Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The real reason why Darwinism cannot be disconfirmed

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Recently, I posted an interview with Expelled producer Mark Mathis at The Design of Life blog, in which we discussed the claim that the film misrepresented the Darwinists:

DESIGN OF LIFE: You interviewed 150 scientists for your film. I wonder if that’s a record. I gather an effort has been made to discredit the film on the grounds that the anti-ID folk were misrepresented, basically that you tricked them into taking part.

MATHIS: It’s not surprising. When you’re used to a situation where everything that is talked about in books and films fits your dogmatic view – and that’s what they’ve had – and then a film comes along that applies some actual skepticism, naturally they’re unhappy.
They had the list of questions we were going to be examining. A controversy takes at least two sides. But they’ve become very used to only one side.

Apparently they didn’t understand that we were really going to do just what we said we were going to do.

Well, I just had a similar experience to Mark’s. Get this:

I had been asked to contribute to a book that represented both sides, that is, both Darwinists and ID sympathizers. I picked an author to respond to. A bit of preliminary work demonstrated that this Darwinist simply did not understand the evidence-based problems with his position (which he probably regards as “overwhelmingly confirmed”).

Well, easy work for me, then: Explain what he left out. I was just trying to schedule time to write up my comments when I got mail from the project …

For more, go here.

Also:

Toddlers as Neanderthals?: Evolutionary psychology hits the affluent parent set

Straight talk about evolutionary psychology (another reason why it’s bunk)

“Actually, evolutionary psychology contains within itself the seed of its own downfall. Taken seriously, it means that precisely nothing has changed since the days of our prehuman ancestors. In that case, no evolution occurred. That is strange, considering the wonders Darwinists attribute to natural selection. And if nothing has changed between our prehuman ancestors and ourselves, has anything changed since the amoeba and ourselves, it is all the more strange, considering the further wonders they attribute to natural selection. ”

By the way, is anyone interested in knowing what kind of people are really mad about ID (as of 6:43 pm EST)? If they have smartened up since then, maybe I am a tonic. Should I be syndicated? I must call my agent. Yes, yes, of course I have an agent. Who doesn’t, nowadays?

Comments
[...] Sheldrake Which came first - butterfly or caterpillar? John Davison challenges PZ Myers to a debate The real reason why Darwinism cannot be disconfirmed Today at the Design of Life blog: Is intelligent design ready for prime time? The Lesson of Super [...]David Berlinski on Science, Scientists, and Darwinism | Uncommon Descent
February 5, 2008
February
02
Feb
5
05
2008
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Frost122585, I think it's more subtle than that. I just rejected some comments at the Post-Darwinst, in which I was accused of saying that Darwinism isn't science. These Darwinists apparently could not read the story and get the point. Now, I am going to assume that they are not illiterate, and do not have learning disabilities, so I assume it is emotional. They failed to grasp that the point of my problem was that - in an account of the controversy titled Science vs. intelligent design, I would be identified as "anti-science". So my evidence wouldn't count. They somehow computed that to mean that I said Darwinism is not science, but I didn't. I think it is a science theory in trouble - based on the evidence - but that is a different matter. But not a matter they would ever understand.O'Leary
February 5, 2008
February
02
Feb
5
05
2008
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Well, you see it isn’t fair if you don’t tell the Darwinists that you might use the interview to help shed some mainstream public light on an under exposed and misrepresented controversy because the Darwinists need to be entirely prepared so that they can use the time to spread their propaganda. It is amazing that you could get any Darwinists to even discuss the issue since they claim that no issue really exists- but the catch 22 is the reason why they say no controversy exists is because they are self worshiping ego maniacs- the same reason why they cant help but take part in the interviews.Frost122585
February 5, 2008
February
02
Feb
5
05
2008
11:55 AM
11
11
55
AM
PDT
MATHIS: It’s not surprising. When you’re used to a situation where everything that is talked about in books and films fits your dogmatic view - and that’s what they’ve had - and then a film comes along that applies some actual skepticism, naturally they’re unhappy. As David Berlinski pointed out in the video, The Incorrigible Dr. Berlinski:
When people haven't been criticized in a long time they react with a great deal of indignation when they're criticized for the first time. It's human nature. Put yourself in the position of a Daniel Dennett or a Richard Dawkins who are used to being the regnant priests of a powerful orthodoxy, and for the first time in their lives someone says, "Hey, you guys are simply not credible." Of course they're going to react with outrage and indignation, hurl imprecations at others, resort to objurgations...
GilDodgen
February 5, 2008
February
02
Feb
5
05
2008
10:50 AM
10
10
50
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply