A: All of them.

R. Albert Mohler, president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has a long article on Meyer's publication, titled Panicked Evolutionists. He gets everything wrong, right from the title onwards.

The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship--and so it is. Panic is a sure sign of intellectual insecurity, and evolutionists have every reason to be insecure, for their theory is falling apart.

It's always a bit discombobulating to find a creationist damning evolution as a "mythology" and "object of veneration and worship", as if those are terms of scorn to a Southern Baptist. That really is no fair. We academics are so finely attuned to irony that it sidetracks us somethin' terrible.

But to force myself to address his point rather than the subtext, he's wrong on all counts: biologists aren't panicking over creationism, nor is the theory of evolution showing any signs of weakness. Rather, we're mostly disgusted at the fact that a strongly supported scientific principle is being attacked by political creatures who are misrepresenting the theory. Mohler gives us an excellent example of using bad logic and bad science to pretend that an ideological cartoon has a legitimate scientific foundation.

The latest evidence of this panic comes in a controversy that followed a highly specialized article published in an even more specialized scientific journal. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, wrote an article accepted for publication in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. The article, entitled "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories," was published after three independent judges deemed it worthy and ready for publication. The use of such judges is standard operating procedure among "peer-reviewed" academic journals, and is considered the gold standard for academic publication.

The readership for such a journal is incredibly small, and the Biological Society of Washington does not commonly come to the attention of the nation's journalists and the general public. Nevertheless, soon after Dr. Meyer's article appeared, the self-appointed protectors of Darwinism went into full apoplexy. Internet websites and scientific newsletters came alive with outrage and embarrassment, for Dr. Meyer's article suggested that evolution just might not be the best explanation for the development of life forms. The ensuing controversy was greater than might be expected if Dr. Meyer had argued that the world is flat or that hot is cold.

Yes, if Meyer had argued for a flat earth, there would have been little attention focused on it—because the flat earthers do not have well-monied partisans backing it, who have managed to turn the publication of every geology textbook into a circus, and who have supporters packing school boards to gut the teaching of earth science.

We also knew, from sad experience, exactly what was going to happen. A crop of ignorant religious pundits were going to pop up and piously declare that peer-review was the "gold standard", and therefore Intelligent Design creationism was vindicated (never mind that that thousands of articles supporting evolution are published under peer-review every year). We also know that this article, minor and as weak as it is, is going to be vigorously waved about at the next textbook review meeting in Texas, at the next school board election in Ohio, and by our more reactionary representatives stalking the halls of congress.

Don't be disingenuous, Mr Mohler. Don't even try to pretend that this was a minor article, and that it is surprising that evolutionists responded vigorously. We've been well-trained by the history of political subterfuge from your camp to know that we have to react promptly to creationist tactics, before they fester.

And don't try to pretend our response was "panic" or "apoplexy". We made a measured response to bad science. It's just like a sanctimonious creationist who believes they possess an absolute truth to think that criticism is unjust, and can only possibly be prompted by fear. Scientists criticize science with as much enthusiasm as we do creationism. We just expect scientists to respond with reason and evidence to criticism, unlike creationists.

What is it about Dr. Stephen Meyer's paper that has caused such an uproar? Meyer, who holds a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, argued in his paper that the contemporary form of evolutionary theory now dominant in the academy, known as "Neo-Darwinism," fails to account for the development of higher life forms and the complexity of living organisms. Pointing to what evolutionists identify as the "Cambrian explosion," Meyer argued that "the geologically sudden appearance of many new animal body plans" cannot be accounted for by Darwinian theory, "neo" or otherwise.

Wrong. The science in Meyer's paper is absent, forgettable, or erroneous. Poor papers get published all the time, and sink without a trace; we don't get upset over them at all. The strength of the disapproval of Meyer's work isn't because it seriously challenges dogma (it doesn't; it's a thoroughly unconvincing work, that's only virtue is that it panders to the creationist mindset), but that it was published solely for political gain.. It represents an abuse of the scientific and peer-review process.

