.jpg)
On it's Vimeo page, the American Freedom Alliance bills itself as a non-political, non partisan, movement of concerned Americans which identifies threats to western civilization. Currently, one of the threats to western civilization they are most concerned with is the cancellation of a screening of Darwin's Dilemma, an anti-evolution documentary, by Los Angeles's California Science Center.According to it's press release, the AFA has filed a lawsuit against them alleging that CSC officials conspired to drop the event because they did not want the museum to be viewed as legitimizing intelligent design as a scientific theory. "It alleges that the CEO/President, Jeffrey Randolph, was pressured to cancel the event by colleagues at the Smithsonian Institution, the University of Southern California, the Huntington Library and elsewhere. The complaint further alleges that because the CSC is a state agency, it violated AFA's First Amendment right of free speech by attempting to suppress legitimate discussion of the controversial topic." Timed to coincide with 150th anniversary of the publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, the screening was part of a series of events promoted by the AFA that were critical of his theory of evolution. Darwin's Dilemma was to be shown in conjunction with We are Born of Stars, a film that favors the current scientific consensus that evolution occurs through natural selection, as Darwin proposed.
Here, again from its Vimeo page, are the other threats to western civilization that the AFA concerns itself with:
- The Islamic penetration of Europe
- The collapse of academic freedom
- The identification and sources of media bias
- The growth of radical environmentalism
- The necessity for missile defense
- The dangers presented by the global governance movement
The announcement of the screening of Darwin's Dilemma at the CSC brought immediate protests from the scientific and academic communities. A common complaint is illustrated by an email from Hilary Schor, a USC professor of English, comparative literature and gender studies, revealed in an L.A. Times story: "I'm less troubled by the freedom of speech issues than why my tax dollars which support the California 'Science' Center are being spent on hosting religious propaganda." In the same L.A. Times story though, Anthropologist Eugenie Scott who serves as executive director of the National Center for Science Education, a group that clashes with the intelligent design movement over what should be taught in school, expressed a different viewpoint. She urged "NOT asking the museum to cancel the showing of the movie. Really -- the story that 'big science is trying to squelch controversy . . . ' is going to be a bigger story and draw more attention to the movie's showing than the showing itself."
The California Science Center has stated that the reason it canceled the screening was contract-related and that the AFA had violated its rental agreement by not submitting all promotional materials for outside users' events before making them public, as required.The AFA is seeking compensation for financial losses and punitive damages, as well as a declaration by the court that the CSC violated its constitutional right to freedom of speech. The suit was filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on October 14. On the same day, Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant denied the AFA's initial request that he order the science center to permit the Oct. 25 screening. A pretrial hearing on the damages portion of the suit is scheduled for January 26.
On December 1, the Discovery Institute, another group that promotes intelligent design theory, filed its own separate suit that alleges the CSC withheld documents and e-mails pertaining to the film's cancellation it requested under the California Public Records Act.
Photo Credit:
1) 19th century cartoon of Darwin as an ape
2) Blending of old and new. The older rear facade incorporated into the new California Science Center at Exposition Park in Los Angeles (CSC photo)
Feel free to link to this page.
If you like my articles, you can click on "Subscribe by email" to receive notice when new ones are posted.
You might also enjoy these:
Comments
I guess you have permission to use the photo?
According to my Ouija Board, Darwin objects to my using a picture of him with the body of an ape but I haven't heard a peep from the CSC yet.
Don't let them get their books into libraries! Don't let them show their movies! Their "religious" claims are too dangerous!!! AAAAAHHHH!!!!!
C'mon Hugh, why can't you see past the spin? I triple-dog-dare you to actually read "Signature in the Cell" (unlike every other anti-ID amazon.com "reviewer"!) and tell me that it's "religious" and "non-scientific" "propaganda".
Reasoned greetings, ;)
JMS
Well JM, I'm still looking through my article trying to find where I advocated either for or against showing this movie. I'm also trying to figure out why I need to read the book you suggested when I've got you to tell me if it says anything that isn't already covered in Wikipedia's entry on Intelligent Design. Well, does it?
