Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwin’s followers are going to have to limit access to public records

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Further to: Darwin event at museum scuttled when some engineers ask for equal time for ID, here is a story from the Albuquerque Journal:

Museum plunged into evolution, religion debate

Advocates of “intelligent design” say the New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science preferred to cancel Darwin Days events rather than provide an opportunity to present an alternative theory of evolution.

Not so, said Mary Ann Hatchitt, communications director for the New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs, which oversees the state’s museums.

“There was nothing to cancel because there were no Darwin Days events planned or scheduled” for 2015, she said.

A public records request told a different story:

The emails provided via the IPRA request and shared with the Journal by Edenburn show museum staffers and volunteers were involved in scheduling the speakers; that the fliers were printed and posted with the approval and knowledge of museum staffers; that museum administrators tried to distance themselves as sponsors by asking groups to list the museum as a location “and don’t even use the word hosted”; and that organizers of Darwin Days were under the impression it would become an annual community event hosted by the museum. More.

Surely it would have, had no one complained.

Darwin’s followers, especially the new atheists who were swanning around the publicly funded event, are going to have to limit citizens’ and taxpayers access to public records, right? Such requests create needless contentions about the use of public money. 😉

In any event, the headline is curiously ambiguous: “Museum plunged into evolution, religion debate.” Does this mean “was plunged” or “chose to plunge”? The former would be an innocent mistake; the latter appears correct.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Joe, I think "mechanism" tends to be used in a sense that implies or suggests lack of creative mind -- where if one shuts one's thoughts to the question of where algorithms and coding come from, one can imagine that computing on object code is mechanical. I think means or method backed up by the fact that we experience designing from the inside are a needed counter. I have given CH a challenge to quote or paraphrase accurately the opening of the preface to NFL; which will show if he has even read the basic books before launching his hobby of criticism. Further to this, I find NFL covers quite well much of the ground that has been subjected to talking point pretzel games. WmAD simply is not the hapless bumbler portrayed by too many objectors to design theory. KFkairosfocus
March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Joe you forgot engineering and reverse engineeringAndre
March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
05:20 AM
5
05
20
AM
PDT
CHartsil:
You don’t just get to say it’s a valid alternative when evolution has been put through the wringer and ID proponents have failed to produce so much as a single mechanism of design.
Design is a mechanism. Intelligent agencies manipulating nature for their purpose is a mechanism. "Built-in responses to environmental cues" is a mechanism posited back in 1997 (Spetner "Not By Chance"). GAs and EAs exemplify other design mechanisms- targeted searches for problem solving. The design inference is based on our knowledge of cause and effect relationships. It is based on our knowledge gleaned through observations and experiences. ID posits testable entailments which have all been confirmed.Joe
March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
05:10 AM
5
05
10
AM
PDT
KF @ 3: well saidRexTugwell
March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT
F/N: Wiki-- yes, Wiki -- on design: >> Design is the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system (as in architectural blueprints, engineering drawings, business processes, circuit diagrams and sewing patterns).[1] Design has different connotations in different fields (see design disciplines below). In some cases the direct construction of an object (as in pottery, engineering, management, cowboy coding and graphic design) is also considered to be design. More formally design has been defined as follows.
(noun) a specification of an object, manifested by an agent, intended to accomplish goals, in a particular environment, using a set of primitive components, satisfying a set of requirements, subject to constraints; (verb, transitive) to create a design, in an environment (where the designer operates)[2 . . . expanding: Ralph, P. and Wand, Y. (2009). A proposal for a formal definition of the design concept. In Lyytinen, K., Loucopoulos, P., Mylopoulos, J., and (Robinson, W.,) editors, Design Requirements Workshop (LNBIP 14), pp. 103–136. Springer-Verlag, p. 109 doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92966-6_6.]
Another definition for design is a roadmap or a strategic approach for someone to achieve a unique expectation. It defines the specifications, plans, parameters, costs, activities, processes and how and what to do within legal, political, social, environmental, safety and economic constraints in achieving that objective.[3] Here, a "specification" can be manifested as either a plan or a finished product, and "primitives" are the elements from which the design object is composed. With such a broad denotation, there is no universal language or unifying institution for designers of all disciplines. This allows for many differing philosophies and approaches toward the subject (see Philosophies and studies of design, below). The person designing is called a designer, which is also a term used for people who work professionally in one of the various design areas, usually also specifying which area is being dealt with (such as a fashion designer, concept designer or web designer). A designer's sequence of activities is called a design process. The scientific study of design is called design science.[4][5][6][7] Designing often necessitates considering the aesthetic, functional, economic and sociopolitical dimensions of both the design object and design process. It may involve considerable research, thought, modeling, interactive adjustment, and re-design. Meanwhile, diverse kinds of objects may be designed, including clothing, graphical user interfaces, skyscrapers, corporate identities, business processes and even methods of designing. >> We can safely say that refusal to understand design reflects failure to do something as simple as look it up and read the Wiki article or actually try to understand what design advocates have had to say. Indeed, the new preface to NFL, p. xi, OPENS with a discussion of what designers do. Let us see if CH can accurately cite or at least paraphrase what comes after:
How a designer gets from thought to thing is, at least in broad strokes, straightforward: . . .
If he answers accurately, he indicts himself as mischaracterising design theory and the substance on what design is. If he cannot answer accurately, he indicts himself as setting up as an activist attack-dog without doing basic homework to get facts straight before launching on a hobby of criticism of design theory. So, let us see . . . KFkairosfocus
March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
01:15 AM
1
01
15
AM
PDT
CH, done, long since -- and cf here at UD for record on how the design inference process applies methodical scientific reasoning (though there is no one size fits all sci method . . . ) if you cared to respect facts. Not that mere facts and evidence will move you beyond what seems to be a record of faked Facebooks and other trollish tactics. Last, design is a cognitive, intensional, intelligent creative process that shapes objects, systems, processes, networks etc conceptually to achieve a purpose, generally reflecting as well forces, materials and constraints of nature and other constraints such as energy, economic cost-effectiveness, socio-cultural acceptability etc. Design is simply not to be reduced to mechanism, but on trillions of examples it often leaves strong signs that are observable and not credibly explicable on blind chance and/or mechanical necessity. If you would doubt or dismiss this, simply ponder that to compose an objection to design thought you were forced to create another case in point of such, the functionally specific complex organisation and associated information in the s-t-r-i-n-g of glyphs in your comment. That is, the very act of objecting exemplifies the main point. KF PS: This, on chance, will also help: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/id-foundations-1a-what-is-chance-a-rough-definition/kairosfocus
March 6, 2015
March
03
Mar
6
06
2015
12:51 AM
12
12
51
AM
PDT
Here's a novel concept. If ID is science, then put it through the scientific method. You don't just get to say it's a valid alternative when evolution has been put through the wringer and ID proponents have failed to produce so much as a single mechanism of design.CHartsil
March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
10:45 PM
10
10
45
PM
PDT
Apart from the "tense verbiage," the other mistake in the headline is quite obvious. It should have read, "Museum Plunged into an ID, Religion Debate." . . . not there yet? Mr. Kuhn requires patience.Tim
March 5, 2015
March
03
Mar
5
05
2015
05:06 PM
5
05
06
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply