- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Gordy Slack is very wrong when he writes, "Whether I.D.'s scientific core is "impressive and sophisticated," as West says, is debatable."
There's no debate. There is no scientific core to "intelligent design" creationism. It is inexcusably sloppy for Mr. Slack to write that it might be open to dispute. Conversely, if he believes that there actually may be a substantial "scientific core" to "intelligent design" creationism, he has absolutely no business writing for Salon or any other reputable venue.
Mr. Slack found a lecture on real science quite dull. So what? Isaac Newton apparently was the world's worst lecturer. The substance is what matters and when it comes to creationism of any stripe, there is no there there, scientifically speaking.
And it is dubious theology to boot, something the judge's opinion and the testimony of John Haught makes abundantly clear.