C'mon Hugh, your entire tenor in the article (combined with your previous articles on ID) makes it pretty clear that you applaud the barring of this film from the CAC (If I'm wrong, I stand corrected).
If you're going to be a vocal opponent of ID, the Discovery Institute, or other ID proponents, don't you think you owe it to your readers to study a little more than a wiki article?? I mean, if I were going to write against the Neo-Darwinian/New Synthesis worldview, I wouldn't get my facts from wiki, Answers in Genesis, or any other online sources primarily. I'd read people like Dawkins, Gould or Mayr for myself (which, in fact, I have). No one's bothered to do the same for Meyer thus far.
Seems to be one of the consequences of living in the information age. People have such easy access to so much, yet they settle for the lowest common denominator (or wiki-ominator!) and assume that's all there is to it.
Ad fontes!
BTW, I appreciated Eugenie Scott's candidness in her quote. I think she's absolutely right. Nothing fuels the ID movement like the anti-ID fervor displayed by their opponents. It's what fascinates me about the whole debate more than anything else in all honesty.
Oh and I just noticed you were #1 today again, Hugh. Congrats man! Even though we disagree on the most fundamental questions of human existence I'm always glad to see you doing well!
Thanks, James-Michael. I wish I knew who was picking up the links to my stories. It would help to know what interests people.
As far as Wikipedia goes, I do read more than that but, in their defense, they're accurate because their articles are policed by the readership. When readers spot errors, they correct them. I've done it myself occasionally. If the subject is a popular one, as ID is, mistakes are caught very quickly and new information gets added almost the instant it's available. I think it keeps me very well informed.
I'll offer you an alternate challenge. It'll be easier too; no book-reading is involved. All you have to do is watch a television program. NOVA is currently showing a documentary called "What Darwin Didn't Know". Watch it.
I have one special request though. While you're watching the biologists, paleontologists, physicians, etc., uncover answers to questions Darwin could't address or...
(continued in next post)
(continued) ...or, in some cases, didn't have enough information to even frame, keep asking yourself this: What is there in intelligent design theory that would lead scientists into these areas of exploration? What in ID theory leads to questions about the role genes play in the great diversity of life on this planet?
Then you come back and tell me, not the answers, but what those questions are.
Hello, Hugh.
Well, it appears you reported the truth. However, i canstill see you spinning it. No problem. You beleive it. That is why you write it.
I wrote on the very same topic. In my view, I see AFA truely trying to present both sides. I also think AFA is pro-ID.
Your question to James Michael, the answer is obvious. I also tend to agree with the idea of evolving. Only, I do not believe in primortal goo. God Said He created man from the dust of the earth. All living things continue that same cycle of from the Earth, return to the Earth.
I do not know enough about biology to attempt breaking down cells. However, scientist are continuing to discover motors and slide locks and even things that are described as wheels. Mechanisms!
How did cells become mechanized?
All of these sub micron machines! It just blows the mind to think those basic cell structures created more complex cell structures that programed themselves to build more complex cell groups.
This isn't a "Freedom of Speech" issue. If they want to present the video as part of their free speech, they can, but nothing about the First Amendment requires the museum to be the channel through which that free speech is presented. They just want the museum to show their movie because they believe it would legitimize the presentation.
ID still lacks a testable hypothesis (so is still unscientific). How do you test if a God, that hasn't been proven to exist, designed life in any way. Worse yet, since they avoid saying that God did it to try to avoid the religious connotation, how do they prove that some unknown entity created life on this world (and how did they come into existence?)
Late to the discussion but ... ID is not science. It has no place being shown in a science center. It's clear that that AFA deliberately tried to bamboozle its way to be shown by conveniently forgetting to send descriptive information to the museum. No rights were violated here - that's equally as ridiculous a claim as ID is to start with. (And yes, indeed, I HAVE read both sides. The irrationality presented as ID wouldn't satisfy kindergarten science rules.)
Clearly, professor Hilary Schor of USC has never seen the documentary "Darwin's Dilemma." Only ignorance of what is actually in the film could inform her claim that it's "religious propaganda."
"Hello Hugh. Well, it appears you reported the truth."
You seem surprised, Richmond.
:^)
To those who think the film shouldn't be shown, please think carefully through the implications of what you're advocating:
www.evolutionnews.org/2009/12/why_the_california_science_cen.html
Steve-n-SA, the inference to most probable cause is a good place to start...especially when one finds the presence of a working numeric code in a system (which is a positive evidence claim, not an appeal to ignorance or god-of-the-gaps, as many erroneously claim). If such a level of code was found in ANY other system it would IMMEDIATELY be recognized that an intelligent cause is a viable hypothesis for scientific investigation
Ah, JMS, you really want this to be true don't you? Humans naturally seek patterns in everything. So much so that they'll make up patterns where they really aren't any.
The whole premise of Intelligent design is that there is an intelligent designer. Where is that evidence?
Steve,
"seeing a pattern" in an unorganized random system is not even remotely close to finding a working code that stores and transmits genetic information in much the same way a designed computer program does. There is NOTHING in the known universe capable of generating such an information system except intelligence. Therefore, when one finds *actual information systems* like this in the biological world, it is absolutely scientifically acceptable to propose that intelligence is involved...whether through Crick's "directed panspermia" or any other notion of a designer/s is irrelevant. The working code is there. Unintelligent causation bears the burden of proof if anything. Yet ID is dismissed by those clinging to the Neo-Darwinian paradigm religously (pun intended).
Seeing DNA as program code IS looking for a pattern. But it hasn't been shown to truly be programming code. In fact, if you have read "Only a Theory" you've read that many species have the ability to produce vitamin C internally; not needing to eat citrus fruits to get it. unfortunately certain primates don't have that capability because of an error in their genes passed down by their common ancestor (one of OUR ancestors) Isn't that something that a "programmer" would correct in later releases? if they were foolish enough to make the error in the first place? DNA may seem complex when you look at it, but it's been mostly passed on through the generations from parent to child, occasionally with mutations; some good, and some bad. Thus DNA is proof of evolution, not Intelligent Design.
"Isn't that something that a "programmer" would correct in later releases? if they were foolish enough to make the error in the first place? DNA may seem complex when you look at it, but it's been mostly passed on through the generations from parent to child, occasionally with mutations; some good, and some bad. Thus DNA is proof of evolution, not Intelligent Design."
Steve, you're pulling a bait-and-switch here I'm afraid. Arguing that broken or poor design is proof that there is no design in the first place is logically unsound. If I come across a program that runs poorly or transmits some corrupt information along with volumes of useful information, what possible rationale could I have for dismissing a programmer (regardless of his/her/it's identity) simply because the program didn't run to my satisfaction? No one would do this in ANY area of science except biology. Now why is that? Because it goes against Neo-Darwinian naturalistic dogma.
So much for objectivity.
But you'll gladly take the ID "program" bait and switch I see. Showing that bad as well as good mutations are passed on to descendant species is not a bait and switch, it's part of evolution.
Of course it's a part of evolution. Evolution is not in doubt. UNINTELLIGENT origins of evolution are what is in doubt. Yet any doubt is treated as heresy by the Neo-Darwinian camp; thus the smear campaigns and fear rhetoric on their part by anyone like Meyer who brings legitimate evidence to the contrary to the table.
"Evolution is not in doubt. UNINTELLIGENT origins of evolution are what is in doubt."
Interesting, JMS. Does this also mean that you think, aside from how it got started, that evolution was/is a natural, rather than guided process? That the 2 million+ currently living species were not created in their current forms?
Hugh, that is actually Behe's very view of evolutionary development. I believe evolution drives much of life's biodiversity with no overt divine action (other than the underlying theological notion of God as the sovereign sustainer of all creation, which every Theist holds). But observed evolutionary development (i.e. viruses, animal breeding, pesticide resistance, etc.) cannot simply be extrapolated to account for all of life's biodiversity from one original single-cell organism (whose origin is another issue, as you noted) without becoming implausible. Behe developed this in his latest book "The Edge of Evolution", implying that something more than the current Neo-Darwinian mechanism is needed in order to account for the fullness of biological diversity. (Most ID opponents remain unaware of, or choose not to engage, this work. Instead they dismiss "Darwin's Black Box" and rely on the Dover decision to form their view...ignoring current ID proposals and claims).
The intelligent design origins are also in doubt. Despite your assertions that Meyer brings legitimate evidence to the table, no scientific evidence has been.
That's the problem ID is always going to face, most of it's assertions can never be tested scientifically because the key concept of it, the intelligent designer, can never be scientifically tested.
To be honest, despite the attempts to hide the religiousness of ID behind scientific wording, ID belongs to the realm of religion, not science. There, at least, you can have faith that it's true all you want.
Steve-n-SA: "Despite your (JM's) assertions that Meyer brings legitimate evidence to the table, no scientific evidence has been."
It's no mere assertion to say that legitimate evidence for ID has been brought "to the table." Anyone (like me) who has read Meyer's book ("Signature in the Cell") will be acquainted with the considerable evidence he adduces for intelligent design. JM has probably read the book? Have you, Steve? If not, why should we find your argument from ignorance persuasive?
Steve-n-SA: "Despite your (JM's) assertions that Meyer brings legitimate evidence to the table, no scientific evidence has been."
It's no mere assertion to say that legitimate evidence for ID has been brought "to the table." Anyone (like me) who has read Meyer's book ("Signature in the Cell") will be acquainted with the considerable evidence he adduces for intelligent design. JM has probably read the book? Have you, Steve? If not, why should we find your argument from ignorance persuasive?
Steve-n-SA: "Despite your (JM's) assertions that Meyer brings legitimate evidence to the table, no scientific evidence has been."
It's no mere assertion to say that legitimate evidence for ID has been brought "to the table." Anyone (like me) who has read Meyer's book ("Signature in the Cell") will be acquainted with the considerable evidence he adduces for intelligent design. JM has probably read the book? Have you, Steve? If not, why should we find your argument from ignorance persuasive?
Jim, do you have an advanced education in any of the biological sciences? I don't know about Steve-n-SA, but I don't. And if Steve doesn't either, it's silly to tell us to read that book. I (we) simply do not have the background to evaluate it. You do, I suppose? Well, layman that I am, there are other good options open to me. I can consult the evaluations of experts like Prof. PZ Myers who specializes in evo-devo biology and whose PhD is actually IN biology rather than, say, the history and philosophy of science. I went to a lecture of his about ID in October ...and several other scientists' lectures that covered it in part or whole as well. Do you want to know what the evaluations of people truly qualified to critique Stephen Meyer's (and the rest of the ID crowd's) work is? PZ's talk is representitive. Here it is: www. youtube. com/watch? v=ba2h9tqNYAo (remove the spaces to use the address).
PZ Myers has no credibility with me, Hugh. The adolescent, insulting way he writes for his odious blog Pharyngula gives no one who is not a member of his adoring choir any reason to trust him. So I don't. I've also learned from reading his blog that when he comments on ID, he almost invariably gets it wrong. With regard to ID, the man is either mendacious or ignorant (or both).
One doesn't need to be a scientist to assess the merits of the argument for design that Meyers makes in "Signature in the Cell." I recommend that people who want to acquaint themselves with the evidence for design in the biosphere do their own thinking rather than letting the likes of such fanatics for Darwinian theory as PZ Myers do their thinking for them. No one can get an education in ID by reading ill-informed criticisms of it. A person with intellectual integrity who wants to learn about ID will read some of the design literature. Meyers' book would be a good place to start.
Oops. It's Stephen C. Meyer, not Meyers.
