Is this Tennessee bill critic coming unglued, at Business Insider?

_{Denyse O'Leary

April 14, 2012

Darwinism, News, science education}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Look at this:

Biology and “intelligent design” are not rival scientific theories. Biology’s central proposition is evolution. Intelligent design does not rest on the scientific method or scientific evidence. The Discovery Institute is not a “think tank.” It does not engage in hypothesis testing. It does not make testable predictions of “intelligent design.” It does not employ biologists if they commit what the Institute’s leaders consider the unbiblical heresy of believing in the standard biological canon about evolution. The only example of “scientific evidence” the article cites as supporting “intelligent design” is the observation that life is “complex.” Evolution cannot produce “complexity” because…. No evidence is needed to support this ipse dixit (it is because I assert it is). The assertion is testable through modeling and through studies of the fossil and genetic record, both of which falsify the assertion. There is no theory of “intelligent design.” The brilliant satirical response to this thinly disguised evangelical theology is Bobby Henderson’s creation of the mock religion worshiping the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” as an alternative explanation of the origin of species. Tennessee biology teachers should stage a mass Flying Spaghetti Monster teach-in to respond to the Tennessee law.

The WSJ news article on the Tennessee law is bizarre on another level. The WSJ concentrates on business news and we have tens of thousands of businesses that make money (hundreds of billions of dollars in annual revenues) by practicing real biology. …

William K. Black, “WSJ’s Weird Embrace Of Pseudo Science And The War On Real Science,” New Economic Perspectives, Apr. 14, 2012

Real biology does not, of course, depend on Darwinism. Darwinists’ careers depend on Darwinism.

Real biology depends on evidence, which does not seem to be a priority in William Black’s life.

See also: Why news media can’t acknowledge what the Tennessee schools bill actually says

Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Mung: No, actually things are plainly so bad, and the bureaucracy so warped that it needs to be spelled out that science has inherent strengths and weaknesses that students should be aware of. In an era where common sense and basic decency have too often been squeezed out, people need to specifically know that if they jump on people for teaching the strengths and weaknesses of science, they are putting themselves on the wrong side of the law, similar to the insistence of people that they wanted a bill of specific rights passed with the US Constitution, some lawyers were arguing it was not needed. In general, and on specific pet topics now used as riding horses for all sorts of agendas. Cf here for some thoughts. KFkairosfocus_{April 16, 2012
April
04
Apr
16
16
2012
04:33 PM
4
04
33
PM
PST}

Its great that Mr black is threatened but what does he know? Stick to business!!Robert Byers_{April 15, 2012
April
04
Apr
15
15
2012
11:05 PM
11
11
05
PM
PST}

This is a ridiculously benign piece of legislation.
And therefore probably not really needed. Got to love those big government "conservatives."Mung_{April 15, 2012
April
04
Apr
15
15
2012
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PST}

'The elephant in the living-room' is, as ever, the hegemony in government and today's wider culture, of corporatism, to which Mussolini and Hitler well knew Christianity was inimical. The multinationals must be answerable to neither God not man. Period.Axel_{April 15, 2012
April
04
Apr
15
15
2012
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PST}

PS: For those who came in late and don't know what really happened in Tenn c 1925 and then with Inherit The Wind, cf here on in context. Just as a teaser, do you know why the Rape of Belgium from 1914 on and the Loeb-Leopold murder trial are highly relevant context? (See why something like the community based IOSE course is needed?)kairosfocus_{April 15, 2012
April
04
Apr
15
15
2012
01:25 AM
1
01
25
AM
PST}

Null & JB: It is worse than that. What is being exposed here is a failure of respect for duties of care to truth and fairness. And, that this failure is so widespread indicts the media at large. They seem to imagine they can swarm down the truth with willful falsehoods and attacks to the man. Sadly, due to the different balance of circulation/readership numbers [never mind the declines, the balance of numbers is still in their favour by an order of magnitude or more], unless design thinkers can gain a critical mass of audience the swarm of --frankly -- lies can succeed in shaping public opinion. That is what happened with Inherit The Wind, which was provably false to fact. FYI, would-be objectors, when one says or implies a message with disregard to truth, hoping to profit from it being taken as true, that is a lie; period, so I am in order on fair comment to call this one what it is. When you are a prominent commenter with the privilege of having a large audience, you have a serious duty to truth and fairness. And in this case you are dealing with a two-page bill that is demonstrably not about "creationism" but instead about getting balance into play on controversial issues that have been for far too long plagued by inaccuracies and spin games; in light of inherent strengths and limits of science. [Cf post here on this. Notice how the ever watching objectors have been missing in action.] It is time to cleanse the temple of journalism. and it is time to lash whistleblower retaliation smear tactics even harder. One way would be to get a hot vid on this out where it can become a viral sensation viewed by millions. Better, a short trailer style promo clip and maybe a shock documentary that gives more details and background. I think here of Comfort's 180, now closing on 3 million YouTube views; which starts with College Student street interviews: Have you heard about Adolf Hitler? No . . . . Vid is probably the best way to go viral and get millions of hits. And millions are needed. Maybe, someone can go out on the street and do a smackdown that exposes the blatant big lie technique we are seeing? Say, somewhere in the streets near a campus, get people on tape denouncing the Creationism bill and trying to tie in Inherit The Wind, then having to confront little-known but well authenticated facts and evidence and logic, then tracing to the sources and trumpeters of the lies; recent and deep past. A little snippet on big lie and other propaganda/spin games would then fit in. Can we get some footage to get such a vid? What about a regular vid series? KFkairosfocus_{April 15, 2012
April
04
Apr
15
15
2012
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PST}

johnnyb, Here’s my challenge – let’s assume that the Discovery Institute didn’t exist. Read the law. Is it still a bad law? Are you kidding? There's a reason people are going out of their way to not bring up the text of the law, save for quick quotes which they use to launch a diatribe over. It's because the law comes across as downright harmless when you actually read it. Unless showing any skepticism of any aspect of mainstream scientific theories is frightening. In which case, yeah, the law is a little scary. This is a ridiculously benign piece of legislation. The fact that it's kicking up so much outrage indicates that something is wrong with the entire discussion of this issue.nullasalus_{April 14, 2012
April
04
Apr
14
14
2012
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PST}

This is absolutely amazing. There is not one sentence in the whole article about the law. It's just one giant ad hominem attack from beginning to end. Apparently we aren't supposed to trust anything from the Discovery Institute no matter what they say. I thought the purpose of public discourse and public arguments was precisely because laws should be about what's best for the public and not who comes up with it. If Casey Luskin decides to support a law mandating the use of seat belts, are they going to bring out this same template? This is actually an interesting idea - if I don't like a law, I should just get the Discovery Institute to support it, and then, regardless of what the law is about, I can have a long run of articles in nearly every journal denouncing the creationist overtaking of biology with this law. Here's my challenge - let's assume that the Discovery Institute didn't exist. Read the law. Is it still a bad law? If not, you are simply engaging in ad hominem attack, and are being 100% irrational.johnnyb_{April 14, 2012
April
04
Apr
14
14
2012
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PST}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply