppressing public debate on important
worldview issues in our culture. Their shrill voices do not represent all the members
of their organizations (in fact my two chemist friends who told me about the article
thought it was balanced). Yet these tactics are very intimidating. Is it any wonder
that we have this situation which Ashton describes:
‘ … while we regularly read about scientists who believe in the Big
Bang and life on earth being billions of years old, such as Stephen Hawking, Paul
Davies and Richard Dawkins, we rarely read articles in the media about scientists
like Professor Herrmann who believe that the heavens and earth were created in just
six days about 6000 years ago. Yet scientists who believe the creation account and
a young earth include many eminent scientists such as Professor
David Gower DSc (London), Emeritus Professor of Steroid Biochemistry at
the University of London; Dr
Ker Thomson DSc (Colorado School of Mines), former director of US Air-force
Terrestrial Sciences Laboratory; and Professor
Werner Gitt D. Eng (Aschen) a former director of the German Federal Institute
of Physics and Technology (the same institute where Einstein studied). These scientists
emphasise the observations that much about origins that is often presented as facts
is actually based on unproven hypotheses and that the weight of factual evidence
favours recent creation.’
I believe this serves as a clear example of the bully boy tactics that can be put
on organizations and individuals when one attempts to present a case for creation.
Yet there are lots of Ph.D. scientists who believe in creation in six days and who
are sceptical of evolution. In fact, John Ashton’s book entitled
In Six Days, with contributions from fifty of them, makes
just that point.
It seems that the editor personally supported open scientific debate which is why
he published the article. Good on him. But the storm that erupted has made things
quite difficult.
And the scare tactics have worked again. Because of the perceived threat to the
reputation of the RACI it seems the National Executive intervened. They decided
to order the removal of all reference to the article from the website, something
which took place in the ensuing days. On the
journal website reference to Ashton’s article should appear in the
‘features’ section under the microwave article but it is no longer listed.
Why don’t creationists publish in science journals?
Of course, this (false) charge that ‘creationists
don’t publish in refereed journals’ is really the last refuge of
those who can’t refute the arguments. And they know perfectly
well that overtly creationist papers are almost always censored, and the rare one
that slips through results in a huge uproar. This episode is yet more evidence of
materialistic censorship.
A previous example was an ‘intelligent
design’ paper by Dr Stephen Meyer on the origin of basic types in
the Cambrian explosion, published in the peer-reviewed journal, Proceedings of the
Biological Society of Washington. However, groups like the atheist-founded-and-operated
anticreationist organization
NCSE wrote to the journal railing that the article was substandard—before
they’d even read it. Then the Biological Society’s governing council
backtracked, claiming that had they known about it beforehand, they ‘would
have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings’, and
promised that ‘Intelligent Design … will not be addressed in future
issues of the [journal].’ And the editor Dr Richard Sternberg was mercilessly
persecuted (see The Smithsonian/Sternberg
controversy: Cast doubt on Darwin, get cast out).
But don’t expect evolutionists to drop their hypocrisy any time soon. That
is, claim that creationists must publish their creationist theories in secular journals
in order to be considered legitimate science, and then turn around and whinge that
it wasn’t legitimate for a journal to publish any peer-reviewed article from
a creationist!
Stand up to the bully
Ashton said, ‘I believe this serves as a clear example of the bully boy tactics
that can be put on organisations and individuals when one attempts to present a
case for creation.’
Being a Christian professional means displaying Christ-like character in our dealings
with our peers. And this must increasingly include speaking out when the prevailing
mood is to suppress the truth about the Creator (Romans 1:18), and demolish their antichristian arguments
(2 Corinthians 10:5).
Related products
References
- Ashton, J., A creationist’s view of the intelligent
design debate, Chemistry in Australia April 2007, pp. 19–20.
Return to Text.
-
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~cfellows/Brooks_Letter.pdf Return
to Text.
-
http://www-personal.une.edu.au/~cfellows/CBK_letter.pdf Return
to Text.
Published: 24 April 2007 (GMT+10)
|