Hello Jim. Don't like the message, attack the messenger, eh? Well, you're right about one thing; you don't need a science background to do that. You also don't need a science background to think that the argument from incredulity is a good one either... or that the circular logic of ID proponents (ie: 1: things that are really, really complex have to be created by design. 2: living things are really, really complex. 3: Therefore living things were created by design) and a theory that begs the question it's supposed to answer (read 1, 2 and 3 again) are good ideas too. And while we're at it, let's conveniently forget that I mentioned PZ's talk was representitive of what the other scientists had to say about ID as well. They're probably "mendacious or ignorant (or both)" too.
Ah well, who needs critical thinking skills to have "intellectual integrity" anyway?
No, I didn't read the book, though I do understand the implications he's making, I've heard it before. No, I'm not a biologist, but I am a programmer. There is no way Meyer can prove DNA is a program unless he can decode and document the "program" and verify that knowledge by writing the "program" for another life form, comparing the results. Another option would be to present the programmer or scientific evidence to prove the existence of the programmer.
The problem with the ID movement is that they keep dancing around the subject of their thesis. In part to avoid the appearance that it is about religion not science. But I've come to a realization that it's meant to "beg the question" of who that designer/programmer is.
This isn't a new tactic by any means, in fact it's similar to Thomas Aquinas' tactic in his "5 proofs". Say someone had to start it, someone had to design it, someone had to program it, then imply only "God" could have done it. continued...
continued.
In this case, they've refined the argument. They use a scientific sounding argument that people like you take as science, they avoid the actual scientific process, making just enough of an effort to make it look like they're following it. They make arguments that "beg the question" of who their "intelligent designer" is, and let the religiously indoctrinated come to their own conclusions.
They want to get it to the children who are newly indoctrinated before they can realize otherwise. They want to get it in the science classes because they feel it will add credibility to the argument that the 5 proofs and Kalam's Cosmological argument never had. And as JMS has shown, at least some of the ID proponents have abandoned the fight against evolution. This to me means their priority is to get the propaganda into the classroom first.
Steve (and Hugh),
The difference between us seems to lie in the fact that I will actually read and research carefully the position against which I am arguing from its own sources (rather than diatribes by critics or wiki articles). You two (and many others among the Neo-Darwinian faithful) seem willing to do anything BUT carefully and honestly listen to the actual questions ID proponents are asking. Your summaries of what ID claims are woefully incomplete and betray a familiarity with only those sources who oppose ID a priori.
This is, ironically, as common among "free thinkers" and "brights" as it is among their fundamentalist Creationist counterparts who set up evolutionary strawmen to knock down and dismiss mockingly.
Be better than this. You owe it to yourselves and those who read your work.
The thing that strikes me about your latest posting on ID, Steve, is that virtually nothing you've said reflects the actual thinking (or the actual arguments) of ID theorists. The same is true of Hugh's latest posting (or of any of his postings). This is what I've come to expect from ID critics: with few (if any)exceptions, they simply attack gross caricatures of ID - straw men they've constructed from their fevered imaginations - rather than engaging the arguments of ID theorists in their strongest forms. When I read the writings of ID critics, what I see them repeatedly doing is echoing and re-echoing one another's misrepresentations of ID.
By the way, the intelligent designer is not "the key concept" of ID, as you earlier asserted. Specified complexity is the key concept of ID; the designer is simply a theoretical entity whose existence is implied by ID theory, although the evidence (ID theorists argue) fails to provide an inferential trail leading to the identity of the designer
The thing that strikes me about your latest posting on ID, Steve, is that virtually nothing you've said reflects the actual thinking (or the actual arguments) of ID theorists. The same is true of Hugh's latest posting (or of any of his postings). This is what I've come to expect from ID critics: with few (if any)exceptions, they simply attack gross caricatures of ID - straw men they've constructed from their fevered imaginations - rather than engaging the arguments of ID theorists in their strongest forms. When I read the writings of ID critics, what I see them repeatedly doing is echoing and re-echoing one another's misrepresentations of ID.
By the way, the intelligent designer is not "the key concept" of ID, as you earlier asserted. Specified complexity is the key concept of ID; the designer is simply a theoretical entity whose existence is implied by ID theory, although the evidence (ID theorists argue) fails to provide an inferential trail leading to the identity of the designer
The thing that strikes me about your latest posting on ID, Steve, is that virtually nothing you've said reflects the actual thinking (or the actual arguments) of ID theorists. The same is true of Hugh's latest posting (or of any of his postings). This is what I've come to expect from ID critics: with few (if any)exceptions, they simply attack gross caricatures of ID - straw men they've constructed from their fevered imaginations - rather than engaging the arguments of ID theorists in their strongest forms. When I read the writings of ID critics, what I see them repeatedly doing is echoing and re-echoing one another's misrepresentations of ID.
By the way, the intelligent designer is not "the key concept" of ID, as you earlier asserted. Specified complexity is the key concept of ID; the designer is simply a theoretical entity whose existence is implied by ID theory, although the evidence (ID theorists argue) fails to provide an inferential trail leading to the identity of the designer
I'm sorry, but reviews of the book are obviously mixed. Most ID proponents like yourselves love the book, it says what they want it to say; but most reviewers with an honest understanding of the scientific process, including one ID proponent (Darrel Falk - The BioLogos foundation, he liked it from a religious/philosophical standpoint, but said it failed as science) state that it is unscientific.
That said, I won't waste my time with it. Just because you two liked it, doesn't make it a must read, and just because you two accept his "evidence" doesn't make it valid evidence.
When ID proponents actually come up with a valid scientific theory, one that's successfully navigated the scientific process (including peer review outside of the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis), then I'll read it.
And finally, if you can't prove the existence of an intelligent designer, then you can't prove intelligent design. Each possible IDer has it's own issues.
The thing that strikes me about your latest posting on ID, Steve, is that virtually nothing you've said reflects the actual thinking (or the actual arguments) of ID theorists. The same is true of Hugh's latest posting (or of any of his postings). This is what I've come to expect from ID critics: with few (if any)exceptions, they simply attack gross caricatures of ID - straw men they've constructed from their fevered imaginations - rather than engaging the arguments of ID theorists in their strongest forms. When I read the writings of ID critics, what I see them repeatedly doing is echoing and re-echoing one another's misrepresentations of ID.
By the way, the intelligent designer is not "the key concept" of ID, as you earlier asserted. Specified complexity is the key concept of ID; the designer is simply a theoretical entity whose existence is implied by ID theory, although the evidence (ID theorists argue) fails to provide an inferential trail leading to the identity of the designer
OK. Your mind is closed, Steve. I thought as much.
Steve: "... if you can't prove the existence of an intelligent designer, then you can't prove intelligent design."
Science never proves any of its theories, Steve. It's too heavily reliant on inductive reasoning to deliver actual proofs. At best, science delivers inferences to the best explanations. The science of intelligent design argues that intelligence is the best explanation for many complex biological structures, processes, systems, etc.
In any event, it's never necessary to know the identity of the designer to infer design. Indeed, it makes no sense to even ask if there was a designer until design is first apprehended. ID theory is about design, not the designer, although many poorly informed critics think it's about the latter.
Also, I doubt you'll find any favorable reviews of ID over at Answers in Genesis. Many - perhaps even most - creationists are either lukewarm towards or actually oppose ID due to its lack of commitment to the Genesis account of creation.
Are you guys seeing some of my comments appearing here more than once? When I scan the comments, I see some of mine appearing two or more times, although I send each one only once.
