"An atheist tells a true believer: 'The world arose out of chaos!' 'Yes,' the believer replies, 'but who made the chaos?'" Credit October's cover story for creating the primordial pandemonium in our inbox. The debate on the origin of species was not always, well, highly evolved. Both sides damned the "bogus claims of religious fanatics," be they disciples of "the Darwin deity" or "not-so-intelligent design." "'Science' has been hijacked by the religion of evolution," cried the IDealists, demanding to "teach the controversy" in schools. "Push the thin edge of their wedge back into the Dark Ages where it belongs," the orthodox scientists replied. Many accused the story of partisan monkey business, calling it "skewed," "thinly veiled propaganda," "full of extreme bias and disregard for truth." And then they got angry. Others took the long view: "Remember, there are no atheists in Hell." (Great! Would that be God's grand design, or survival of the fittest?)
Darwin on Trial
Thank goodness for writer Evan Ratliff and the evolution inquisition ("The Crusade Against Evolution," 12.10). Heaven forbid that young students who will someday shape the scientific world be exposed to alternatives to the one espoused by the "near-universal majority of scientists with an opinion on the matter." After all, we all know that the theory that the most people agree with is always right. Take your own advice and let the theories "that survive scientific scrutiny end up in classrooms." Your biased journalistic preaching is almost as painful as a foot roasting.
Victor Berger
Richmond, Indiana
If a watch is so complicated it requires a watchmaker, the watchmaker, being even more complex, requires a maker, too. That maker, being more complex still, requires its own maker. Ad infinitum. Intelligent design implies a universe packed with gods, and casts more reasonable doubt on monotheism than on evolution.
Tom Weishaar
New York, New York
Evan Ratliff portrays work on the theory of intelligent design at Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture as a religiously motivated scheme to smuggle a disguised creationism into the public schools, rather than an evidence-based scientific research program. The claim is bogus.
First, Ratliff fails to report that our fellowship program, which funds foundational scientific and scholarly research, predates by six years our invitation to testify before the Ohio State Board of Education. He also fails to report that Discovery Institute scientists specifically recommended that the board not require students to learn about the theory of intelligent design, but instead emphasize current scientific criticisms of neo-Darwinism. Ratliff claims that Ohio biology lessons will now include intelligent design, but the new program only requires students to do what we recommended, namely, to "critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." Similarly, Ohio's model lesson implementing this indicator is not "based on ID literature" as Ratliff claims, but instead upon criticisms of neo-Darwinism found in mainstream biology journals. Any fair reading of the Ohio lesson plan proves this point, which is why it won the support of early skeptics. Ratliff also repeatedly conflates the theory of intelligent design with creationism. This is demagogic, for he knows better. These theories are patently different in both method and content.
Tech-savvy Wired readers wanting to learn about the science behind the growing interest in the theory of intelligent design - for example, the discovery of circuits, miniature machines, digital code, and other nanotechnology in living cells - might visit our Web site, www.discovery.org. They certainly were not given that opportunity by reading Ratliff's tendentious, agenda-driven story.
Bruce Chapman
President, Discovery Institute
Seattle, Washington
I'm designed intelligently? As far as I can see, I was designed by an idiot. My parts are neither interchangeable nor replaceable. I could use a new ankle right now, and almost everything I do injures my back. Some of my internal organs are useless and can even kill me. My risk-calculation engine is useless. I am afraid to eat beef, but have no problem catapulting myself down tree-lined roads on my motorcycle. My judgment is so bad I can be convinced to send my life savings to a complete stranger with just one phone call.
The final stake in the heart of ID is that there are people we might otherwise consider intelligent who, in the face of all this, maintain we are functioning as intended.
Eric Dietiker
Twain Harte, California
Science considers the complex and unknown and says, "We don't have an answer for this yet, but if we keep studying it, we will someday." ID considers the complex and unknown and says, "We don't have an answer for this so it must be God's doing." ID isn't an attack on evolution. It's an affront to the entire foundation of science. It censors curiosity, exploration, and the very question Why? The Discovery Institute's theories certainly aren't worthy of any high school textbook that doesn't have the title Modern Mythology.
Dan Orchard
West Kingston, Rhode Island
The struggle between evolutionists and intelligent design proponents has, in reality, very little to do with science. The absence of intermediary species in the fossil record proves evolution a bust. If ID is truth, then the human race is accountable to a higher moral power. If evolution is truth, then we are accountable only to each other in terms of morals, ethics, and behavior.
Evolutionists cling so fervently to their outmoded beliefs because ID is the only viable alternative.
Paul Black
Saluda, North Carolina
I am working toward a PhD in pharmaceutical chemistry. Your article suggests that all thinking scientists should clearly embrace evolution. I don't. We are taught early about hypotheses and proving statements. If evolution is to be taken completely, it must be flawless in proving itself, otherwise the hypothesis should be revamped.
