Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Baptist Press reports on Wisconsin’s proposed ban of ID

William Dembski
February 8, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Wisconsin legislator, university profs want ban of Intelligent Design in public schools
Feb 8, 2006
By Art Toalston
Baptist Press

MADISON, Wis. (BP)–In an unprecedented political move to protect evolution, a Wisconsin state representative -– backed by 13 professors from the University of Wisconsin -– has introduced a bill that could ban the teaching of Intelligent Design and creationism in the state’s public schools.

MORE

Comments
I am not nearly as unsavory as I am capable of being and I doubt if David Springer is either. I see he has shed his anonymity which is a good thing don't you know. I don't have any friends and I like it that way. Got that? Write that down too.John Davison
February 11, 2006
February
02
Feb
11
11
2006
01:16 AM
1
01
16
AM
PDT

Us YECs are the the unsavory associates of ID, but Bill Dembski promised he won't dump us:

ID Coming Clean

That willingness, however, means that some of the people at the table with us will also be young earth creationists. Throughout my brief tenure as director of Baylor’s Michael Polanyi Center, adversaries as well as supporters of my work constantly pointed to my unsavory associates. I was treated like a political figure who is unwilling to renounce ties to organized crime. It was often put to me: “Dembski, you’ve done some respectable work, but look at the disreputable company you keep.” Repeatedly I’ve been asked to distance myself not only from the obstreperous likes of Phillip Johnson but especially from the even more scandalous young earth creationists.

I’m prepared to do neither. That said, let me stress that loyalty and friendship are not principally what’s keeping me from dumping my unsavory associates. Actually, I rather like having unsavory associates, regardless of friendship or loyalty.

We, the unsavory associates of ID, pledge we'll stick with you Bill because you're willing to stick with us despite the fact we're disreputable organized cwiminals. :-)

Salvador

Hey Sal, when it comes to unsavory I think David Springer and John Davison are the prime examples. You're just too nice to be unsavory. Don't feel bad about it. Some of my best friends are nice just like you! ;-) -ds scordova
February 10, 2006
February
02
Feb
10
10
2006
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
I'm sorry, I don't understand the satire.Artist in training
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
09:08 PM
9
09
08
PM
PDT
That's some satire you keep spinning Artist.Charlie
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT

Should have said "even INFORMED, KNOWLEDGEABLE YECs". I do know the type of people you mean and, yes, they regularly make me wince.

My tongue is bleeding! -ds Patrick
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
I don’t know how to put that into my worldview exactly but I do know that my religious experience is repeatable and has been repeated hundreds of thousands of times. It seems to me like that would meet the criteria all by itself. The catch is that it needs to be universally repeatable. Every religion has people being convinced by the evidence and converting into it, but every religion also has people deciding that the evidence is weak and converting away. (I think right now Islam is the world's fastest-growing religion, but I'm not sure that really counts for anything.) What science looks for is objective evidence like in Exodus 8-9: Moses and Aaron are calling down plagues on the Egyptians, and Pharaoh's magicians (read "scientists") think that they're doing it through various secular means. But they can't find a naturalistic explanation for the Plague of Gnats, and at Exodus 8:19 they're forced to admit that there's a supernatural cause. But stuff like that doesn't seem to happen any more. Which is a shame, because it would settle a lot of long-running arguments.chaosengineer
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Mats John Davidson is the singer and actor. This John A. Davison is a retired bench physiologist who is convinced that evolution isn't even happening any more. When it did occur it involved certain species, which I call "evolvers," producing new life forms obviously different from themselves. Such organisms probably no longer exist or, if they do, their action has not been properly identified. In any event, neither natural selection nor sexual reproduction ever had anything to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the past. Neither did the environment except to evoke potentials that were latent in the evolving genomes. No organism can ever become anything more than what its present genomic program will permit. For the vast majority of all species that means evolutionary stasis and eventual extinction. You might as well get used to it. Robert Broom did, Pierre Grasse did, Otto Schindewolf did, even Julian (The Modern Synthesis) Huxley did and so did I. It is not my fault that others cannot see what we have seen and recognized. Incidentally none of us exist as perusal of the indexes and bibliographies of all the many books by Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins will testify. That is HOW the Darwinian fairy tale has survived and it is the only way it has survived. It is the greatest intellectual scandal in the history of mankind, a "vast left wing conspiracy" if I may borrow a phrase from another left wing congenital liberal and hopefully not the next President of the United States. Heaven forbid! Oh and I forgot. Chance never had anything to do with it either. It was all "prescribed" if I may be so bold and I guess I can because I just was. How do you Darwimpian sensorily deprived, selectively illiterate, homozygous muddle heads out there like all them hard boiled evolutionary egg yolks with all that kosher spicy deli mustard on them? Spicy aren't they? I hope thet give you the runs for a week or so. Enjoy as I do. I love it so!John Davison
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT

Heck, even YECs will state that evolution in a general sense is an undeniable fact. It's just a matter of how you define your terms.

"I am so frustrated that I can’t even read their posts any more. If they want to teach people about science, they sure aren’t being very friendly."

Oh, and Artist in training, you'll eventually learn to love the masochistic lifestyle of being an ID proponent. :)

Heck, even YECs will state that evolution in a general sense is an undeniable fact. It's just a matter of how you define your terms. I wish that were true. People denying evolution in any significant sense formed a long line to testify in the Kansas BoE hearings last year. Jack Krebs brought this to my attention. I had to see it to believe it. It's mind boggling. -ds Patrick
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
01:02 PM
1
01
02
PM
PDT
Isn't evolution defined as "The change in species over time"? Why is this conversation happening? Is there a host of semantic issues that need to be resolved? It seems to me like there is an assault on the church happening throughout our society, and, altough I understand that ID is not defining God, ID does sort of prove that the universe doesn't simply boil down to random particles interacting randomly right? So how can the Darwinists complain that ID hasn't produced any science when there are over 400 scientists working in the ID Sciences right now? If the evidence shows that the earth was designed then why is there a fuss. Einstein said of a group of nazi scientists who were denigrating his work because he was jewish "Why do they need a hundred? If they were right they would need only one." Or something like that. I posted something like that on Pandas Thumb last week and they just kept parroting the questions: "What is the scientific theory of ID?" "How can it be tested?" "What predictions does it make?" I replied that it isn't a "Theory" it is a few specific experiments that demonstrate the existence of a designer. That it couldn't be tested because how can you test God, that is foolish. And that it doesn't predict. What would it predict? Who could presume to know the mind of God? They were very polite but amazingly obstinant. Have you read any of the regular poster's websites? http://www.geocities.com/lflank/ this one specifically is annoying http://brainwashedgod.blogspot.com/ This one is downright stupid http://motherwell.livejournal.com/ THis one is still pretty unappologetic http://thequestionableauthority.blogspot.com/ This one is some scientist who can't directly address the issue. These guys are really out to get us. THere is no attempt to hear our side at all. If you murmur, they shout, If you speak, they all shout. Why don't we just ask them to critique the science done by the different branches of the ID sciences? Post the papers as comments on their site and watch them admit they were wrong. They ask for it over and over again. I am so frustrated that I can't even read their posts any more. If they want to teach people about science, they sure aren't being very friendly.Artist in training
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
11:33 AM
11
11
33
AM
PDT
John Davidson, How do you define Evolution??Mats
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
10:32 AM
10
10
32
AM
PDT
Does the National Academy of Sciences say that the Intelligent Design Sciences are not science somehow? It seems to me like they lay out a pretty straightforward definition of science. Why don't textbook writers simply put the pieces in where they belong? I am still grappling with the idea that man might not have been specifically designed by god. I don't know how to put that into my worldview exactly but I do know that my religious experience is repeatable and has been repeated hundreds of thousands of times. It seems to me like that would meet the criteria all by itself.Artist in training
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
09:58 AM
9
09
58
AM
PDT
This is for Scott in post #3. Words have meaning and evolution DID occur. Statements that suggest otherwise are unacceptable at least to me.John Davison
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
"I can't tell you WHY that Intelligent Design is wrong... I just know it is because my academic gurus tell me so." ...sigh.Scott
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
The article says: The bill would stipulate that “any material presented as science within the school curriculum ... is testable as a scientific hypothesis and describes only natural processes [and] ... is consistent with any description or definition of science adopted by the National Academy of Sciences.” I can't see the problem with this. ID is scientific so why can't we teach it? The world is designed so by definition design is a natural process right? I wonder if ID is just too advanced for high school. I am almost finished with "Of Pandas and People" and I am not sure what part of it you can really teach to high schoolers. My granddaughter is getting a biology degree at University of Washington and she has been hounding me about how non-scientific ID is. I sent her links to two of Dr. Dembski's papers and she never emailed me back. I think it might have been hard for her to admit she didn't know what ID was exactly. It's not that I want to shut her up, it's more that I want her to understand that my faith is valid and that I have plenty to offer her. I fear that she will go down the materialist path and forsake her community and her family in the pursuit of selfish material wants. She is very loving and caring and even respectful now but I see her turning away from god and I know she will be all alone. I think the problem is that scientists need a little bit of religious training before they go on writing about god. It doesn't seem right to me that they have any authority to talk about creation if they don't know anything about religion.Artist in training
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
09:23 AM
9
09
23
AM
PDT

Speciation question to JAD was moved to https://uncommondescent.com/index.php/davison/prescribed-evolution/#comment-23425

Let's keep it on topic if humanly possible. -ds

WormHerder
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
08:21 AM
8
08
21
AM
PDT
I agree, Dr. Davison, but we need to clearly define terms. Many people conflate Darwinism with "Evolution".Scott
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT
Evolution requires no protection as it is undeniable. It is Darwinism that can no longer be protected. It is the biggest hoax in the history of Western Civilization.John Davison
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT

Hmmm... a monopoly in the marketplace of ideas. Interesting.

I wonder if it's feasible to get the selling of evolution in court on antitrust grounds. It seems to me a there's a legitimate case to be made for economic damage resulting from monopolizing textbook sales.

I can see students, with the support of their parents, boycotting 9th grade biology for the unAmerican, state sanctioned monopolistic practice going on within.

Is it time for a little good old American civil unrest and courtroom theatrics?

DaveScot
February 9, 2006
February
02
Feb
9
09
2006
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply