Morally Corrosive Antievolution: Another Case

Over at Uncommon Descent, a post by Mario Lopez takes note of a publication in Nature that mentions “mousetrap”. Lopez quotes from Nature, but drops in this bit of text as item 4:

4. “Darwinian scenarios, either for building mousetraps or biochemical systems, are very easy to believe if we aren’t willing or able to scrutinize the smallest details, or to ask for experimental evidence. They invite us to admire the intelligence of natural selection. But the intelligence we are admiring is our own.”

But that bit wasn’t part of the Nature publication. It was, instead, an unattributed quote from a Michael Behe online essay.

“Occam’s Aftershave” at AtBC discovered and documented this one.

Update: Someone at UD has edited the original post. The numeric designation on the paragraph is now gone, and a clause prepends the Behe quote:

This is made relevant by Behe’s observation that “Darwinian scenarios, either for building mousetraps or biochemical systems, are very easy to believe if we aren’t willing or able to scrutinize the smallest details, or to ask for experimental evidence. They invite us to admire the intelligence of natural selection. But the intelligence we are admiring is our own.”

There’s still nothing as yet that would tell the reader that the final paragraph did not grace the pages of Nature. Apparently, the editor has also drunk deeply of morally corrosive antievolution.

Further update: Lopez has generically apologized in a comment to the thread, but still fails to distinguish his addition from the quoted text from Brosh’s piece in Nature.

My apologies to everyone. Thank you, AussieID, for pointing to the source of that last quote. The original blogger on this is found here:

http://pos-darwinista.blogspot.com/

–Mario

Please follow and like us:
error

Wesley R. Elsberry

Falconer. Interdisciplinary researcher: biology and computer science. Photographer. Husband. Christian. Activist.

One thought on “Morally Corrosive Antievolution: Another Case

  • 2008/12/16 at 9:31 am
    Permalink

    Another bit of historical revisionism brought to you by the good folks at UD. Why not just say he blew it and provide the correction without ammending the original post like any honest academic would do? See Mark Chu-Carrol’s mea culpa on sailing and power over at his Good Math, Bad Math blog for an example. At least the comments weren’t deleted. That’s something I guess.

Comments are closed.