Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

“Teach No Controversy” (the alternative to “Teach The Controversy”)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[This just in from a colleague in Kansas:] We are distributing the multicolored brochure titled “Frequently Asked Questions About the New Kansas Science Standards” and explaining the message in more detail: A genuine scientific controversy over evolution clearly exists — its historical character alone guarantees that evolution contains subjective and controversial “narratives” about what happened. However, institutions in positions of authority are denying it. “There is no controversy over evolution! — anyone who would deny it is a religious fool.” They are in a bind, because any substantive discussion of the core issues shows on its face the existence of controversies over what evolution means and how random mutation and natural selection can explain the history of life and macroevolution. Hence, if they engage in the debate over these issues, then their rejoinder in the controversy will belie their denial of its existence. Hence, they are promoting the claim of “NO CONTROVERSY” via systematic misinformation and character assassination of anyone who would challenge the denial. We are distributing the memos that acknowledge the existence and implementation of that very strategy.

Its great fun to see eyes being opened. When I came home I found the following voice mail. “Hi. I Think you guys are really dumb. Ha. Ha. You are ruining America, right now, as we speak. Its that you are setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically — and pretty much every thing I can think of you are ruining. Please stop!” We get these occasionally. What interests me is that this one was delivered with genuine sincerity. The guy really believes the lie. It’s scary. I would guess this fellow is the product of brain washing — the incredible false propaganda that is being systematically issued by those in authority. We really have a big job to correct all that misinformation.

