Just found this statement while researching.
Stephen Barr wrote:
"These textbooks and their defenders treat any serious questioning in this area as beyond the pale of scientific respectability. For example, the recent so-called Intelligent Design movement is routinely dismissed as simply a disingenuous attempt to use more sophisticated arguments to advance the same old fundamentalist or six-day-creationist agenda. Knowing as I do Michael Behe and William Dembski, who are leaders of this movement, I can say that this imputation is false. Certainly we at NAS of all people should have no sympathy with the stigmatizing of thinkers, not for what they actually say, but for what someone imagines they really secretly believe.
Recently, when I was looking for something in the physics library at my university, I came across an essay written in the 1950s by Werner Heisenberg in honor of the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Heisenberg wrote, Pauli is skeptical of the Darwinian opinion [note the word Heisenberg chooses here: opinion] extremely widespread in modern biology, whereby the evolution of species on earth is supposed to have come about solely according to the laws of physics and chemistry, through chance mutations and their subsequent effects. He feels this scheme is too narrow. If the great Pauli can express skepticism of the sufficiency of natural selection, then anyone should be entitled to do so without incurring the charge of being unscientific or a crypto-fundamentalist."
Brackets are Barr's.
Stephen Barr, "Evolutionary Excesses: A Response to Moore", Academic Questions, 15(2):Spring2002
Stephen Barr wrote:
"These textbooks and their defenders treat any serious questioning in this area as beyond the pale of scientific respectability. For example, the recent so-called Intelligent Design movement is routinely dismissed as simply a disingenuous attempt to use more sophisticated arguments to advance the same old fundamentalist or six-day-creationist agenda. Knowing as I do Michael Behe and William Dembski, who are leaders of this movement, I can say that this imputation is false. Certainly we at NAS of all people should have no sympathy with the stigmatizing of thinkers, not for what they actually say, but for what someone imagines they really secretly believe.
Recently, when I was looking for something in the physics library at my university, I came across an essay written in the 1950s by Werner Heisenberg in honor of the great physicist Wolfgang Pauli. Heisenberg wrote, Pauli is skeptical of the Darwinian opinion [note the word Heisenberg chooses here: opinion] extremely widespread in modern biology, whereby the evolution of species on earth is supposed to have come about solely according to the laws of physics and chemistry, through chance mutations and their subsequent effects. He feels this scheme is too narrow. If the great Pauli can express skepticism of the sufficiency of natural selection, then anyone should be entitled to do so without incurring the charge of being unscientific or a crypto-fundamentalist."
Brackets are Barr's.
Stephen Barr, "Evolutionary Excesses: A Response to Moore", Academic Questions, 15(2):Spring2002
