Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin lobby and the US election: Further adventures in just not getting it

arroba Email

From Ann Reid, Executive Director, National Center for Science Education, at Huffington Post:

Dear NCSE members and friends of science,

I’m writing in a profound state of shock, as I’m sure you’ll understand. You are no doubt in the same state. For the National Center for Science Education, of course, the election of someone who thinks climate change is a hoax and whose running mate once denounced evolution from the floor of the House of Representatives, is frightening and deeply depressing.

Okay. Next time, try reading something other than your own media releases or dying mainstream media about what is going on around you.

Note: In another context, one might have told Reid to read mainstream media. But on these issues they may as well be her own media releases. A hand-in-glove relationship with them can blind her as much as it blinded them. Now she tells us:

But we can only make the case for science if we’re not condescending. We can’t make our case if we send a signal that people who reject evolution and climate change are ignorant and stupid. That’s a stance that just further alienates people. More.


See also: Nature: Scientists “stunned” by Trump win Why? Doesn’t that speak poorly of the powers of the scientific method?


So we wrote back:

Dear Ann Reid:

If you have only just discovered the fact that arrogance is not a winning stance, you will be spending some time in the wilderness. You won’t be alone, of course. CBS and the New York Times can obsolesce alongside you.

The fundamental problem is that everyone knows what you really think of the public or there would never have been any occasion to write the words you just did.

One of two things will prove true: The public is as stupid as you think and will go back to listening to you. That’s somewhat like a serially abused wife storming out and then coming back when her abuser says he is sorry (until next time).

Alternatively, you could use your time in the wilderness wisely to find out why people really don’t believe Darwinism or naturalism, as opposed to repeatedly reingesting your own talking points. Up to you. – O’Leary for News

By the way, why was Reid’s predecessor, lobbyist Eugenie Scott, listed among “prominent scientists” in Andrea Gawrylewski’s recent Scientific American article on reactions to the election results? Scott has been a successful Darwin-in-the-schools lobbyist but is by no stretch a scientist.

It would make more sense to ask that fellow from Louisiana whose pants are in a knot over state academic freedom legislation. He too gets his compliant ink and, when last heard from, he was actually studying science.

See also: Gloom or boom?: Prominent scientists on U.S. election. It’s a symptom of internal decay in the science community, not external problems, that anyone cares what Richard Dawkins think at this point.


Why the mainstream media was bound to call the U.S. election wrong

Follow UD News at Twitter!