A question, Steve: What is the significance of describing ID as "unscientific"? What we want to know about any theory is not whether it satisfies some arbitrary definition of "scientific," but whether it's true (or at least, likely to be true). The penchant of ID foes to describe it as "unscientific" is no doubt risible to philosophers of science, that is to say, to the experts, who - after thousands of years of trying - have pretty much abandoned efforts to establish criteria that clearly demark science from non-science. As philosopher of science Larry Laudan put it: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudoscience' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow
phrases which do only emotive work for us." I think that by saying that ID is "unscientific," opponents of ID hope to banish it from the arena of ideas by definition. That's a strategy of those who don't have much confidence in the merits of own ideas.
You're right, I shouldn't have used the word "prove", it's a bad habit. but without a designer, if scientists ever did get the proper scientific evidence to show what they are currently trying to show, it would only be evidence that intelligent design could be possible, not that it did happen.
As to my mind being closed, it's closed to unscientific ideas being claimed as scientific. But I notice you and JMS's minds are closed to the scientific process, at least when it doesn't fit your needs.
"A question, Steve: What is the significance of describing ID as "unscientific"? What we want to know about any theory is not whether it satisfies some arbitrary definition of "scientific""
ID proponents are pushing to get ID in school SCIENCE classrooms and libraries. I don't know about you, but I want these kids to be taught science in their science classrooms, and books in the library should be classified by what they are (science or religion).
But to be properly considered a scientific theory, this information needs to go through the process that ensures that science be done correctly, that other scientists can verify the evidence and the conclusions are valid, and corrections are made when new evidence is found. Evolution went through this 150 years ago and is still subject to peer review, though the only changes being made anymore are peripheral, as it's as strong a theory as gravity. ID is not even a theory; but, so far, a failed hypothesis.
A question, Steve: What is the significance of describing ID as "unscientific"? What we want to know about any theory is not whether it satisfies some arbitrary definition of "scientific," but whether it's true (or at least, likely to be true). The penchant of ID foes to describe it as "unscientific" is no doubt risible to philosophers of science, that is to say, to the experts, who - after thousands of years of trying - have pretty much abandoned efforts to establish criteria that clearly demark science from non-science. As philosopher of science Larry Laudan put it: "If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like 'pseudoscience' and 'unscientific' from our vocabulary; they are just hollow
phrases which do only emotive work for us." I think that by saying that ID is "unscientific," opponents of ID hope to banish it from the arena of ideas by definition. That's a strategy of those who don't have much confidence in the merits of own ideas.
What have I said, Steve, that shows to you that my mind is "closed to the scientific process"? Being unconvinced (as I am) by the Darwinian explanation of life's complexities doesn't amount to rejecting the scientific method.
By the way, if you were to actually read some of the design literature, you'd find that intelligent design satisfies any reasonable understanding of what is meant by "scientific." Judge Jones was wrong.
Jim,
It's nice to have another voice of reason calling out the continued appeal to anti-ID strawman arguments. Steve's not likely to change his mind, but perhaps readers who value knowledge over rhetoric may be persuaded. Like you I am continually awed by the lack of even a basic understanding of ID's actual claims by its opponents.
What have I said, Steve, that shows to you that my mind is "closed to the scientific process"? Being unconvinced (as I am) by the Darwinian explanation of life's complexities doesn't amount to rejecting the scientific method.
By the way, if you were to actually read some of the design literature, you'd find that intelligent design satisfies any reasonable understanding of what is meant by "scientific." Judge Jones was wrong.
Steve: "ID proponents are pushing to get ID in school SCIENCE classrooms and libraries."
There's no reason why ID literature should be banned from school libraries. Such viewpoint discrimination/censorship would be entirely contrary to the American conception of liberty.
With regard to teaching ID in science classrooms, it is the position of Discovery Institute (the institutional home of intelligent design) that teaching ID should not be mandated. DI has no problem, however, with teachers voluntarily introducing their students to ID concepts if they choose to do so and if they are otherwise in compliance with the requirements of their schools' curricula. (You can find DI's education policy on DI's website.) In short, the most prominent ID proponents are NOT "pushing to get ID in school SCIENCE classrooms." Discovery Institute opposed the ID policy of the Dover School Board that precipitated the Kitzmiller trial.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!