Dark grey black slate background or texture.
Photo by peekeedee on Unsplash
arroba Email

The “”New”” Creationism

A response to Robert Wright's "The 'New' Creationism" in Slate

Public tirades by dogmatic Darwinists about intelligent design theory are always useful. Such acts expose any remaining pretenses of their objectivity. Science writer Robert Wright’’s response to the New York Times story (April 8, 2001) on design theory is particularly delightful. In sum, Wright argues that ID is just a marketing strategy, its advocates are simpletons who don’t understand the first thing about modern evolutionary theory (“Don’t these fools realize the magic of kin selection theory?”), and, in any event, they aren’t saying anything new or interesting. (He does concede, however, that intelligent design theorists acquired some of their confusion from reading Harvard’s Stephen J. Gould. Apparently ignorance of orthodox evolutionary theory is dangerously widespread. Perhaps this is why Wright is so upset.)

Ironically, his understanding of Dembski’s work seems to consist primarily of the single quote from the New York Times. Similarly, one might wonder if Wright has actually read Darwin on Trial, or has settled for a single book review written by Phillip Johnson in 1992 in The Atlantic Monthly. In any event, those even superficially familiar with the debate should be able to discern for themselves the effectiveness of Wright’’s “critique.”

The Center for Science and Culture

Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture advances the understanding that human beings and nature are the result of intelligent design rather than a blind and undirected process. We seek long-term scientific and cultural change through cutting-edge scientific research and scholarship; education and training of young leaders; communication to the general public; and advocacy of academic freedom and free speech for scientists, teachers, and students.