Tim, over ar Random Observations blog, offers a fascinating post contrasting the scientific backgrounds and qualifications of the pro-Intelligent Design scholars with those opposed. Tim writes:
Here are the academic credentials of some of the prominent scientific supporters of Intelligent Design I've encountered:
Michael Behe - Chemistry (BS), Biochemistry (PhD, Professor)
David Berlinski - Philosophy (PhD), Mathematics (post-PhD), Molecular Biology (PhD)
William Demski - Psychology (BA), Statistics (MS), Mathematics (PhD, post-), History and Philosophy of Science (post-PhD), MDiv
Steve Fuller - History (BS), History and Philosophy of Science (MS, PhD), Sociology (BS, Department Chair)
Donald Johnson - Chemistry (PhD), Computer Science and Information Sciences (PhD)
Rebecca Keller - Biophysical Chemistry (PhD)
Dean Kenyon - Physics (BS), Biophysics (PhD), Chemical Biodynamics (post-PhD)
Stephen Meyer - Physics (BS), Geology (BS), Philosophy (PhD)
Bradley Monton (sympathetic) - Physics (BS), Philosophy (PhD)
Jeffrey Schwartz - Philosphy (BS), Neuroscience & Psychiatry (MD)
Jonathan Wells - Religious Studies (PhD), Molecular and Cell Biology (PhD)
And now let's compare with the credentials of some of the most vocal scientific opponents of Intelligent Design that I can think of (let me know if I've missed anyone, or one of their significant degrees):
Richard Dawkins - Zoology (MA, DPhil)
Daniel Dennett - Philosophy (BA, DPhil)
Barbara Forrest - English (BA), Philosophy (MA, PhD)
PZ Meyers - Zoology (BS), Evolutionary Developmental Biology (PhD)
Kenneth Miller - Biology (BS, PhD)
Robert Pennock - History and Philosophy of Science (PhD)
Victor Stenger - Electrical Engineering (BS), Physics (MS, PhD), Philosophy (Professor)
Noticing anything?
Long before I encountered this debate, I was taken by Richard
Feynman's adage that there were only two branches of science - Physics,
and Stamp Collecting. In other words, scientists either do lots of hard
math with predictable results (Physics, Chemistry) or they tend to
collect, enumerate, and describe things (Zoology, Sociology,
Anthropology, much Biology).
I used to assume that vocal evolutionary atheists like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Daniel Dennett were heavy hitters, academically. But no, I recently discovered, Dawkins and Myers are just Zoologists, and Dennett's a philosopher with no hard science background.
In contrast, I'm being blown away by some of the credentials (and
more importantly, lucidity) of those advocating ID. For example, David
Berlinski, who appeared in Expelled, is off the charts:
Mathematics and Molecular Biology? A research fellow at the
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis? Wow, that's some
seriously hard stuff. (Systems Science and Mathematics was known as the
hardest engineering degree when I was in school.) And most those which
have Philosophy degrees are actually Philosophy of History of Science
(I didn't always write that out), and many have serious backing and
overlap with hard sciences (e.g. Physics).
So it seems most the prominent scientific IDers tend to fall closer to Physics, and most the outspoken anti-ID scientists tend to fall closer to stamp collecting. But most people aren't aware of this. They've been told, mostly, that prominent IDers have bad motives (the "Wedge Document") (as if Dawkins and Dennett have no ulterior religious motives of their own, and as if motives invalidated arguments), that ID proponents know almost nothing of science, that don't do science, etc. From what I've seen, nothing could be further from the truth.
Go over to the original post and take a look at the comments. Tim rebuts one scorner into silence.