kairosfocus at 4 and Truth Will Set You Free at 5: Yes, the science IS becoming corrupted, and one way we can tell is that poseurs like Dawkins and lobbyists like Scott are sought out for science opinions, as if that's all science is. At least they said it themselves. News
The following text was lifted directly from uncommondescent.com's About page. It speaks to the heart of the problem. "Materialistic ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted. The problem, therefore, is not merely that science is being used illegitimately to promote a materialistic worldview, but that this worldview is actively undermining scientific inquiry, leading to incorrect and unsupported conclusions about biological and cosmological origins." Truth Will Set You Free
News, Pardon a cross-thread clip, as it is also relevant here:
if one politicises science, then one ought not to be surprised that its claims will be suspect and controversial agendas dressed up in lab coats will be just as subject to dismissal by the ordinary voter if sufficiently riled up as any other. Where, people who feel they are being systematically indoctrinated — lied to by the powerful — will be particularly riled up. A spot more humility about the powers of science to build knowledge should be exerted on matters of controversy. It is also high time to send inherently self-falsifying evolutionary materialism dressed up in a lab coat to the showers.
KF kairosfocus
Owl-inspired wing design reduces wind turbine noise by 10 decibels - November 16, 2016 Excerpt: Many species of owl are able to hunt in effective silence by suppressing their noise at sound frequencies above 1.6 kilohertz (kHz) - over the range that can be heard by humans. A team of researchers studying the acoustics of owl flight,,, are working to pinpoint the mechanisms that accomplish this virtual silence to improve man-made aerodynamic design - of wind turbines, aircraft, naval ships and, even, automobiles. Now, the team has succeeded - through physical experiments and theoretical modeling - in using the downy canopy of owl feathers as a model to inspire the design of a 3-D printed, wing attachment that reduces wind turbine noise by a remarkable 10 decibels - without impacting aerodynamics. They have further investigated how such a design can reduce roughness and trailing-edge noise. In particular, trailing-edge noise is prevalent in low-speed applications and sets their minimum noise level. The ability to reduce wing noise has implications beyond wind turbines, as it can be applied to other aerodynamic situations such as the noise created by air seeping through automobile door and window spaces. Their findings will be published in two forthcoming papers - one called "Bio-inspired trailing edge noise control" in the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal and the other called "Bio-inspired canopies for the reduction of roughness noise" in the Journal of Sound and Vibration. http://phys.org/news/2016-11-owl-inspired-wing-turbine-noise-decibels.html
"We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence 'is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;' but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists." Smith, Wolfgang (1988) Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin Rockford, Illinois: Tan Books & Publishers Inc., p.2 https://books.google.com/books?id=v0hNCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT13#v=onepage&q&f=false Why a media dimwit “believes in” evolution - April 2, 2015 Excerpt: "The power of evolution is also, (like Freudianism), in its language. Darwin knew nothing of population statistics or the intricacies of replicating DNA. Nor do most proponents of evolution today. Just as in Darwin’s day, the power of evolution lies in how “obvious” its conclusions are when expressed in normal, conversational language. There are many similarities between monkeys, apes, and men. Therefore it’s obvious that some sort of ancestral relationship must exist. Offspring differ from their parents in certain visible traits. Therefore it’s obvious that beneficial traits will be favored in the population and eventually lead to new species. It’s obvious that a personal god who can willfully interfere with the events of the universe does not exist. Therefore, it’s obvious that the driving force of evolution can only be randomness. Once again, there’s no math, no statistics, no biochemistry in any of this. Further, when any of those studies get applied to evolution, they all happen to disprove it. But that doesn’t matter to the popular mind because the “obvious facts” so well explained in popular language by evolution proponents trump any technical criticism." https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/why-a-media-dimwit-believes-in-evolution/ "You might think that a theory so profound would be laden with intimidating mathematical formulas and at least as difficult to master as Newton’s Mechanics or Einsteins Relativity. But such is not the case. Darwinism is the most accessible “scientific” theory ever proposed. It needs no math, no mastery of biology, no depth of understanding on any level. The dullest person can understand the basic story line: “Some mistakes are good. When enough good mistakes accumulate you get a new species. If you let the mistakes run long enough, you get every complicated living thing descending from one simple living thing in the beginning. There is no need for God in this process. In fact there is no need for God at all. So the Bible, which claims that God is important, is wrong.” You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand this. And the real beauty of it is that when you first glimpse this revelation with its “aha!” moment, you feel like an Einstein yourself. You feel superior, far superior, to those religious nuts who still believe in God. Without having paid any dues whatsoever, you breathe the same rarified air as the smartest people who have ever lived." – Laszlo Bencze https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/laszlo-benczes-reflections-on-darwin-day/
If it takes intelligence and understanding of quite a high order, in order to reverse-engineer a mechanism more sophisticated than a pea-shooter, can someone explain why this should be the case, since we are assured that the randomly built configurations that constitute such mechanisms were not conceived or designed by the agency of an intelligent mind? It seems more than marginally less plausible that random chance could substitute for intelligence, doesn't it ? A dog of decidedly inferior intelligence to that of human-beings, would not go chasing after, in fact, mythical sticks, on the basis that random chance was as likely to effect the propulsion through the air of even such make-shift projectiles, as he had seen his master do. Why do the dumb beasts discern the difference between random and purposive (intelligent) behaviour, while atheist materialists struggle in vain to do so ? Perhaps 'purposive design' would be a little more comprehensible to the latter. Surely, even they could not fail to discern the purposiveness of the design of a mere E-Coli cell. God's foot in the door ! There ! Ive said it ! Axel

Leave a Reply