The Science of Condescension – Commentary by Michael Kilpatrick

This commentary is in response to "But is it Science" published in National Reveiw Feb. 14, 2005, By John Derbyshire or at www.nationalreview.com/magazine/20050214/full.asp#050104.

Editors:
If an unlettered layman might beg the indulgence of the eminent Mr. John Derbyshire, I'm sure he could disabuse me of some of my quaint superstitions and scientific befuddlement.

In his elegantly crafted essay ( "But is it Science?" NR, Feb.14, '05) on the lack of intelligence upon which the proponents of "Intelligent Design" base their arguments, I waded through a good bit of what from a lesser personage than Mr. Derbyshire might be deemed smarmy condescension, without encountering anything weightier than philosophical refutations of any of the significant, verified, scientific problems with Darwinian macro-evolution. Many of his arguments, strangely enough, appeared to be suffused with conundrums and unexplained gaps. Here is where NR's worthy science contributor could surely enlighten me, if he would answer a small query or two.

Why is there something, rather than nothing? Can the reproducible evidence for spontaneous, undirected creation of life from nothing be displayed for us? In light of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, what does entropy dictate as the result of random mutations? If one begins with a presupposition that humans are accidentally animated pieces of meat, and proceeds to mold a State religion around that view exclusively proselytized in government schools, and protected by law from any troublesome skeptics, is that a neutral position? Does a theory somehow become a fact when the alternative usurps autonomy and threatens to impose unwanted accountability to an authority other than the self?

"Scientists are continually invited to engage in public debates against creationists, including latter-day creationists disguised under the euphemism 'intelligent design theorists'.

I always refuse for one overriding reason. The question of who would win' such a debate is not the issue. Winning is not what these people realistically aspire to. The coup they seek is simply the recognition of being allowed to share a platform with a real scientist in the first place. This will suggest to innocent bystanders that there must be material here that is genuinely worth debating, on something like equal terms...

What we should not do is abet creationists in their disreputable quest for free publicity and unearned academic respectability." ---Richard Dawkins, London Times, "Why I Don't Debate"

Messrs. Dawkins and Derbyshire have both availed themselves of a very convenient dodge for the inconvenience of having to address actual points; they dismiss annoying challenges to their orthodoxy with the airy intellectual wave of an elite, white gloved hand, and a knowing nod and a wink to the rabble in the gallery.

Michael Kilpatrick is a painting contractor in Macon, husband of one wife, father of nine children. He is a firearms enthusiast, troubler of the 'progressive' elite, and a Christian, Southern, Constitutionalist. His email is: dirtroadscholar@yahoo.com.