- Email: [email protected]
Understanding intelligent design
Correspondence
efficacy ($50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved).1 The marginal costeffectiveness ratio of extracorporeal CPR over conventional CPR in adults is not available, but could be much higher than that in children. We acknowledged that cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal life support is a crucial issue and consider it our responsibility to analyse it. We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
Yih-Sharng Chen, Jou-Wei Lin, *Fang-Yu Lin [email protected] Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100, Taiwan (YSC, FYL); Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital Yun-Lin Branch, Dou-Liou City, Taiwan (JWL); and Department of Health, Taipei, Taiwan (FYL) 1
Mahle WT, Forbess JM, Kirshbom PM, Cuadrado AR, Simsic JM, Kanter KR. Cost-utility analysis of salvage cardiac extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in children. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 129: 1084–90.
the reader into thinking that I endorse William Paley’s view that all creatures are purpose-built. On the contrary, I disavow Paley’s position, arguing that nature might be intelligently designed in the whole without appearing that way in its parts. Finally, Rose accuses me of ignoring the disparate evidence in favour of Darwinian evolution and the debates biologists have over the interpretation of evolutionary mechanisms. However, I take these as grounds for concluding that the so-called modern evolutionary synthesis is much less coherent than is normally presented. Thus it is reasonable for intelligent design proponents to treat as separate matters when, in what order, and by what means life forms arose. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
Steve Fuller [email protected]
Understanding intelligent design Science Photo Library
In a review that claims to “take seriously” my book, Dissent over descent, Steven Rose (Aug 9, p 437)1 repeats a stereotyped view of intelligent design that fails to reflect my actual discussion. This is presumably in aid of my supposed failure to have defined the theory and my elliptical references to the US trial that tested intelligent design’s viability as science. Had Rose read page 6, he would have discovered that this book does not purport to deal with the trial—I wrote another book for that purpose. More importantly, on page 1, I define intelligent design as “scientifically credentialed creationism” with the aim of treating biology and technology as “design sciences” in exactly the same sense: the one by God, the other by human beings. This definition provides the backdrop against which I place such great emphasis on information theory and molecular biology as the intelligent design sciences par excellence. Rose’s boilerplate understanding of intelligent design can also mislead 1880
Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK 1
Rose S. A maverick supporter of intelligent design. Lancet 2008; 372: 437–38.
Author’s reply Steve Fuller’s response to my review of his book Dissent over descent is at best disingenuous. As the (conservative Christian) judge Jones ruled in the Kitzmiller case “…there is hardly better evidence of ID’s [intelligent design’s] relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism… The goal of the ID [movement] is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.” Fuller knows very well that this is far removed from the wholly legitimate debates among biologists about the natural mechanisms contributing to evolutionary change and speciation.
Health literacy and preservation of information Thanks must go to the Editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, who raises the important issues of health literacy and preservation of information in his Art of Medicine essay (Aug 23, p 622).1 The scheme Horton proposes is of wide and sweeping scale, but one which should not be dismissed off-hand. There are many schemes and organisations already in existence—such as the Healthcare Information for All by 2015 campaign, the US National Institute for Literacy, the Cochrane Collaboration, etc—within which librarians are sharing their expertise and learning new skills by participating in “non-traditional” environments. These organisations could collaborate with the “global alliance” of libraries—the International Federation of Library Associations—in furthering health information literacy, intellectual freedom, and the preservation of information and culture. What role could The Lancet have in such a collaboration? Horton could present a paper at the World Library and Information Congress 2010 and attend the International Congress of Medical Librarians in Brisbane, Australia, in 2009 and learn what schemes and projects are currently underway. The Lancet, by virtue of its publishing house Elsevier, is a participant in the long-term archival access scheme called CLOCKSS—a step in the right direction re archiving for posterity. Horton could arrange to send free copies of the journal to hospitals in developing countries at the publisher’s own expense and act as a model for other journal publishers. Horton, with his essay, has identified where The Lancet can lead by example. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
Catherine Voutier
Steven Rose
[email protected]
[email protected]
Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Southern Health, Melbourne, Victoria 3168, Australia
Brain and Behaviour Research Group, The Open University, Milton Keyes MK7 6AA, UK
1
Horton R. The diplomatic library. Lancet 2008; 372: 622–23.
www.thelancet.com Vol 372 November 29, 2008
efficacy ($50 000 per quality-adjusted life-year saved).1 The marginal costeffectiveness ratio of extracorporeal CPR over conventional CPR in adults is not available, but could be much higher than that in children. We acknowledged that cost-effectiveness of extracorporeal life support is a crucial issue and consider it our responsibility to analyse it. We declare that we have no conflict of interest.
