"It is certain that the mathematics of blood, the numbers inherent in its complex structure, provide perhaps the best evidence for the existence of some kind of Creator.
Take something like the process of coagulation, which requires the participation of several hemostatic proteins. ... It is hard not to understate the irreducibly complex nature of this system. The ratio of the probability that such a system might come into being by pure chance to the probability that it might not come into being is so enormous that it is almost impossible to find a number large enough to express these odds."
The code words in this explanation that link it to ID are "complex structure", "irreducibly complex", "pure chance" and the linking of this biochemical process to "evidence for the existence of some kind of Creator."
Kerr based his information, though, oddly he did not cite his source despite numerous footnotes throughout the novel, on the work of ID proponents Michael Behe, a biochemist, and William Dembski, a mathematician.
If you want to read more about how scientists and others have thoroughly discredited Intelligent Design and its predecessors Creationism and Creation Science, go to the National Center for Science Education's Web site, a United States organization that promotes the teaching of science in public schools. Use the NCSE site search and look up "blood clotting" to find several examples that debunk the ID claims that blood clotting is evidence of a designer of biological life, that is, a God.
Why spoil good fiction with pseudoscience when there's all kinds of perfectly good science out there?
Why get upset about it when it's just a novel?
ReplyDeleteWhen a novelist goes to the trouble of footnoting a lot of the prefatory background before we even get into the heart of the story and this section was one long explanation, I feel the novelist owes it to the reader to fully disclose an issue such as this one. I'm familiar with the Wedge Strategy, so in this case, the strategy has succeeded -- and I haven't investigated to see if the author has an ID agenda or simply thought this sounded like good science when it most definitely is not and ID is not even good theory -- by promoting a part of ID theory through popular culture.
ReplyDeleteAnd even if it's just a novel, people get offended over all kinds of fictional representations from movies to cartoons to novels and plays, and I believe my criticism is justified and warranted.
It sounds to me like you're overly sensitive about this issue for whatever reason. Ray Bradbury stories or Avatar are not based on "good science" either but you don't object to that. In any case, thanks for the explanation.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't put Ray Bradbury stories in the same category as the movie Avatar which is far more scientifically based than most of Bradbury's fiction. Though I feel a lot of people would not recognize the distinction, I think there's a big difference between science fantasy and science fiction, yet any presentation can of course mix the two. Funny enough, the only other science fiction author I know of who wrote essays defending Intelligent Design is James P. Hogan in his book Kicking the Sacred Cow: Questioning the Unquestionable and Thinking the Impermissible (2004). He also wrote in the same book essays defending Velikovsky's astrophysical fantasies.
ReplyDelete