I was disappointed to see that your Opinion articles on intelligent design were, in fact, two negative views of the controversial theory. I expected a more balanced approach from your magazine. If, as Adrian Melott asserts, “adherents are engineers, doctors—and even physicists,” then it would have been appropriate to have a counterpoint from a scientist or doctor presenting a positive view for ID.
Furthermore, I thought the negative views, particularly those of Melott, to be more personal opinion than scientific refutation. Even the title of Melott’s article—“Intelligent Design Is Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo”—is, frankly, a cheap shot, and Melott distorted the views of people espousing ID. I have read Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box (Free Press, 1996) and Michael Denton’s book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1986). Both authors make some strong, some weak, and some erroneous arguments. However, nowhere in either book did I find any indication that “geology and physics are within [ID’s] blast zone.” Denton, for example, clearly recognizes geologic time and the antiquity of fossils. For Melott to suggest that geology and geologic time are targets of ID indicates either that he has not read these books or that he is intentionally misrepresenting ID.
