Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[Right Wing Professor]

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

...

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[Sun]

We can be cheerleaders for the ID people.

Cheers.

(over my coffee)

It's so early. I'm not used to getting up this early, but every once in awhile I have to.

[Sun]

Also, all study and disciplines of knowledge are interrelated including biology, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, history, etc.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

I think Jeff was also alluding to the fact that most of your *scientists* were not even trained in biology.

And you still haven't answered my critique (post 579) of one of your links, nor have you answered why Pinker and Bloom's article is listed in your anti-Darwinian list of works, when the thesis of their paper is,

"Reviewing other arguments and data, we conclude that there is every reason to believe that a specialization for grammar evolved by a conventional neo-Darwinian process."
http://www.bbsonline.org/Preprints/OldArchive/bbs.pinker.html

How much other padding is in that list?

[Oztrich Boy]

Interestingly google "evolution of the theory of evolution" and you get almost 47 million hits (46,900,000)

No I don't

---

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 276 for "evolution of the theory of evolution". (0.45 seconds)

---

You misspoke

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Advanced Google Search Placemarker

[JudgemAll]

Interesting mentality...you basicaly think these things are democratic...

[JudgemAll]

They think it's democratic, Darwinism should be voted, that my arguments do not make sense by sheer fiat of vote. They made themselves little gods, little imperialist people with little imperialist theories which reject empirical discussions, foundations of all science, they believe they themselves are Napoleons, voting... but are in fact people who ought to go the insane assylum....to jealous of their ivory tower access, they do not want the religious to even learn science, in the name of science, making themselves a white nut tower instead.

[whispering out loud]

Well when you find my error, and expose it to me with viable evidence, then I might reconsider. Until then I choose to believe the teachings of the word of God. As far as its validity, or the lack there of, I look at it this way. If I am wrong then I've lost nothing, I've lived a good life, one that I've enjoyed tremendously due to, not in spite of my religious beliefs. But if I am right, then you have lost everything, because the word of God states that it's the "TRUTH" and Christ is the only way unto salvation. So go ahead and believe you came from a monkey, or a puddle of pond scum, what ever you like but look at there intelligence, and if thats what you want to liken yourself to, whatever cranks your tractor.

[whispering out loud]

And just by the way, just because you believe something false, doesn't make it so. For years the whole world believed it false that the world was round. We believe better now. Prove it false or don't accuse.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"They think it's democratic, Darwinism should be voted, that my arguments do not make sense by sheer fiat of vote."

The creationists do think that science is a democratic process. Reality doesn't answer to a vote.

"They made themselves little gods, little imperialist people with little imperialist theories which reject empirical discussions, foundations of all science, they believe they themselves are Napoleons, voting... but are in fact people who ought to go the insane assylum....to jealous of their ivory tower access, they do not want the religious to even learn science, in the name of science, making themselves a white nut tower instead."

Sounds like a nice little Marxist critique with your talk of *imperialist theories*. You were even kind enough to include a call to have evolutionists put away in institutions for their *illness*.

[Gumlegs]

I see option D was a trick answer, Alex.

[Dimensio]

Well when you find my error, and expose it to me with viable evidence, then I might reconsider.

Your error is in claiming that the number of translations of a literary work have any bearing on its truth value. I already explained that. You are appealing to a logical fallacy and no amount of whining or ranting or raving will make your argument valid or logical.

As far as its validity, or the lack there of, I look at it this way. If I am wrong then I've lost nothing, I've lived a good life, one that I've enjoyed tremendously due to, not in spite of my religious beliefs. But if I am right, then you have lost everything,

Pascal's Wager. False dichotomy fallacy. What happens if we're both wrong? What happens if there is a deity, but it's not the one that you worship and this particular deity has no problem with non-believers like me but takes a dim view of followers of false religions like yours? In that case then I have lost nothing and you have lost everything.

because the word of God states that it's the "TRUTH" and Christ is the only way unto salvation.

Circular reasoning. Logical fallacy. That the Bible claims itself to be truth is not evidence that it is truth.

So go ahead and believe you came from a monkey, or a puddle of pond scum,

Strawman. Logical fallacy. This is a dishonest misrepresentation of the theory of evolution. You are also appealing to the false dichotomy fallacy in assuming that everyone who accepts evolution is an atheist. That is not true, and only the truly dishonest claim that it is true.

Do you have a rational argument, or is everything that you're going to offer up based upon fallacious reasoning?

[Dimensio]

And just by the way, just because you believe something false, doesn't make it so.

My point is that your "arguments" for the truth value of the Bible are founded in faulty reasoning. Your whining has not changed this fact.

Prove it false or don't accuse.

You are the one claiming truth. The burden of proof is upon you to demonstrate the validity of your claims. Your attempt to shift the burden of proof is an intellectually dishonest cop-out on your part.

[Timmy]

The excerpt you posted is not the the current or proposed changes in the Kansas curriculum - they can be found at www.kcfs.org.

Actually, they ARE the new standards. You can find them at

http://www.ksde.org/outcomes/sciencestd.html

which is the Kansas State Department of Education website. You see, my friend, you attempted to send me to a left-wing propaganda website where you get your erroneous info. That is why you folks will lose, because your lies will be exposed.

[Dimensio]

That is why you folks will lose, because your lies will be exposed.

Lose what?

[Timmy]

That's an inadvertantly smart move - you won't have any takers since all three points are not only not "indisputably true," they are ignorant bullshit.

Another member of the Looney Left demonstates the stellar debating skills the group has become known for.

[Timmy]

The debate. When one side must resort to distortion, lies, and suppression of facts to compete in the arena of ideas, that side will ultimately lose.

[Dimensio]

When one side must resort to distortion, lies, and suppression of facts to compete in the arena of ideas, that side will ultimately lose.

If that's true then the creationists and ID-pushers lost decades ago.

[Right Wing Professor]

Your point 1 is not about evolution, but abiogenesis; and it's completely false to claim we've quit on abiogenesis; it's an active and exciting area of research.

Point 2 is simply a falsehood. The fossil record contains thousands of transitional forms, completely supports evolution, and gets richer every year.

Point 3 is a deliberate lie, as far as I can tell, because you must be aware there are millions of people who believe in a God and simultaneously are convinced evolution is the only decent scientific explanation of life.

Now, perhaps I've worded it a little more kindly, but really, edsheppa's characterization of your three points is pretty much on the money.

[Coyoteman]

I have read of some cougar attacks in Readers Digest (yeah, I know, real reliable source but...) It seems as though they are losing their fear of humans and have been attacking people who are out biking or jogging on trails. I wouldn't feel safe with one around.

Most often on jogging trails. They tend to stalk people then when they bend down to tie their shoes, land on their backs.

Goes back to animal behavior. They generally dine on deer,and deer have a flat back with an upright neck. With humans the lion often will circle, looking for the flat back (which there is none). But bend down to tie your shoes, and bingo!