Your story criticizes ID scientists for questioning a theory that has been accepted for too long. They should be applauded for doing exactly that. Forcing us to rethink our science complies with all that we have learned in the last two centuries.
Scott Pendley
Salt Lake City, Utah
When Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution, he met considerable resistance. Did he go running to the school boards to get his theory forced on school children? Did Einstein try to convince state legislatures to put laws on the books requiring relativity to have equal time with Newtonian mechanics?
Of course not, because that's not how science works. Real scientists present their ideas and argue for their merits in the public arena, knowing if they really have the right answer, that will ultimately become clear. Scientific theories win or lose on the merits of their logic and consistency with the evidence. Those who lack the patience or maturity for this process have no business calling themselves scientists and should stick to less intellectually and morally demanding careers.
Russell Stewart
Albuquerque, New Mexico
After reading "The Crusade Against Evolution" I can understand how Chicken Little evolved. Evan Ratliff's breathless prose on how teaching intelligent design to innocent children threatens the end of the world as we know it would do many a fundamentalist preacher proud. Funny how Ratliff didn't find space to describe some of the sophisticated cellular machinery and circuits that Wired readers especially could appreciate.
Michael Behe
Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University, is the author of Darwin's Black Box.
Regarding the sidebar "Biocosm" (12.10): The next time you consider having a proponent of intelligent design like George Gilder write something for Wired, leave the page blank - at least it would be factually accurate. Better yet, if you feel you must publish creationist trash, please do your readers the favor of printing it on extremely soft paper, the kind that's useful in the smallest room of the house.
Richard Einhorn
New York, New York
The Rise of the Obscure
I thought "The Long Tail" (12.10) was fascinating, and one of these days, I'll write about it in my ezine for librarians. Though Chris Anderson didn't mention it, libraries have been the "long tail" for centuries, preserving billions of books, documents, journals, films, and music, creating an access system so that each one's audience can find it.
Marylaine Block
Davenport, Iowa
Anderson cited two reasons why the physical world cannot address the Long Tail. But there's a third constraint: getting the attention of your potential audience. Offline forms of advertising get delivered fairly indiscriminantly. This is true of billboards, TV, or a sign in your store.
Ben Tilly
Santa Monica, California
Anderson's article is absolutely correct, but the real threat to the recording industry is not channel conflict; it's complete disintermediation. If distribution is opened up to everyone, and if the tyranny of shelf space is eliminated, what role do the Columbias and Sonys of the world perform? Already, artists are beginning to find new ways to distribute their products.
Instead of disintermediation, maybe the correct term is "reintermediation" - replacement of old channels of distribution with new ones. They might be run by the same people, but they need not be.
Joseph R. Adamczyk
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania
It's Hip to Be Square
I loved Jennifer Kahn's story ("If You Secretly Like Michael Bolton, We'll Know," 12.10). It was well written, informative, and witty. My own decidedly unscientific detector finds her very cool. Warhol said (later paraphrased by Huey Lewis), that nothing is cooler than to be unafraid to look uncool.
Mike Zellers
Amherst, Ohio
Surviving the Day After Tomorrow
It is true that you can't fool Mother Nature (Infoporn, 12.10). The article suggests that plants and animals can adapt in response to climate change. But the author doesn't recognize that a shifting climate has serious implications for species' interdependence. Birds may migrate south 10 days early, only to find that their plant sustenance is not yet ready. Plants may flower sooner, but the bird or insect pollinators that complete their life cycle may not be present. No well-educated scientist believes the doomsday scenarios of Hollywood, but subtle shifts in timing may cause widespread ecological changes, dooming many species.
Jeff Warren
Corvallis, Oregon
All Together Now: Stealing Is Bad
In "Keep Your Laws Off My Technology" (Start, 12.10), Jeff Howe writes that the Business Software Alliance did not "poll" its members when it originally commented on the Senate's Induce Act. BSA maintains a policy of regularly updating and obtaining the input of our member companies on potential legislation, and we did so in this case. We welcome the effort to stem the tide of illicit file-sharing, and we continue to believe that any legislation adopted must focus on bad actors and maintain the innovative and dynamic environment for the high tech industry. The effort to find a workable solution continues with the ongoing input of the BSA membership, joined by others within industry and users of technology.
Robert Holleyman
President and CEO, Business Software Alliance
Washington, DC
Undo
• Lost World: Burt Rutan ("The Right Stuff," 11.07) says he did not tell our writer that Egypt's pyramids were built by aliens. He has long maintained they were built by an ancient civilization that disappeared during the last ice age.
• Alien Autopsy: The review of the Alienware Area 51m gaming laptop in Test (12.10) pictured the Alienware Aurora-m64.