Note how it was snuck in, like a thief in the night. It was published in a relatively obscure journal, with no specialization in the topic of the paper, and with the collusion of a creationist editor. It did not get published on its own merits, but as an ideological prop. That is what has elicited the outspokenly negative reviews.

The scientific content of the paper is negligible, Mr Mohler. It's nothing but the same tired old hash the Discovery Institute has been peddling for years, with no data and no new ideas.

But, alas, the non-scientists are easily swayed by gobbledygook. I laughed aloud at this:

The heart of Dr. Meyer's argument is found in this scientifically-loaded passage: "Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."

"Scientifically-loaded"? Excuse me while I double over and giggle.

There is no science in that passage, unless you confuse using polysyllabic words and the occasional acronym with science. It's nothing but bald assertions and mangled misperceptions of ideas current in biology, and there's nothing in the rest of Meyer's paper to support any of it.

First, biologists are implicitly non-reductionist. We think biology contains phenomena that are not adequately explained at the purely chemical level—evolutionary biology in particular needs to consider the influence of history on the range of solutions present in a population, for instance. Don't even try to tar the whole field as dependent on the sufficiency of DNA.

Second, developmental biology in particular (via the emerging disciplines of evo-devo or developmental systems theory) is interested in higher-level principles of organization of the body plan, and is well aware that it is a property of more than just coding sequences in the genome. We propose that things like cellular interactions and epigenetic influences and environmental factors are critical; phenomena that we happen to observe going on all the time in developmental processes. We do not invent immaterial magical beings to direct development and evolution. They aren't necessary.

Third, this sentence is just bad logic: "Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan." I suppose we could also argue that since alcohol isn't responsible for every car crash, we should allow people to drink without limits before going out on the road. Relatively few biologists argue that DNA is the sole arbiter of morphology, but none argue that it has absolutely no effect at all. We can trace the emergence of an organism's body plan back to networks of interacting genes, such as the Hox genes; these are natural, material processes, and there is no perceptible influence by any supernatural agents.

Fourthly, his conclusion is nothing but a negative assertion, that novelty can't arise from genetic change. Since we see novel mutations and novel phenotypes every day in labs across the planet, can we just lay that one to rest?

For the Christian believer, the Bible presents the compelling and authoritative case for God's creation of the cosmos. Specifically, the Bible provides us with the ultimate truth concerning human origins and the special creation of human beings as the creatures made in God's own image. Thus, though we believe in more than Intelligent Design, we certainly do not believe in less. We should celebrate the confusion and consternation now so evident among the evolutionists. Dr. Stephen Meyer's article--and the controversy it has spawned--has caught evolutionary scientists with their intellectual pants down.

Go back and read that first paragraph of Mohler's essay again.

The theory of evolution is a tottering house of ideological cards that is more about cherished mythology than honest intellectual endeavor. Evolutionists treat their cherished theory like a fragile object of veneration and worship…

Now look at his conclusion, where he states that the Bible is "authoritative" and the source of "ultimate truth". Who is peddling mythology and objects of veneration and worship here?

And like so much in Mohler's article, he's got it all wrong. Evolutionists aren't confused at all. We've stated our opinions clearly and forthrightly and consistently. There's no consternation, either—we are undismayed by the poor science in Meyer's article (except, perhaps, in the same sense that we are dismayed at seeing uneducated children parading their foolishness), although we are concerned at the prospects for future political abuse. There has been no real controversy. It's inarguable that it is bad science. And finally, we weren't caught with our pants down: we actually buckled up and got to work refuting the creationist baloney.

Maybe the ones who are really dismayed are the creationists, who encountered a strong and organized response to their tactics. That's something they should worry about—that maybe some scientists are so fed up with the dishonesty of the creationists, the lies that are corrupting the educations of our kids, that we're getting up from the lab bench to hand out a few smackdowns.