Intelligent Design
stcynic | January 18, 2006One of the incredible things I've noticed about the raft of pro-ID articles and columns written not by the major ID advocates but by others in the media who support ID, is the degree to which they completely ignore the substance of Judge Jones' ruling. In his ruling, Judge Jones went into excruciating detail in discussing the voluminous evidence presented at trial that established that ID is not a genuine scientific theory but rather a religious idea being dressed up in scientific-sounding language in order to avoid past court rulings. ID's defenders just seem to pretend that none of that…
stcynic | January 17, 2006Dembski himself used to post some pretty bad stuff to Uncommon Descent, but the group of acolytes he put in charge of it a couple weeks ago has rapidly proven to be way beneath him in the credibility department (and that's not easy to do). Bombadill, in particular, seems to be completely clueless when it comes to basic science, making statements that even Dembski himself must find embarrassing. To wit, this comment:
Paleoanthropological studies reveal that hominids appear suddenly, without clear direct fossil ancestors, and distinct from previous hominids...The abrupt appearance of Homo as a…
stcynic | January 15, 2006One of Dembski's acolytes posted an item at Uncommon Descent about an Indian "cosmo theorist" supporting ID. I'm not sure why he posted it, since it said nothing of substance, it just had a quote from the guy saying that evolution contains a "grave error" when it comes to human evolution, without the slightest hint at what he's talking about. The indispensible Bartholomew reports that the man they cited is not only a prominent astrologer, he was also part of a legal case in India that declared that astrology was well supported enough to be taught in schools there:
..."Cosmo Theorist" Dr. Raj…
stcynic | January 12, 2006A panel of linguists has decided the word that best reflects 2005 is "truthiness," defined as the quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.
I'm guessing these folks have been watching the Discovery Institute and their constant stream of "ID is not creationism" nonsense. This a wonderful word and I fully intend to use if often from now on.
stcynic | January 6, 2006We are forever being told by the Discovery Institute that they do not favor requiring ID to be taught in schools along with evolution. Bill Dembski doesn't appear to have gotten that memo because every time a politician comes out for that policy, he cheers them on. When President Bush came out in favor of teaching ID in public schools, Dembski said:
A lot has happened since then, with the evidence of biology now revealing a universe chock-full of design. President Bush is therefore completely on target in wanting intelligent design taught in the public school science curriculum.
Now he's…
stcynic | January 5, 2006I've just received an email with another batch of those delightful Worldview Weekend essays. Sadly, there are none by Kirk Cameron this time, but the other authors put together a strong effort to be as ridiculous as he is. This essay by Kerby Anderson, president of Probe Ministries, on the "myths about intelligent design" was good for 10 minutes of chuckles over toast and tea this morning. Let's have a little fun with this one.
First, proponents of intelligent design are not trying to smuggle religion into the classroom. While that may have been the intent of some of the Dover school board…
stcynic | January 1, 2006Casey Luskin has been writing a series of posts on the DI blog that alleges to contain "International Scientific Discoveries Since Kitzmiller Which Support ID." You can see Part 3 here, and you're gonna love it. In the entire series, there is not a single research article that actually supports ID; all Luskin does is cite scientific papers that show disputes over some particular hypothesis within the evolutionary model as proof that evolution must be wrong and hence ID must be right. This is standard issue creationist behavior. But part three takes vacuousness to an entirely new level.
There…
stcynic | December 28, 2005Okay, this is just funny. This is a statement from Pat Buchanan's latest column on ID, this one about the Dover ruling. I presume he wrote it with a straight face:
In his opinion, Judge Jones the Third declared:
The overwhelming evidence is that [intelligent design] is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism and not a scientific theory ... It is an extension of the fundamentalists' view that one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution.
But if intelligent design is creationism or fundamentalism in drag, how does…
stcynic | December 27, 2005Utah State Senator Chris Buttars has released the full text of his new bill. As expected, it's a train wreck. Throughout the last few months, he has seemed quite confused as to what exactly he wanted to argue against. First he indicated that it was the teaching of evolution itself, which he wanted to balance with "divine design". Then he narrowed it down to opposition to human evolution specifically. Finally, he indicated it was the origin of life he had a problem with. I don't think he knows yet:
What I have wanted to do all along is stop opinionated teachers from teaching human evolution as…
stcynic | December 26, 2005The recent spasms of reaction from Utat state Senator Chris Buttars in many ways echoes the entire ID movement over the last few years. If one were to describe the strategic plans of the ID movement in that time, it might well be called the Incredible Shrinking Agenda. First they wanted ID taught alongside evolution with equal time, but it became clear that wasn't going to happen. Then in 2002, in the middle of a fight over ID in Ohio, they suddenly changed to just wanting to "teach the controversy". More recently, they've been arguing for just having the "evidence for and against evolution"…
stcynic | December 23, 2005Wes Elsberry has a great response up to a statement made by William Dembski the day of the Dover ruling. Dembski said:
"This galvanizes the Christian community," said William Dembski, a leading proponent of the theory and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, a Seattle think tank that promotes intelligent design research. "People I'm talking to say we're going to be raising a whole lot more funds now."
Wes gives a compelling response from a more genuinely Christian point of view:
Well, I do think that the Christian community should be galvanized, but certainly in a way different from…
stcynic | December 22, 2005This is a guest post from Allen Macneill, an evolutionary biologist and writer. He currently teaches an introductory evolution course for non-majors at Cornell, and is writing an introductory evolution textbook, also for non-majors. HIs most recent article, "The capacity for religious experience is an evolutionary adaptation to warfare" has just been reprinted in an anthology on war and peace, published by Greenwood/Praeger.
In the post below, Macneill is replying to an article by William Dembski about the Dover ruling that appeared in Science and Theology News.
1) Dembski makes the…
jlynch | December 22, 2005Some quotes from Ricky Santorum:
"Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." - 2002 Washington Times op-ed article
"I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." - Interview in August 2005 on National Public Radio
"I do not believe it should be required teaching." "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did." - Interview yesterday with The Philadelphia Inquirer
Inquirer interview is here. Santorum has…
jlynch | December 22, 2005Over at Positive Liberty, Tim Sandefur has a good piece on "judicial activism" that takes on the claim that Jones' decision was an example of same. As Tim - who also blogs with the Panda's Thumb - notes:
With this in mind, check out this post at Southern Appeal, which accuses Judge Jones of activism in the Kitzmiller decision. "Judge Jones does not understand who is suppose to [sic] be an activist in our constitutional system," writes Verity. "A School Board is suppose to [sic] 'act' and make policy and curriculum decisions. And if those decisions are ill-informed, then, as happened here,…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Over at The Nation, Katrina Vanden Heuval says something that I've been saying for years. Regarding the Dover decision, she says
This is obviously a victory for science. What is less obvious is that it is also a victory for faith.
The most pernicious aspect of the ID movement is its commingling of science and faith, its attempt to use science and mathematics to prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Not only does this undermine science, it undermines faith, which by its very definition is "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." If ID scientists were…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Things must really be unraveling for the ID supporters. First, as Dave Thomas notes, Jonathan Witt admits that the identity of the designer is a matter of religion (look mom! no space aliens!):
[I]n fact ID appeals to positive evidence for design and merely detects design, leaving the question of the designer's identity to religion.
Yikes!
Then, Richard Thompson - lead defense lawyer in KvD and founder of the Thomas More Law Center - had this to say on PBS Newshour:
Secondly, this idea that creationism is an old concept that the courts have already decided on flies in the face of the…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Over at Dembski's blog, the poor saps are trying desperately to get some joy out of the Dover decision. Witness "DaveScott":
The next trial needs be carefully crafted by OUR side so that ...
2) The expert witnesses on our side should be industrial design engineers not biologists. What are biologists doing testifying about design? I never understood that. Biology is a cross between pipetteing and stamp collecting. Biologists wouldn't recognize digitally programmed factory automation if it bit them on the ankle. But the trial isn't about science. ID doesn't need to be science. It needs to…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Dembski chimes in with:
[T]he actual ruling is not a Waterloo for the intelligent design side. Certainly it will put a damper on school boards interested in promoting intelligent design. But this is not a Supreme Court decision. Nor is it likely this decision will be appealed since the Dover school board that caused all the trouble was voted out and replaced this November. Thus we can expect agitation for ID and against evolution to continue. School boards and state legislators may tread more cautiously, but tread on evolution they will -- the culture war demands it! ...
Judge Jones's…
stcynic | December 19, 2005Some scientists from this blog attended the annual meeting of the American Society of Cell Biology recently and came across a poster by none other than Jonathan Wells of the Discovery Institute. For those who have not attended a scientific conference, a poster is a sort of second-level way of presenting one's research to colleagues at a conference. Most conferences will have addresses from members on various subjects, roundtable discussions in smaller groups, workgroups on professional issues, and a keynote symposium.
In addition, there will be a large hall set aside at some point in the…
stcynic | December 15, 2005Daniel Morgan has written a very thorough review of the entire Richard Sternberg situation and it's well worth reading. Sternberg, you may recall, was the editor of a journal who went outside the normal peer review process to insure that a very badly written paper by DI fellow Stephen Meyer would get published. Morgan debunks the whole Sternberg-as-martyr myth that has grown up around it. There is one bit of information, though, that I'm not certain is true. He writes:
Sternberg admitting on O'Reilly that Todd Wodd, of Bryan College, of the Baraminology Study Group, as in Young Earth…