Yih-Sharng Chen, Jou-Wei Lin, *Fang-Yu Lin [email protected] Department of Surgery, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei 100, Taiwan (YSC, FYL); Cardiovascular Center, National Taiwan University Hospital Yun-Lin Branch, Dou-Liou City, Taiwan (JWL); and Department of Health, Taipei, Taiwan (FYL) 1
Mahle WT, Forbess JM, Kirshbom PM, Cuadrado AR, Simsic JM, Kanter KR. Cost-utility analysis of salvage cardiac extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in children. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2005; 129: 1084–90.
the reader into thinking that I endorse William Paley’s view that all creatures are purpose-built. On the contrary, I disavow Paley’s position, arguing that nature might be intelligently designed in the whole without appearing that way in its parts. Finally, Rose accuses me of ignoring the disparate evidence in favour of Darwinian evolution and the debates biologists have over the interpretation of evolutionary mechanisms. However, I take these as grounds for concluding that the so-called modern evolutionary synthesis is much less coherent than is normally presented. Thus it is reasonable for intelligent design proponents to treat as separate matters when, in what order, and by what means life forms arose. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
Steve Fuller [email protected]
Understanding intelligent design Science Photo Library
In a review that claims to “take seriously” my book, Dissent over descent, Steven Rose (Aug 9, p 437)1 repeats a stereotyped view of intelligent design that fails to reflect my actual discussion. This is presumably in aid of my supposed failure to have defined the theory and my elliptical references to the US trial that tested intelligent design’s viability as science. Had Rose read page 6, he would have discovered that this book does not purport to deal with the trial—I wrote another book for that purpose. More importantly, on page 1, I define intelligent design as “scientifically credentialed creationism” with the aim of treating biology and technology as “design sciences” in exactly the same sense: the one by God, the other by human beings. This definition provides the backdrop against which I place such great emphasis on information theory and molecular biology as the intelligent design sciences par excellence. Rose’s boilerplate understanding of intelligent design can also mislead 1880
Department of Sociology, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK 1
Rose S. A maverick supporter of intelligent design. Lancet 2008; 372: 437–38.
Author’s reply Steve Fuller’s response to my review of his book Dissent over descent is at best disingenuous. As the (conservative Christian) judge Jones ruled in the Kitzmiller case “…there is hardly better evidence of ID’s [intelligent design’s] relationship with creationism than an explicit statement by defense expert Fuller that ID is a form of creationism… The goal of the ID [movement] is not to encourage critical thought but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID.” Fuller knows very well that this is far removed from the wholly legitimate debates among biologists about the natural mechanisms contributing to evolutionary change and speciation.
Health literacy and preservation of information Thanks must go to the Editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton, who raises the important issues of health literacy and preservation of information in his Art of Medicine essay (Aug 23, p 622).1 The scheme Horton proposes is of wide and sweeping scale, but one which should not be dismissed off-hand. There are many schemes and organisations already in existence—such as the Healthcare Information for All by 2015 campaign, the US National Institute for Literacy, the Cochrane Collaboration, etc—within which librarians are sharing their expertise and learning new skills by participating in “non-traditional” environments. These organisations could collaborate with the “global alliance” of libraries—the International Federation of Library Associations—in furthering health information literacy, intellectual freedom, and the preservation of information and culture. What role could The Lancet have in such a collaboration? Horton could present a paper at the World Library and Information Congress 2010 and attend the International Congress of Medical Librarians in Brisbane, Australia, in 2009 and learn what schemes and projects are currently underway. The Lancet, by virtue of its publishing house Elsevier, is a participant in the long-term archival access scheme called CLOCKSS—a step in the right direction re archiving for posterity. Horton could arrange to send free copies of the journal to hospitals in developing countries at the publisher’s own expense and act as a model for other journal publishers. Horton, with his essay, has identified where The Lancet can lead by example. I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
I declare that I have no conflict of interest.
Catherine Voutier
Steven Rose
[email protected]
[email protected]
Centre for Clinical Effectiveness, Southern Health, Melbourne, Victoria 3168, Australia
Brain and Behaviour Research Group, The Open University, Milton Keyes MK7 6AA, UK
1
Horton R. The diplomatic library. Lancet 2008; 372: 622–23.
www.thelancet.com Vol 372 November 29, 2008