It used to be considered an ethical obligation of good scholarship to do a thorough literature search before writing a book or scientific paper, and to reference sources with opposing or supportive ideas. When it comes to topics related to origins, however, ignorance is bliss.
Among phobias and anxieties, you may have heard of FOMO, the Fear of Missing Out, or FOFO, the Fear of Finding Out. A new acronym I just coined is FOVO: the Fear of Validating Outsiders. When one’s opposition concerns origins, FOVO is considered almost a qualification for many scientists these days. There must be no hint of agreement with any ideas emanating from the intelligent design heretics! This is highly unfortunate, because it cuts off bountiful streams of information that could raise the scholarship in their scientific writings and journal book reviews. Ignore-ance of these sources increases ignorance: that is, deficient knowledge of the scope of the subject matter being discussed.
“A Masterpiece of Design”?
FOVO causes academics to repeat debunked notions. A case in point is Lucy Hyde’s article at The Conversation titled, “The human body isn’t a masterpiece of design — it’s a patchwork of evolutionary compromise.”
The human body is often described as a marvel of “perfect design”: elegant, efficient and finely tuned for its purpose. Yet, when we look closer, a rather different picture emerges.
Far from being a flawless machine, the body reads more like a patchwork of compromises shaped by millions of years of evolutionary tinkering. Evolution does not design structures from scratch. Rather, it modifies what already exists.
As a result, many aspects of human anatomy are just “good enough” solutions — functional, but far from perfect. Some of the most familiar medical problems and ailments arise directly from these inherited constraints.
This lecturer on anatomy at the University of Bristol knows that there are claims of good design out there. She could have done a simple literature search on the subject to find the best arguments for it. Or she could have stopped by the Faculty Club lunchroom. She ignored the work of Dr. Stuart Burgess — an award-winning biomimetics engineer at the very same university! — whose recent book Ultimate Engineering trounces every one of Hyde’s alleged examples of poor design as well as the evolutionary logic behind it. She could have also availed herself of the information in Your Designed Body, by Steve Laufmann and Dr. Howard Glicksman. This book and their more recent title, Your Amazing Body, and their videos, leave no room for claiming bad design in the human anatomy.
Instead, she (and her publisher, The Conversation, where never a Darwin skeptic could survive the FOVO-afflicted editors), rehashes the Zombie Science1 of dead evolutionary icons. This represents woeful scientific practice.2
Coincidences that Make Our Planet Habitable
Or consider Harvard geobiologist Andrew Knoll’s latest book, Earth and Life (Princeton University Press, 2026), reviewed by Rasoul Sorkhabi in Science. “All Earth systems are in constant interaction; one cannot exist without the others,” the review he titles “The delicate dance of earth and life,” begins. “Earth and life thus constitute an integrated complex system on a planetary scale,” he continues, launching into the many coincidences that make our planet habitable.
The last two chapters of the book extend the geobiological conversation to Mars, Venus, and the icy moons of Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus and Titan (Saturn). Here, Knoll notes that there is currently no evidence of microbial life on any of these Solar System family members. “Only on Earth,” writes Knoll, “has the conversation between life and its physical home transformed both through time.”
Sound familiar? Michael Denton has written extensively on this very topic. I do not know if Knoll is aware of Denton, but a thorough literature search worthy of a Harvard scholar should have turned up those sources. From the review, Knoll only mentions fellow evolutionists and their beliefs. This ignore-ance diminishes the factual content of Knoll’s thesis and leaves his readers impoverished of key facts about the exceptional planet we live on.
Ironically, both author and reviewer appreciate that we live on a Privileged Planet! Discussing the book’s significance, Sorkhabi ends the review,
…the book highlights Earth’s precious and privileged place as a living planet and debunks the notion that we can easily colonize Mars — a planet devoid not only of life-supporting plate tectonics, water, and other geochemical cycles but also a protective magnetic field and a strong gravitational field. By focusing on the geological evolution of biogeochemical cycles, Earth and Life presents a geoscience that is both vivid and vital for today’s conversations about humanity’s relationship with Earth.
Would the editors of Science have allowed Sorkhabi or Knoll to mention Denton, Gonzalez, or Richards as sources? Unlikely. Insiders, if they want to stay insiders, must not draw attention to intelligent design. But what’s the harm? If non-materialists have worthwhile knowledge that might contribute to Knoll’s theme, they should not be considered taboo.
Unwelcome Views
The efforts by Dr. James Tour at Rice University to engage fellow scientists on the origin of life is another prime example of FOVO. Out of ten leading researchers on the origin of life that Dr. Tour challenged in 2023, all but one of them ignored him. Only Lee Cronin responded, allowing Tour to give a presentation at a Harvard gathering with Cronin. Günter Bechly, Brian Miller, and Casey Luskin wrote about that interchange. Did anyone on Cronin’s side read those responses?
James Tour has published extensively in journals and has gained patents on phenomenal inventions that can help people and our planet. When it comes to his knowledge of origin of life research, however, his views are unwelcome. Unable to get his responses past the gatekeepers at the FOVO-afflicted journals, this leading chemist — expertly aware of the daunting challenges of chemical evolution — has taken advantage of social media.
Avoiding the Deplorable Word
A more subtle version of FOVO is avoidance of the term “intelligent design” even when it would be appropriate. For instance, a press release from Texas A&M University mentions “design” 15 times while discussing its lab that teaches students about biomimicry. “Engineering the future using nature’s design” is the title. Notice how that title presupposes intelligent design.
“This class is focused on teaching students how to not necessarily start with a blank sheet of paper, but to look at nature and see how it has optimized or influenced some aspect of medical design,” he said. “We can make an exact copy of nature, or emulate it, or just be inspired by it.”
You are free to mention design alone, or nature’s intelligent solutions alone, but never may the two words “intelligent” and “design” be juxtaposed in the literature.
FOVO’s Harm to Science
One should always battle the goliaths of the opposition, not its straw men. That’s what Denton, Burgess, Glicksman, Laufmann, Meyer, and all the other ID supporters do in their work. Pick up any one of the books by these scholars and you will find voluminous quotes by leading evolutionists and mentions of their writings in the bibliographies and references.
The Darwinist camp refuses to return the favor. Their champions are afraid of even acknowledging the existence of opposition, fearing that the mere mention of individuals, papers, speeches, podcasts, and books by ID supporters might (gasp!) lead people to take a look at them. What if that led more scientists to follow in the footsteps of Günter Bechly? Horrors! The FOVO folks essentially operate in a parallel universe, where only one side is visible to the other through one-way glass.
Ignore-ance is a symptom of weakness. If the arguments for materialistic evolution were so strong, the FOVO crowd would have nothing to fear. They would cite the best arguments by Burgess, Denton, et al.. and try to refute them. They could engage in debates, discussions, and panels freely, confident that the evidence would support their views and win the day. They would cite and answer their best opponents in their books and papers instead of pretending they don’t exist.
Fortunately, not everyone is afflicted with FOVO, and stimulating engagements can be found here or there. I welcome more interactions between the best and brightest on both sides.
Notes
- Notice that her article’s banner reproduces the “march of man” graphic that was debunked by Dr. Jonathan Wells in Icons of Evolution 26 years ago. The zombies rise again.
- One might object that The Conversation does mention “intelligent design” in the article. Yes, but only to link to another of their earlier articles by Darwinian evolutionist Richard A. Watson who ascribes intelligence to evolution! His piece about the “evolution of evolvability” is hardly enough to steelman the opposition.