The concept of intelligent design is gentle, tolerant and compassionate and embraced by Darwin himself.
actually paints a most unflattering picture of the intelligence of the Intelligent Designer".
Did it take him 139 pages to demolish a stupidity of that nature.
Methinks he was taking himself a little too seriously. He must have just liked composing long-wided bullshit in order to make his fee not look like pickpocketing.
Quote:Creationism: A step backwards
(Taylor Kessinger, Arizona Daily Wildcat, February 2, 2007)
The controversy between creation and evolution continues to grow in this country. But is this simply an argument, or does it have more severe consequences?
To believe God created the world, in whatever manner He chose, demands just one thing: faith. But to be a creationist - that is, to believe that scientific evidence suggests a recent creation of the world in six Earth days - demands another thing entirely.
What is the difference? The former is a religious belief that demands respect like any other. The other is a malicious attack on American technological and scientific progress.
The creationist effort is spearheaded by two groups: victimized, misguided citizens and politicians who have been fed faulty information, and phony "scientists" who present their equally phony arguments in opposition to the "theory of evolution," a catch-all category that includes accepted scientific principles like common descent, abiogenesis and the Big Bang theory.
The issue is closer to home than you think. Gov. Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas have both announced their intentions for the presidency, and like good old John McCain, they support the teaching of "alternate theories of origin" in science classes.
If school boards in Ohio, Kansas, and Pennsylvania are any indicator, the so-called "creation-evolution controversy" will be in your backyard soon - provided that it's not already.
Let's be up-front about one thing: There is not a single argument for creationism that does not rely on a severe misinterpretation of scientific evidence or, worse yet, of science itself. Ask any UA scientist and they'll tell you the same.
To circumvent this, creationists are fond of misrepresenting science and using cheap debate tactics. They know that their claims take much longer to refute than they do to set forth, which makes it appear as though they have a legitimate basis.
Here's an experiment you can perform yourself: Read aloud the common creationist claim that "there is no direct evidence for the Big Bang." Then, go and look up the words "cosmic background radiation" in the search engine of your choice.
Which one was easier and took less time? Which one is correct? Notice these two questions don't have the same answer.
The simple truth is that scientific theories adhere to principles such as testability, falsifiability, parsimony and naturalism. That last one is the most important: It's what prevents scientists from invoking magic, gremlins or God as explanations for physical phenomena. Creationism has none of these principles. There shouldn't even be a controversy; science clearly wins on its own grounds.
But creationism isn't just factually incorrect and mischievously dishonest. It's a direct detriment to our country's progress. That anyone can graduate from an American high school or university while still clinging to creationism suggests that students lack the critical thinking and research skills they need - not to mention the understanding of basic scientific concepts.
If the value in a good scientific education isn't self-evident, consider this. What does our scientific ignorance say about America's continued status as the most technologically advanced nation in the world? According to a 2006 Gallup poll, roughly 46 percent of Americans accept strict creationism. Compare this to other Western countries, where the figure is in the single digits.
It's nothing short of embarrassing.
Perhaps worse yet, creationism is an assault on faith itself. Theologians have long recognized, as Martin Luther did, the importance of faith, not evidence, as the guiding force behind belief - a sentiment that has been echoed in recent times by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Vatican, among others.
The time is nigh to take action. Courts all over the country need to keep up their strict, no-tolerance policies regarding creationism and its lightweight cousin, intelligent design, in classrooms. Intelligent Americans have the same duty to be informed about science as they do about politics or history, and UA students in particular should take advantage of the many available origins-oriented science courses as a means to that end.
And know that, should you choose to believe in God, your choice should be informed by faith and personal commitment - not by lies and faulty arguments.
Either way, don't be deceived by the crimes of creationism.
(Creationism) is a malicious attack on American technological and scientific progress.
The creationist effort is spearheaded by two groups: victimized, misguided citizens and politicians who have been fed faulty information,
phony "scientists" who present their equally phony arguments in opposition to the "theory of evolution,"
Let's be up-front about one thing: There is not a single argument for creationism that does not rely on a severe misinterpretation of scientific evidence
...the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of the audience no matter what.......
