Biologic Institute

Scientists employ different rhetorical strategies to accomplish different things. That shouldn’t be surprising, perhaps, but for some it is. The reason is that while the public is very familiar with rhetorical shiftiness in some occupations, they tend to see only one side of science—the confident, assertive, authoritative, we-know-what-we’re-talking-about side. Science-speak often comes across with a hint of arrogance, but since science itself depends on the goodwill of the public for its very existence, it usually corrects itself on those occasions when it oversteps its bounds.

There are a few peculiar exceptions though, where what amounts to little more than propaganda is excused in the name of academic freedom. It’s regrettable, but it happens, and the guilty institutions become known for it.

Since Oxford University is one of them (as evidenced by the fact that I don’t need to name anyone), there is particular satisfaction in bringing to light some of the hidden rhetoric from that institution. Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not suggesting that anything that follows is in any way secretive. I’m simply suggesting that some needs—like getting grants and hiring people to work under those grants—call for a frank statement of what isn’t known, whereas the messages intended for the general public tend to emphasize or even exaggerate what is known. more…

In August of 2004 I received an email inquiry from plant biologist Art Hunt. He had written a draft for a blog piece aimed at reviewing a research article of mine that had just appeared in the Journal of Molecular Biology [1], and he wanted to know whether he had understood my work correctly. He clearly aimed to refute claims that were beginning to surface that my paper supported intelligent design, but he also wanted to make sure he wasn’t misconstruing my work in the process. He didn’t expect me to oblige—“I will understand if you decline; in fact, I would probably do the same…”—but I did.

His summary of the experiments I reported in the JMB paper was largely correct, though his understanding of my analysis was off in several respects. As a result, many of the conclusions he drew were, in my judgment, not well grounded. I gave him feedback to this effect, but since it was a blog entry rather than a peer-reviewed scientific publication, I wasn’t particularly concerned to see the final version, or to respond to it.

Two things have happened since then. One is that my 2004 JMB paper has, as Hunt predicted, been cited in support of intelligent design in several prominent places, and the other is that Hunt’s finished blog piece [2] has become the favored argument against using my paper in support of ID. more…