Dear Dr. McLeroy,

I seem to be having a problem with you.  While reading your essay on intelligent design I came across this statement:

 A 1996 New York Times editorial states that “this whole issue might make for an amusing academic debate were it not for the potentially grave consequences for society at large. If we are unwilling unilaterally to brand scientific nonsense as just that, regardless of the sensibilities might be offended—religious or otherwise—then the whole notion of truth itself becomes blurred…. Our democratic society is imperiled as much by this as any other single threat…”

http://home.att.net/~dmcleroy/Textbooks/Naturalism_and_Intelligent_Design.htm

You've made it appear that an editorial writer for the New York Times was somehow supporting Intelligent Design (and, according to your logic, opposing naturalism) but nothing could be further from the truth. Your misrepresentation is clear when we examine the context of those remarks.  I've changed the color of the material you omitted to red.

"This whole issue might make for simply an amusing academic debate
were it not for the potentially grave consequences for society at
large.

If  we are unwilling, unilaterally,  to brand scientific nonsense as
just that, regardless of whose sensibilities might be offended --
religious or otherwise -- then the whole notion of truth itself becomes
blurred.

The need to present both sides of an issue is only necessary when
there are two sides. When empirically verifiable falsehoods become
instead subjects for debate, then nonsense associated with
international conspiracy theories, holocaust denials and popular
demagogues like Louis Farrakhan or Pat Robertson cannot effectively
be rooted out.

When nonsense which can be empirically falsified is presented under
a creationist guise as critical thinking, a controversy is created in
our schools where none should exist. When the empirically falsifiable
supposition  that someone was not present at a murder when his DNA is
found mixed with the blood of victims at the crime scene is not
recognized as  nonsense, murderers can go home free.  Nonsense
masquerading as truth has been with us as long as records can date.

But the increasingly  blatant nature of the nonsense uttered with
impunity in public discourse is chilling.  Our democratic society is
imperiled as much by this as any other single threat,  regardless of
whether the origins of the nonsense are religious fanaticism, simple
ignorance or personal gain.

http://www.imsc.res.in/~jayaram/Sokal/nyt730.html

It seems to me that if you read and understood the article you would have known the whole thing was prompted by the fact that Pat Robertson had, as a presidential candidate, espoused his views on "Creationism" and had not elicited a public reaction to his nonsense.

I'm left feeling puzzled.  I don't know if you simply failed to understand what you were reading or if you've deliberately distorted and misrepresented the author, perhaps as some sort of cynical joke.  Please tell me, what's going on here?  Have I gotten the whole matter wrong? Please correct me if you can.

Sincerely,

Ian E. Reid
12802 Modena Trail
Austin, Texas 78729

p.s. Many thanks for the reference to that editorial. It was new to me and much appreciated!