Comments
The reason I took what sal said personally is because I know for a fact that the statements in the opening post were about KCFS, and Sal's remark seemed to follow from that. KCFS is the main "anti-ID force in Kansas," so it is doubtful that Sal was referring to anyone else. Secondly there has been another incident lately, only partially publicized, in which the words "vilification," "slander", and "character assassination" have been used in reference to a member of KCFS. The opening post said "memos," so am thinking that perhaps Sal is basing his comments on some private correspondence that he has seen. And last, Paul Mirecki does not have and never has had anything to do with KCFS. And to Sal, who has pointed to the thread at our forum on his subject, I'll point out that he has provided no evidence whatsoever of this slander, etc. It is a fairly serious thing to make such charges, so I would hope that he would provide some substance for his remarks, or perhaps retract them.Jack Krebs
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
02:44 PM
2
02
44
PM
PDT
Sal, Why do you even bother with KCFS? Jack took what you said personally even though you didn't mention his name nor KCFS. It looks like you have to round up that slanerous bunch and have them confess- but I am sure even that won't be good enough. Start with Mireki(sp?)= you know the Kansas prof intent on "slapping the big fat fundy faces". The lights may be on but surely no one is home (@KCFS)...Joseph
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
I point the readers to some developments at KCFS where my acount of things is disputed. In the spirit fair minded exchange I point you to the KCFS website and a post A falsehood from Salvador I'll let the readers monitor Jack's comments. Salvadorscordova
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
CH: Just as an example most of the field of genomics is based on evolutionary assumptions, which underpins the modern drug discovery process. We know that is incorrect. "Drug discovery" does not rely on the "sheer dumb luck" hypothesis that is evolutionism. The link you provided doesn't say anything about a mechanism. IOW those alleged "predictions" would fit ID evolution and theistic evolution. “And why aren’t CSI and IC predictions of ID?” CH: I dont understand what these things predict, We predict we will observe these if an intelligent agency is involved. CH: other than certain things could not have evolved. That is also incorrect. It isn't that they couldn't have evolved. It is all about the mechanism of evolution. “For example there isn’t any data- biological or genetic that would demonstrate that a land animal could “evolve” into a fully aquatic animal. No data- just a belief.” CH: Theres quite a bit of data on this, TalkOrigins has a summary of some of it. Present the data- biological or genetic that demonstrates a cetacean can "evolve" from a land animal. I know TO is FoS. “Meaning that all extant species were NOT Created separately. Rather they “evolved” from those Kinds.” CH: I would be very grateful for a link where someone makes an attempt to define “kinds”, especialy with respect to how many there were and which groups of animals were originally one kind. THAT is what Linne was trying to do! However the following would be a start (or you could search on "baraminology") Baraminology—Classification of Created OrganismsJoseph
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Just as an example most of the field of genomics is based on evolutionary assumptions, which underpins the modern drug discovery process. For some more predictions see here: http://www.attrinity.com/app-sjs-web/index?op=/predictions "And why aren’t CSI and IC predictions of ID?" I dont understand what these things predict, other than certain things could not have evolved. "Gee Chris we still do not know what makes a species what it is." Well substitute 'kind' if you prefer. "For example there isn’t any data- biological or genetic that would demonstrate that a land animal could “evolve” into a fully aquatic animal. No data- just a belief." Theres quite a bit of data on this, TalkOrigins has a summary of some of it. I expect in the future evodevo will explain the 'how', although from what we know already we have a good idea. Comapred to things like the evolution the ribosome for example, the evolution of form is something we have a lot of data on. One of the posters at AtBC is planning to do a write up of Sean Carrolls book if you want more information. "Meaning that all extant species were NOT Created separately. Rather they “evolved” from those Kinds." I would be very grateful for a link where someone makes an attempt to define "kinds", especialy with respect to how many there were and which groups of animals were originally one kind.Chris Hyland
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
07:07 AM
7
07
07
AM
PDT
“Dan Dennett tells us (and the PBS series “Evolution” parroted): “There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.” So much for the “predictions” nonsense.” CH: That isn’t what I meant by predictions. What did you mean? It is obvious that evolutionism cannot offer any useful predictions. Can it make any predictions at all? And why aren't CSI and IC predictions of ID? CH: The fact that most people used to believe that all species were created seperately is becuase they didn’t have any evidece to the contrary at the time. Gee Chris we still do not know what makes a species what it is. Therefore we do not know whether or not one can "evolve" into another on the scale evolutionism requires. What makes a fly a fly? In his book (English title) “Why is a Fly not a Horse?”, the prominent Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti, tells us the following : Chapter VI “Why is a Fly not a horse?” (same as the book’s title)
”The scientist enjoys a privilege denied the theologian. To any question, even one central to his theories, he may reply “I’m sorry but I do not know.” This is the only honest answer to the question posed by the title of this chapter. We are fully aware of what makes a flower red rather than white, what it is that prevents a dwarf from growing taller, or what goes wrong in a paraplegic or a thalassemic. But the mystery of species eludes us, and we have made no progress beyond what we already have long known, namely, that a kitty is born because its mother was a she-cat that mated with a tom, and that a fly emerges as a fly larva from a fly egg.”
IOW evolutionism is putting the cart before the horse (or fly). Ya see until we know what makes an organism what it is we shouldn't be telling kids about common descent. That is just plain dishonesty. For example there isn't any data- biological or genetic that would demonstrate that a land animal could "evolve" into a fully aquatic animal. No data- just a belief. Also, if you understood Linne, he placed the originally Created Kinds at the Genus level. Meaning that all extant species were NOT Created separately. Rather they "evolved" from those Kinds. I also notice that Chris has not answered the following: I will tell you what. If you provide an example of useful science that has been produced using anti-ID assumptions- ie unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes- sheer dumb luck- we would have a reference from which to provide you with another answer. Very typical.Joseph
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
"Dan Dennett tells us (and the PBS series “Evolution” parroted): “There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time.” So much for the “predictions” nonsense." That isn't what I meant by predictions. "Is there a time limit? Is A^2 +B^2 = C^2 still valid? How about the inverse square?" That isn't the same thing. The fact that most people used to believe that all species were created seperately is becuase they didn't have any evidece to the contrary at the time. "Various polls (many conducted by Darwinists) indicate around 1/3 of freshman biology majors in colleges in the USA are sympathetic to ID." I'm never sure what "sympathetic to ID" means, consudering that many people in this blog think Ken Miller is sympathetic to ID.. The BBC did a poll where a great deal of people in the UK said they supported ID but the vast majority of them don't even know what it is. "the field of parapsycology also uses observable evidence.. hence there has been indepth study of Near Death experiences, OBE, telepathy, clairvoyance, mediumship etc etc.." I don't know much about parapsychology. Considering what have seen magicians do as imitations of mind-reading, mediums etc Im not very impressed. I do know that they are free to try out for James Randi's million dollar prize. "Any campaign to change their minds based on dogma will alienate and potentially destroy promising careers." Thats assuming its untrue of course. In a degree what you get is the evidence and understand why science has reached a particular conclusion, you don't have to accept it. If I had a student who based his view of biology on the idea that he could currently prove that evolution required intelligence I would be quite concerned. On the other hand if I had a student who said he believed life was designed and he was going to try and prove it, I would say good look to him.Chris Hyland
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
04:32 AM
4
04
32
AM
PDT
"3-4) There’s no reason why creationists can’t do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions." No assumption comes out of thin air.. most assumptions are borne out of a logical resoning of observable facts/events( that a person is aware of) without an indepth study ( via scientific method or other wise) But I can point to major hindrances caused to scientific study of anomalous phenomena due to Neo-Darwinian assumptions.. people with creationist assumptions( primarirly the existance of God, intelligence etc etc) don't have trouble in such fields... many form creationist assumptions after they encounter such anomalous phenomena... Just as biological sciences work with observable evidence, the field of parapsycology also uses observable evidence.. hence there has been indepth study of Near Death experiences, OBE, telepathy, clairvoyance, mediumship etc etc.. Neo-Darwinian assumptions have been seen to hinder research in these areas cause the Neo-Darwinian scientists are entrenched in their Dogma... Logicaly the above anomalous phenomena are impossible( even by blind chance :) ) as conciousness is inside the brain for every person.. so the only explanation Neo-Darwinian assumptions can accept is fraud/hoax & no further study is done by mainstream scientists... Similarly Neo-Darwinian assumptions predicts/expects archaelogical evidence to fit the evolutionary timeline.. But as the book "Forbidden Archaelogy" documents from primary sources, anomalous archaelogical evidence have been thrown up throughout history but they have been filtered out of popular/mainstream literature... Neo-Darwinian assumptions expects to find ID tools/objects, like even flints/axeheads/beads let alone more complex stuff, that can date to around a few 100 thousand years & the path should originate in Africa with places like Americas being populated by hominids only in the last tens of thousand years... Any evidence which doesn't fit this has been discarded... talk about shoehorning data to a theory instead of theory always following the data... These are a few examples of the barriers Neo-Darwinian assumptions cause to the popular understanding of the world around us... I am sure creationists assumptions( not the YEC variety for Archaelogy) are most helpful in furthering research in such areas... I would predict the success of ID will break the ostracization of such areas of research...SatyaMevaJayate
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT
Apparently Jack Krebs has taken exception to my comments in my last post. I did not cite him by name specifically nor his organization. But, being the fair minded person I am, I would like to give Jack the chance to permanently clear his name from suspicion. He's behaving awfully paranoid as if I had him and his organization in mind when I made my last post. So here are some questions which Jack can set me straight on: 1. Does Jack view someone who rejects the major claims of Darwinian evolution as someone who is anti-science? 2. Regarding the vilification of pro-ID students, does Jack consider being a pro-ID student the same as being an anti-science student? 3. For that matter does Jack consider a student who professes belief that God made man through a special act of creation (irrespective of their views on the age of the Earth) the same as necessarily being an anti-science student? 4. Does Jack believe that large numbers of pro-ID students will be a hindrance to the progress of science? Hopefully he will respond, "no" to all 4. And it will be nice for all to see that Jack Krebs affirms that large numbers of pro-ID students are no hindrance to science, that pro-ID and even creationist students are not necessarily anti-science students.scordova
June 27, 2006
June
06
Jun
27
27
2006
12:21 AM
12
12
21
AM
PDT

What has happenned to my comment..

Its been a around 4 hrs since I posted it??

On rare occasions the moderator needs to get some sleep. Thanks in advance for having more patience in the future. -ds SatyaMevaJayate
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
Dr. Dembski's "colleague in Kansas" wrote: "Hence, they are promoting the claim of “NO CONTROVERSY” via systematic misinformation and character assassination of anyone who would challenge the denial. We are distributing the memos that acknowledge the existence and implementation of that very strategy." What are these "memos?" John Calvert, IDNet's managing director, has consistently referred to a post on the KCFS discussion forum as a "memo" that was "accidentally published" when it was in fact neither. You can read all about it here: http://www.kcfs.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000915#000000 Could this be the source of the "memos" that are referred to by Dr. Dembski's colleague? If it is, then I must say that it is extremely difficult to take someone seriously when they complain about their opponents' so-called "systematic misrepresentation" while they are engaging in such egregious misrepresention themselves.Jasper
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
10:08 PM
10
10
08
PM
PDT
Sal writes, "The campaign being waged by some of the anti-ID forces in Kansas is bordering on outright slander and vilification of innocent individuals." This is false. I invite Sal over to http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=3&t=001808 to provide evidence of this charge.Jack Krebs
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT
The colleague in Kansas writes, "We are distributing the memos that acknowledge the existence and implementation of that very strategy." Again for the record, I'd like to point out that the Intelligent Design network has taken one post on a discussion forum from a person speaking as an individual and turned it into "memos" (plural, no less." I discussed this once at http://www.kcfs.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000915. There are no "memos" stating any KCFS policy of "systematic misinformation and character assassination." We think the IDnet is wrong about many things, but arguing against points and saying people are wrong (especially if you back up your claims, as we do) are not the same as systematically misinforming or assassinating anyone's character.Jack Krebs
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
07:42 PM
7
07
42
PM
PDT

I thank DarwinCatholic and Chris Hyland for responding to my querry about pro-ID students.

The caller in the orginal post said:

you are setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically — and pretty much every thing I can think of you are ruining.

Let me say, this is a serious issue. Various polls (many conducted by Darwinists) indicate around 1/3 of freshman biology majors in colleges in the USA are sympathetic to ID. Any campaign to change their minds based on dogma will alienate and potentially destroy promising careers. I also point out AT LEAST 1/3 of physicians are pro-ID if not more, and many are were biology majors in school.

I'm am deeply distressed such a large and measurable segment of the student population is being victimized by an agenda. I can respect a professor for his pro-Darwin opoinions, but if it comes to the point pro-ID science students are slandered and their future in science threatened, that's where I think things have gone way too far.

I see these students covertly making it through these programs in the colleges, becoming honors students, become PhD's, becoming post-docs. It's heartbreaking to witness the amount of vilification they are exposed to in the press and by their educational institution. Added to that, they have to take the persecution quitely, lest they be canned. This is not right.

And in response to the caller's statement, I've seen several pro-ID students, many of the prodigies (starting college at age 14), and triple-majors in science courses. Many of them go on to be upstanding doctors, scientists, and engineers: The very thing the USA needs. The campaign being waged by some of the anti-ID forces in Kansas is bordering on outright slander and vilification of innocent individuals. It is wrong and it is unethical.