What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That's the first problem. The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercise every effort to turn out their crowd. Don't be surprised to see church busses from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came?
The writer offers not one defense of evolution, just insults and innuendo.
This is really the key: Creationists have the GALL to interpret evidence differently than evolutionists.
Did you like the Three Laws? Do you know what it's a spoof on?
Apparently this UA student, Kessinger, is majoring in Propaganda, with a minor in Verbal Sleight of Hand.
The writer offers not one defense of evolution, just insults and innuendo.
'If you can't counter the message, attack the messenger' seems to be his philosophy.
Kessinger wrote:
(Creationism) is a malicious attack on American technological and scientific progress.
Really? In what way? He doesn't say, he simply accuses.
Kessinger wrote:
The creationist effort is spearheaded by two groups: victimized, misguided citizens and politicians who have been fed faulty information,
What faulty information? He doesn't say, he simply accuses.
Kessinger wrote:
phony "scientists" who present their equally phony arguments in opposition to the "theory of evolution,"
What phony scientists? He doesn't say, he simply accuses.
Kessinger wrote:
Let's be up-front about one thing: There is not a single argument for creationism that does not rely on a severe misinterpretation of scientific evidence
What misinterpretation? He doesn't say, he simply accuses.
And so it goes.
Let's be up-front about one thing: There is not a single argument for creationism that does not rely on a severe misinterpretation of scientific evidence or, worse yet, of science itself. Ask any UA scientist and they'll tell you the same.
To circumvent this, creationists are fond of misrepresenting science and using cheap debate tactics. They know that their claims take much longer to refute than they do to set forth, which makes it appear as though they have a legitimate basis.
Here's an experiment you can perform yourself: Read aloud the common creationist claim that "there is no direct evidence for the Big Bang." Then, go and look up the words "cosmic background radiation" in the search engine of your choice.
Which one was easier and took less time? Which one is correct? Notice these two questions don't have the same answer.
This is really the key: Creationists have the GALL to interpret evidence differently than evolutionists.
How dare they.
AU has allowed creationists to debate evolutionists on campus previously http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/creationist-u/
much to the chagrin of evolutionists who feared that the evolutionary speaker would appear poorly because creationists showed up to hear him speak.
Eugenie Scott wrote:
...the way these things work is that suspicion is sowed in the minds of the audience no matter what.......
What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship. That's the first problem. The audience that is most anxious to come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that supports the creationist. In the comparatively rare situation where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercise every effort to turn out their crowd. Don't be surprised to see church busses from many local communities lined up outside the debate hall. In some cases, the sponsors advertised only among the faithful, posting up only a handful of flyers on campus. Guess who came?
Oh my. If the creationists show up to listen, what will we do?
(How can the composition of the audience affect the logic of the arguments? That's anyone's guess.)
So we can see why Mr Kessinger is bent out of shape.
He ends his screed by referring to the 'crimes of creationism'.
To evolutionists, having a dissenting view is often a crime, indeed. Such is the nature of the 'open inquiry' they espouse.
But don't look for many evolutionists to disavow this kind of nonsense. It's far too valuable in whipping up hysteria to ever consider dropping it.
real life wrote:This is really the key: Creationists have the GALL to interpret evidence differently than evolutionists.
Here we are back at this point again, but this time you're calling it 'the key'. Well, if it's the 'key', then I assume it's a pretty important part of your argument.
So please give us an example of some evidence which can be interpreted to indicate creation.
Let's be up-front about one thing: There is not a single argument for creationism that does not rely on a severe misinterpretation of scientific evidence ........
real life wrote:It's a well understood given that evolution is aptly defensible, as such "defense of evolution" is not a requisite component to provide merit to the article. ?The writer offers not one defense of evolution, just insults and innuendo.
It's a valid appraisal of creationism/ID.
Did you like the Three Laws? Do you know what it's a spoof on?
Seems like the easiest way to disprove creationists would be to give some convincing evidence of evolution, something 'only evolution explains'. But there is no such, so it is unsurprising that he makes no attempt to provide this kind of 'smoking gun' in favor of evolution.
Welcome to Science Court
The ruling in the Dover evolution trial shows what the legal and scientific processes have in common--intellectual rigor
Chris Mooney; January 9, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legally speaking, Judge John E. Jones III's ruling in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District--Pennsylvania's much-discussed lawsuit over the teaching of "intelligent design"--can only be called conservative. The decision draws upon and reinforces a series of prior court precedents, all of which barred creationist encroachment upon the teaching of science in public schools.
In another sense, though, Jones' ruling is revolutionary. We live in a time when the findings of science themselves increasingly seem to be politically determined--when Democrat "science" is pitted against Republican "science" on issues ranging from evolution to global warming. By contrast, Jones' opinion strikes a blow for the proposition that when it comes to matters of science, there aren't necessarily two sides to every story.
Over the course of a lengthy trial, Jones looked closely at the scientific merits of "intelligent design"--the contention that Darwinian evolution cannot explain the biological complexity of living organisms, and that instead some form of intelligence must have created them. And in the end, the judge found ID utterly vacuous. "[ID] cannot be adjudged a valid, accepted scientific theory," Jones wrote, "as it has failed to publish in peer-reviewed journals, engage in research and testing, and gain acceptance in the scientific community."
ID critics have been making these same observations for years; so have leading American scientific societies. Meanwhile, investigative reporters and scholars studying the ID movement have demonstrated that it is, indeed, simply creationism reincarnated--all religion and no science. On the intellectual merits, ID was dead a long time ago. But before Judge Jones came along, it's astonishing how hard it was to get that acknowledged, unequivocally, in public discussion of the issue.
Up until the Dover trial, well-funded ID proponents based at Seattle's Discovery Institute had waged a successful media campaign to sow public doubts about evolution, and to convince Americans that a true scientific "controversy" existed over Darwin's theory. And thanks in part to the conventions of television news, editorial pages, and political reporting--all of which require that "equal time" be allotted to different views in an ongoing political controversy--they were succeeding.
For example, a national survey conducted this spring by Ohio State University professor Matthew Nisbet in collaboration with the Survey Research Institute at Cornell University found serious public confusion about the scientific basis for "intelligent design." A slight majority of adult Americans (56.3 percent) agreed that evolution is supported by an overwhelming body of scientific evidence, but a very sizeable proportion (44.2 percent) incorrectly thought the same of ID.
Ritualistically "balanced" news media coverage may not be the sole cause of such confusion, but it's can hardly have helped. Consider just one of many examples of how journalists, in their quest for "objectivity," have lent undue credibility to ID. The York Dispatch, one of two papers covering the evolution battle in Dover, Pennyslvania, repeatedly summarized the two sides of the "debate" thusly: "Intelligent design theory attributes the origin of life to an intelligent being. It counters the theory of evolution, which says that people evolved from less complex beings." Here we witness the reductio ad absurdum of journalistic "balance." Despite staggering scientific consensus in favor of evolution--and ample documentation of the religious inspiration behind the "intelligent design" movement--evolution and ID were paired together by the Dispatch as two competing "theories."
Judge Jones took a thoroughly different approach, actually bothering to weigh the merits of competing arguments. He inquired whether an explanation that inherently appeals to the supernatural--as "intelligent design" does--can be scientific, and found that it cannot. He searched for published evidence in scientific journals supporting the contentions of the ID movement--and couldn't find it. And in his final opinion, he was anything but "balanced."
We have seen this pattern before. During the early 1980s, the evolution trial McLean v. Arkansas pitted defenders of evolutionary science against so-called "scientific creationists"--the precursors of today's ID proponents. Today, few take the claims of "scientific creationism," such as the notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old, very seriously. At the time, however, proponents of "creation science" were treated very seriously by members of the national media covering the trial. According to a later analysis of the coverage by media scholars, reporters generally tried to create a "balance" between the scientific-sounding claims of the "scientific" creationists and the arguments of evolutionary scientists.
But in the McLean decision, judge William Overton did no such thing. Rather, the judge carefully investigated whether "creation science" fit the norms of science at all--and found that it did not. Overton therefore concluded that the attempt by the state of Arkansas to include "creation science" in science classes was a transparent attempt to advance a sectarian religious perspective, as barred by the First Amendment. Now, Judge Jones is following in Overton's footsteps very closely. In his decision, Jones cites the McLean case repeatedly.
If there's an underlying moral to be derived from Judge Jones' decision, then, it may be this. It's very easy to attack well-established science through a propaganda campaign aimed at the media and the public. That's precisely what "intelligent design" proponents have done--and they're hardly alone in this. However, it's much more difficult for a PR attack on established science to survive the scrutiny of a serious, independent judge.
That hardly means that courts are more qualified than scientists to determine the validity of evolutionary theory, or other scientific findings. But in their investigative rigor, their commitment to evidence, and their unhesitating willingness to decide arguments on their merits, courts certainly have much more in common with the scientific process than many of today's major media journalists do. The fact that today Judge Jones has become America's leading arbiter of what counts as science certainly underscores his own intellectual seriousness. But it also exposes the failure of other gatekeepers.
rl, you persist in playing the twit and put up yet another straw man. Qualified means qualified. A botanist is a scientist by definition, but without other consideration apart from credentials in botany is unqualified to design aerospace life support systems, a mechanical engineer is a equally scientist with a genetic engineer, yet neither, absent other consideration, are qualified in the other's field. A Doctor of Philosophy is a doctor, but a Doctor of Medicine is qualified to undertake hands-on healthcare. There are millions of scientists, however one chooses to define the word, and by and large, as an overall demographic, the spiritual attitudes of scientists are not much different from those of society as a whole - hardly surprising. On the other hand, when it comes to evolution, among those scientists who actually do know what they're talking about, there is to all practical purpose (99.85%) no dissent - evolution is an accepted fact.
Quote:Only 0.15% of earth and life scientists subscribe to one of the creation science belief systems ...
Various U.S. court decisions have concluded that "creation science" is not actually science. This is because the beliefs of creation scientists cannot be falsified; i.e. it would be impossible for a creation scientist to accept a proof that naturalistic or theistic evolution is true. That is because their fundamental, foundational belief is that the Book of Genesis is inerrant. All physical evidence is judged by comparing it to Genesis. No evidence from nature can disprove this belief. Once a person accepts a religious text as the basis of their scientific studies, they no longer are free to follow where the data leads; they cease being a scientist ...
Quote:
AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.
Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02
Quote:American Astronomical Society Statement on the Teaching of Evolution
20 September 2005
The American Astronomical Society supports teaching evolution in our nation's K-12 science classes. Evolution is a valid scientific theory for the origin of species that has been repeatedly tested and verified through observation, formulation of testable statements to explain those observations, and controlled experiments or additional observations to find out whether these ideas are right or wrong. A scientific theory is not speculation or a guess -- scientific theories are unifying concepts that explain the physical universe.
Astronomical observations show that the Universe is many billions of years old (see the AAS publication, An Ancient Universe, cited below), that nuclear reactions in stars have produced the chemical elements over time, and recent observations show that gravity has led to the formation of many planets in our Galaxy. The early history of the solar system is being explored by astronomical observation and by direct visits to solar system objects. Fossils, radiological measurements, and changes in DNA trace the growth of the tree of life on Earth. The theory of evolution, like the theories of gravity, plate tectonics, and Big Bang cosmology, explains, unifies, and predicts natural phenomena. Scientific theories provide a proven framework for improving our understanding of the world.
In recent years, advocates of "Intelligent Design" have proposed teaching "Intelligent Design" as a valid alternative theory for the history of life. Although scientists have vigorous discussions on interpretations for some aspects of evolution, there is widespread agreement on the power of natural selection to shape the emergence of new species. Even if there were no such agreement, "Intelligent Design" fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers.
Since "Intelligent Design" is not science, it does not belong in the science curriculum of the nation's primary and secondary schools.
The AAS supports the positions taken by the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Geophysical Union, the American Chemical Society, and the American Association of Physics Teachers on the teaching of evolution. The AAS also supports the National Science Education Standards: they emphasize the importance of scientific methods as well as articulating well-established scientific theories.
The fact of the matter is that 55% of "Scientists" ascribe to a purely naturalistic view of evolution, 40% allow there may have been a deistic role in what otherwise has been a naturalistic process, and a mere 5% swallow the Creationist twaddle hook-line-and-sinker.
Quote:(A)ccording to the random survey of 1000 persons listed in the 1995 American Men and Women of Science
55% of scientists hold a naturalistic and atheistic position on the origins of man
Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40%...include God in the process.
Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed [with] the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years."
The survey ... asked ... the same Gallup Poll question posed to the public in 1982 and 1991. In the 1991 round, 40 percent of Americans said God "guided" evolution to create humans.
While this 40% is a middle ground of agreement between scientists and the public, there is a sharp polarization between the groups taking purely naturalistic or biblical views. While most scientists are atheistic about human origins, nearly half of Americans adhere to the biblical view that God created humans "pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10 000 years." Forty-six percent of Americans agreed with this view of human origins in the 1991 Gallup poll. Only 5 percent of the scientists agreed.
Because only a quarter to a third of Americans are Protestant evangelicals or fundamentalists, the 1991 Gallup Poll showed that many mainline Protestants, Catholics and Jews believe in a "last 10,000 years human creation." The 1991 poll also showed that college-educated Americans were far more likely to accept evolution, underscoring their closer affinity to the views of scientists.2
The standard view in science is that modern-day Homo sapiens emerged 40,000 years ago and began to organize societies 10,000 years ago. The oldest humanlike ape is called Australopithecus, or "southern ape." It was found in Africa and is believed to date back 4 million years. Homo erectus developed 1.8 million years ago. Neanderthals roamed Europe and Asia beginning 100,000 years ago.
The survey was a separate but parallel study to one reported in Nature (1997 Apr 3; 386:435-6) in which 40 percent of the same scientists reported a belief in a God who answers prayers and in immortality. Both surveys were conducted by a reporter for the Washington Times and Edward J Larson, a historian of science at the University of Georgia. The report in Nature was based on a replication of a 1916 survey that scandalized Americans by finding that 45 percent of scientists were atheists and 15 percent were agnostics.
From The University of California, Berkeley website Understanding Evolution:
Quote:Lines of evidence: The science of evolution
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time ...
The religionist/creationist/ID-ist position is ludicrous, insupportable, self-cancelling (through wholly internally referential rationalization), roundly dismissed by a vast majority of members belonging to the legitimate, accreditted, mainstream scientific and academic communities, and adherence to the fairytale-based cockamamie "Intelligent Design/Creationist Theory" betrays a paucity of intellectual honesty and achievement.
But then, its little wonder supermarket tabloids enjoy greater circulation than do scientific journals, or than do legitimate newspapers and periodicals, for that matter. The market for fiction, while insatiable, is fed quite easily. Non-fiction is a harder crop to grow, tougher to chew, and more work to digest, which, though it is more nourishing, is why it is embraced by a more selective demographic.
As demonstrated, the creationists/ID-ists are the ones given to innaccuracies, prevarications, mischaracterizations, falsehoods, and straw men. Actually, saying rl and ilk "play" the twit is a mischaracterization - they aren't playing.
"Every tree is known by his own fruit." (KJV, Luke 6:44)
To evolutionists, having a dissenting view is often a crime, indeed. Such is the nature of the 'open inquiry' they espouse.
real life wrote:You claim there is no evidence for evolution, OK, there is no evidence for evolution because you say so, and you are an unbiased, logical, rational, scientific individual well known and respected in the scientific community.Seems like the easiest way to disprove creationists would be to give some convincing evidence of evolution, something 'only evolution explains'. But there is no such, so it is unsurprising that he makes no attempt to provide this kind of 'smoking gun' in favor of evolution.
