Another Darwin-Doubter Criminalized

February 8, 2008 by Dr. Mc.

(There are apparently major oversights in my following entry, but I will not strike or revise it yet. Mainly because the comments I am receiving have been very constructive, and I want to give them serious attention before taking action. In the mean time, I encourage anyone reading this entry to also read the comments. I have posted all, but I have a request: As you comment, please give some references for your position, so all may benefit. No misinformation was intended on my part, and I am glad to see the effectiveness of blog peer review at work.)

"If there were any real evidence contrary to evolution, we
would find it in the scientific research journals, right?" Consider the
following article which may not see the printed page next month. It is entitled
"Mitochondria, the Missing Link Between Body and Soul: Proteomic Prospective
Evidence," and passed review for Proteomics, "a well-regarded molecular-biology
publication," according to the
Chronicle of Higher Education. At least it was well-regarded until this
slipped through the filter. Editors made a horrible mistake: They allowed an
article to slip through that contains a few phrases like "single common
fingerprint initiated by a mighty creator." (Please note that the word "creator"
is lower case.) If you go to the blogs which slam the article, the authors, the
journal, and the editors, and there are many, you will find a variety of
objections, to include grammar (the authors are dealing in a second language),
but make no mistake about the real objection- -the one that led to all the
search for other problems. Take for instance,
Pharyngula, a blog which leads into its attack of the editors by saying
plagiarism get past them. It gives one sentence as an example of this flaw, but
then dedicates most of the article to restating and discussing whole paragraphs
that leak words like "wisdom" into the discussion of mitochondrial
workings. This particular blog sees no logical connection between the
description of the ubiquitous mitochondria and the possibility of a creator, but
buys whole heartedly the theory that this source of power for the cell holds its
place as the result of having been swallowed by a more primitive cell form in
the primordial sea. According to that
theory, there once was a cell form that had no mitochondria, but upon
swallowing one (prokaryotic
bacteria are basically free-floating mitochondria), it became a new more
advanced form of cell, which has reproduced with mitochondria ever since. No
incredulity is wasted on the fact that the cell form without mitochondria has
never been found in fossil or living form, and that no one can even explain
how such a cell could survive without the
oxygen-processing provided by mitochondria.

But I digress. The real issue is the dual no-no of
suggesting that evolution cannot explain everything and that the only logical
alternative to that there might be a designer. This is brought home as the real issue
in Pharyngula by its closing reference to
Revista, a journal that made the mistake of publishing authors who suggest
intelligent design might have merit and thereby lost status. Forget the hype
over plagiarism and grammar. The Chronicle of Higher Education’s "Daily Report" for Feb 7,
2008 introduced its link to the article in question by saying, "’Proteomics’ has made
available online a paper on mitochondria that includes language in opposition to
the theory of evolution." That is the real crime.

Posted in Science and faith | 7 Comments »