In the case of public universities the public ought to go through and do some major housecleaning of the faculty and administration. I think they've forgotten who employs them. Private universities can do whatever they want but when it comes right down to it most private universities can't afford to risk federal and state funded programs which can be shut down for any reason the public deems appropriate. Taking a page from PZ Myers - “Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some professors, many university adminstrators, and vast numbers of sleazy far-left politicians.” -ds scordova
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT
"3-4) There’s no reason why creationists can’t do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions." That holds true for Neo-Darwinian assumptions too... No assumption comes out of thin air.. most assumptions are borne out of a logical resoning of observable facts/events( that a person is aware of) without an indepth study ( via scientific method or other wise) But I can point to major hindrances caused to scientific study of anomalous phenomena due to Neo-Darwinian assumptions.. people with creationist assumptions( primarirly the existance of God, intelligence etc etc) don't have trouble in such fields... many form creationist assumptions after they encounter such anomalous phenomena... Just as biological sciences work with observable evidence, the field of parapsycology also uses observable evidence.. hence there has been indepth study of Near Death experiences, OBE, telepathy, clairvoyance, mediumship etc etc.. Neo-Darwinian assumptions have been seen to hinder research in these areas cause the Neo-Darwinian scientists are entrenched in their Dogma... Logicaly the above anomalous phenomena are impossible( even by blind chance :) ) as conciousness is inside the brain for every person.. so the only explanation Neo-Darwinian assumptions can accept is fraud/hoax & no further study is done by mainstream scientists... Similarly Neo-Darwinian assumptions predicts/expects archaelogical evidence to it the evolutionary timeline.. But as the book "Forbidden Archaelogy" documents from primary sources, anomalous archaelogical evidence have been thrown up throughout history but they have been filtered out of popular/mainstream literature... Neo-Darwinian assumptions expects to find ID tools/objects, like even flints/axeheads/beads let alone more complex stuff, that can date to around a few 100 thousand years & the path should originate in Africa with places like Americas being populated by hominids only in the last tens of thousand years... Any evidence which doesn't fit this has been discarded... talk about shoehorning data to a theory instead of theory always following the data... These are a few examples of the barriers Neo-Darwinian assumptions cause to the popular understanding of the world around us... I am sure creationists assumptions( not the YEC variety for Archaelogy) are most helpful in furthering research in such areas... I would predict the success of ID will break the ostracization of such areas of research...SatyaMevaJayate
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
06:19 PM
6
06
19
PM
PDT
CH: I have read papers from the eighties describing several functions of non-coding DNA. Is there a viable explanation for non-coding DNA to have a function under the purpose-less, genetic accident, ie anti-ID, scenario?Joseph
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT
Regarding the orthodoxy of junk-DNA, The Unseen Genome: Gems that aren't Junk
Yet the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes, Mattick says, “were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk.” .... "I think this will come to be a classic story of orthodoxy derailing objective analysis of the facts, in this case for a quarter of a century,” Mattick says. “The failure to recognize the full implications of this—particularly the possibility that the intervening noncoding sequences may be transmitting parallel information in the form of RNA molecules—may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.”
I suppose we can all debate how much Darwinism had to play in all of this. I do not argue any sort of conspiracy, but I'd say this attitude biology is "bad design" and mosly "junk" seems to be a common theme. A VERY prominent evolutionist wrote me and argued how I could accept ID since the human genome is an example of pathetic design. Salvadorscordova
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
To Chris Hyland, Dan Dennett tells us (and the PBS series "Evolution" parroted): "There is no way to predict what will be selected for at any point in time." So much for the "predictions" nonsense. 1) When Karl von Linne gave us binomial nomenclature when he was trying to figure out what were the originally Created Kinds. Was he conducting science? 1) Yes, in the 18th century. Is there a time limit? Is A^2 +B^2 = C^2 still valid? How about the inverse square? 3-4) There’s no reason why creationists can’t do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions. I will tell you what. If you provide an example of useful science that has been produced using anti-ID assumptions- ie unintelligent, blind/ undirected (non-goal oriented) processes- sheer dumb luck- we would have a reference from which to provide you with another answer. However I would say we are where we are today, scientifically, because of the scientific giants who did operate under Creation assumptions. Therefore I can infer that if we were to allow ID and Creation into scientific discussions we would only be as scientifically limited as those scientific geniuses. I can live with that. AND if, as you say about origins, we don't know enough, then we shouldn't be rejecting one very possible cause "just because". To Mung, Dr. Humphreys' cosmolgy provides an answer to the old universe/ young earth issue... How can we see distant stars in a young universe? Also it doesn't matter what YECs accept or do not accept. The point is TPP demonstrates the design inference extends well beyond biology. IDists should point out that fact everytime people say we are "picking on evolution(ism)".Joseph
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
"Molecular biology, working primarily from a Darwinian perspective, has designated 98.5% of the human genome as “junk”." I have read papers from the eighties describing several functions of non-coding DNA. I have never met a single biologist who thinks all 'junk DNA' is actual junk. "Darwinism predicts development, you say?" Did I say that? If you want to know about the relationship between evolution and development read Sean Carrolls book, plently of fulfilled predictions in there.Chris Hyland
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
Chris Hyland wrote:
Assuming the system has been intelligently designed the outcome of our experiment will be ...
Molecular biology, working primarily from a Darwinian perspective, has designated 98.5% of the human genome as "junk". If no function has yet been identified, the default position is to blame the design rather than our own lack of understanding. ID would predict that the more we learn about the genome, the more function we will find in the portions of the genome previously termed "junk". My impression of recent discoveries is that the more we learn about the fabric of life, the more life appears to have been designed.sagebrush gardener
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
04:03 PM
4
04
03
PM
PDT
Chris@9
There’s no reason why creationists can’t do science, although I am curious to see an example of useful science that has been produced using creationist assumptions
Chris, you can read the whole article in here. I will just quote you one thing:
"Even more importantly, in 1984, Dr Humphreys [A Creationist scientist] made some predictions of the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, two giant gas planets beyond Saturn. His predictions were about 100,000 times the evolutionary dynamo predictions. The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft flew past these planets in 1986 and 1989. The fields for Uranus and Neptune were just as Humphreys had predicted. Yet many anti-creationists call creation ‘unscientific’ because it supposedly makes no predictions!"
You can also check www.halos.com.Mats
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Of course there's a controversy - we're knee deep in it!EJ Klone
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
Chris Hyland: ‘Assuming the system has been intelligently designed the outcome of our experiment will be ...’ — yes, just as in forensic science and code breaking, etc. At the very least ID predicts that biological organisms will have the appearance of design. We keep hearing that ID needs a lot of fruitful predictions under its belt before it can be classed as a science. OK, but don’t tell us that ID needs as many predictions as Darwinism because that would mean zero. Darwinism predicts development, you say? No, it attempts to explain development. No one has shown that sheer dumb luck and natural selection can produce evolutionary development. Function for Darwinists is evidence for natural selection because epistemological materialism lets teleology in the door only as the result of natural selection. So we make up silly stories and call it science.Rude
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
"There is no excuse for you to still be unaware that ID has no problem with “evolution”, but only with the mechanisms responsible according to the modern synthesis. Naughty boy." Apologies, I was just pointing out that Pasteur wasn't a creationist in the strictest sense. "Despite the carefully worded disclaimers of proponents who try to cover the subject with an evolutionary gloss, isn’t this in effect what “biologically inspired design” research is doing?" No it isnt. What I mean is something along the lines of 'Assuming the system has been intelligently designed the outcome of our experiment will be ...'. "To be fair, I would hope you will comment on whether being pro-ID is a hindrance to science as that is the topic here. Is a pro-ID student significantly less capable of doing science? If he is not less capable, then will you agree that the phone caller’s claim that “ID is setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically” is bordering on slander?" Philosophically, morally, and ethically seems to be more an attack on fundementalism than ID. Scientifically is an interesting question, I guess it depends on how it influences them. As I may have mentioned before I knew someone who didn't belive in evolution and did good research in phylogenetics, so she is living proof that what you belive doesn't make you a bad scientist. On the other hand she did admit that her beliefs did not affect her science, and she accepted the conclusions of mainstream science so far as it fitted the evidence better and allowed her to do her research. processes. Then again the assumption that design was involved in the process may well turn out to be true, in which case these students will definately make fine scientists. I have yet to see enough research by ID proponents to make an informed decision. However if these students used arguments similar to 'if scientists use words such as `reverse engineer` the systems must have been designed' in other areas of science I would not be impressed.Chris Hyland
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT

Is a pro-ID student significantly less capable of doing science?

I would think it's very much a function of where a pro-ID student's beliefs pointed him/her. Say I figure that the development of species was all pre-determined by a 'front loaded' set of code which has now all been executed, and there will never be any new species. In that case, I'm clearly not going to do any research involving speciation. So in certain areas of biology, that would keep me from bothering to do certain kinds of research that might be quite valuable if I was wrong. If, on the other hand, I was a nuclear physicist, my ID theories would in no way hinder my professional inquisitiveness.

What's important about speciation? It hasn't happened in recorded history and probably won't. See, the thing about macro-evolution working too slowly to observe is a double edged sword. If macro-evolution is too slow to observe, it's too slow to care about. It's like worrying about continental drift causing California and Asia to collide, wiping out all the Pacific Islands in the process. It's not a concern. Even if it was going to happen it's so far in the future who cares? Humanity has far more immediate things to worry about. The second way you're wrong is what happens if NDE is all wrong? Then we have scientists wasting time and money on a big snipe hunt. A snipe hunt that won't yield anything valuable even if successful! This is what's called a lose-lose situation and it's the worst possible outcome - to be avoided at all costs. -ds DarwinCatholic
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
Chris Hyland: i got nervous that perhaps the chiding in my post (#11) sounded rather harsher than I had intended it to...sorry.tinabrewer
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT
Perhaps IDists should make it clear that ID extends beyond biology (ie “evolutionism”) as evidenced by “The Privileged Planet”. That does seem to be an anti-ID sticking point- “Why does ID only pick on evolution(ism)?”
Because the Young Earth Creationists are forced to reject The Privileged Planet due to it's acceptance of a universe and earth that are far older than 6,000 years.Mung
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
11:56 AM
11
11
56
AM
PDT
Chris Hyland wrote:
... most scientists accept that ID could one day be a science but you have to prove that it is more useful than other theories for making predicitons.
Despite the carefully worded disclaimers of proponents who try to cover the subject with an evolutionary gloss, isn't this in effect what "biologically inspired design" research is doing? They may claim that the complex systems that they are attempting to reverse-engineer have been designed by evolution. But if I were an ID scientist this is exactly the same research I would want to be doing, while believing that systems that appear to be designed to solve a particular problem actually are designed.sagebrush gardener
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
Chris, I thank you for your participation. I am aware of that quote by Pasteur as it is in one the biographies in my personal book collection.... Thoughtful skepticism and providing gentle correction is to be valued here at Uncommon Descent, I view your objections as something to value and help us strengthen our pro-ID arguments. To be fair, I would hope you will comment on whether being pro-ID is a hindrance to science as that is the topic here. Is a pro-ID student significantly less capable of doing science? If he is not less capable, then will you agree that the phone caller's claim that "ID is setting us back scientifically, philosophically, morally, and ethically" is bordering on slander? Salvadorscordova
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
11:16 AM
11
11
16
AM
PDT
Chris Hyland: You have been here long enough that you should bloody well know better than to respond to point #2 by using a quotation from Pasteur supporting "evolution". There is no excuse for you to still be unaware that ID has no problem with "evolution", but only with the mechanisms responsible according to the modern synthesis. Naughty boy.tinabrewer
June 26, 2006
June
06
Jun
26
26
2006
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply