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.

[ml1954]

There are several academics in my field (speech communication) who have been prominent supporters of ID, and they also happen to be left-wing, po-mo types who view science as it is currently practiced as also being an expression of Western imperialism and male domination, making natural allies of both the IDers and the "Science for the People" crowd.

Now that's funny. Science as 'an expression of Western imperialism and male domination'...LOL...Are these academics Amish aborigines?

[Lead Moderator]

That's correct. Thanks.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm considering your insult as a compliment."

No doubt.

"If only I too could be wise when I grow up."

If only.

[peyton randolph]

The God's Ark folks (as well as the IDers) have natural allies in the reality-based community

See post # 72. Tetzel doesn't take kindly to the validity of his indulgences being questioned.*

 

 

 

 

* Per the demands of the faithful, note that this post does not include any links whatsoever to Landover Baptist's website.

[Zeroisanumber]

Someone with a bit more understanding of combinatorics did an actual calculation. I don't remember the details off hand, but it went something like the following. If you filled the entire known universe with one monkey per cubic yard and had them type randomly at a very high rate for the entire known age of the universe, chances are vanishingly small that they would ever get past the first page of Macbeth.

Huh. I read a while back that if 700 monkeys did type for 700 years one of them would turn out a work of Shakespeare. I think a prof at CalTech or Berkley crunched the numbers, but don't quote me on that.

[beaver fever]

"When the proponents of ID produce a testable hypothesis I promise that we'll start calling it science instead of philosophy. Until then..."

ID doesn't even qualify as philosophy. William Paley's essay on Natural Theology was intended to preempt the scientific revolution and the religious skepticism of the French Enlightenment.

It failed because Teleology cannot trump Empiricism.

Since Paley Philosophy has been on the decline.

Take my word for it. I majored in Philosophy. Today philosophy is just an historical curiosity.

[RightWingAtheist]

Nope. Proud blue-staters. There's at least Ph.D candidate in my department who's a fervent believer in astrology. Guess where her politics lie?

[Jeff Gordon]

The most disturbing aspect about this debate is the rabid desire of evolution proponents to ridicule and otherwise attempt to marginalize those who would dare to question them.

I am curious. Just how should one respond to ridicules ideas that are on the margins of rational thought?

[Boxen]

Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God. In fact, it is really cowardly of the Darwinists who claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive in this regard. Many of you don't even have the guts to state the obvious. This is a choice between God and no God.

You seem to have a limited understanding of science.
Science is the study of the observable: that which we see, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

God is not observable. Ergo, science makes no statement--up or down--regarding his/her/its existence.

[Junior]

Your're a Darwinist idiot, PatrickHenry.

Oooh... Great response!

For a four-year-old...

[Stultis]

Sounds like you can stick a fork in ID, because it's done.

Yeah, but it'll be years before the followers figure that out. By then the marketing gurus in the antievolution movement will have figured something else out:

1. Genesis
2. Religious Creationism
3. Scientific Creationism
4. Creation Science
5. Abrupt Appearance
6. "Evidence Against Evolution"
7. Intelligent Design
8. "Teach the Controversy"
9. ???

[brent1a]

ID doesn't just seek to combat that evil evolution theory, my mind was made up about the validity of the ID argument almost a year ago when I saw an interview with the head of the Center for ID or some crazy orginization. He stated that The Grand Canyon was not formed by years of river erosion, erosion which is something that is even a common problem for any farmer, no he stated that he believed that the Grand Canyon was formed by a massive mother-of-all lightning storms apparently brought by God. Give me a break! Can you take that theory serious even for one nanosecond? Religion in itself is a philosophy, not a science. You cannot scientifically test for a deity or deities. If that makes science a bigotry then so be it. If it wasn't for science we'd all still be dying in our 30's and not living to 70+. The ID argument is an attempt to attack ALL science not just the theory of evolution, don't let anyone try to fool you. Just like the MSM hates our military & police the the ID'ers hate common sense.

[PatrickHenry]

The monkeys could end up typing some really neat stuff, if they were programmed to keep English words intact once they typed them, and then clauses, sentences, etc. In other words, if their typing followed rules, like organic chemistry does, they'd soon be working with coherent sub-assemblies, then whole sentences, etc. It might not result in Shakespeare, but then, if the earth were started all over again, the biosphere probably wouldn't look much like ours. But it would really be hopping.

[sagar]

How about "God created evolution"? :D Playing with both sides.

[frgoff]

When the proponents of ID produce a testable hypothesisI promise that we'll start calling it science instead of philosophy. Until then...

I doubt it, because the hypothesis is testable now. It has been mathematically defined (specified complexity, information theory) and can therefore be experimentally tested. Darwinists, on the other hand, can't even decide on an empirical definition of species yet go about boldly proclaiming we all descended from one.

[RussP]

" 1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, "

"Nothing to do with evolution. Next!"

I always love this one. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of the first living cell, yet they think it has no relevance to evolution. So what do they think? As far as I can tell, they must believe that ID was involved in the origin of the first living cell, but after that point ID vanished from the face of the earth. Sorry, but that's just not very plausible.

Evolutionists are masters at distorting the facts on this one. When mathematicians prove that the first living cell couldn't have fallen together by random chance, the evolutionists distort that to mean simply that "we don't yet know how it happened." Yes, that's true: we really *don't* know how it happened, but that's not the point. The point is that we know virtually for sure how it *didn't* happen: without intelligent design.

[Gumlegs]

I think all we (non-evos) really want is for you Darwinists to admit the following, which is indisputably true:

Since technically, the way you phrased the above, its meaning is closer to, "It is indisputably true that we non-evos want Darwinists[sic] to admit the following," I have no disagreement. I have a sneaking suspicion, however, that you didn't mean that.

1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, and it has not even begun to be overcome. In fact, you guys have pretty much quit on this issue and tend to ignore it as though it's not relevant.

It's ignored only because the Theory of Evolution is about supervision, not the beginning of life. "Life from non-life" has no more to do with the Theory of Evolution than the Theory of Gravity. Or do you have a problem with the Theory of Gravity because it doesn't address life from non-life.

2. The fossil record is an embarrassment for Darwin's theory. Because the fossil record fails to confirm the theory (as Darwin recognized it did not but hoped in the future it would, but hasn't), evolutionists have "cheated" on the falsifiable-ness (so to speak) of common descent and instead developed alternate theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to explain the problem. There is absolutely no evidence for punctuated equilibrium because, of course, it was developed to explain away lack of evidence.

This is the best paragraph ever written by someone on the wrong side of an argument who had no knowledge of the facts or interest in obtaining them.

But feel free to reveal the cheating.

3. Modern evolutionary theory pre-supposes there is no God. In fact, it is really cowardly of the Darwinists who claim that religion and science are mutually exclusive in this regard. Many of you don't even have the guts to state the obvious. This is a choice between God and no God.

The Theory of Evolution does nothing of the sort. Why would you even state such a thing? The Theory of Evolution no more "pre-supposes there is no God" than any other scientific theory does. Therefore, your "This is a choice between God and no God" is meaningless.

However, I won't hold my breath for a burst of honesty from that quarter.

I wasn't really holding my breath expecting you to hold your breath

[brent1a]

Provide the testable hypothesis that has been categorically accepted throughout the world by all scientists, pro or non, right or left.
Please.

[org.whodat]

Never fear, it'll morph into something with a new name, a few more bells and whistles, a little better window dressing and camouflage, and they'll trot her out again like she's a debutante at the coming out ball, instead of the tired old tarted-up hag she really is.

Now that is a good one. Sounds like you are talking a about Hillary. LoL

[balrog666]

Curious how God's Ark doesn't draw the same ire from the Christians who are reprimanding me on this thread and by private mail about the Landover Baptist* post. If I were defending Christianity, I'd be more appalled by the seriousness of God's Ark than the satire of Landover Baptist*.

Yes, the lack of any detectable sense of humor is the hallmark of the Creationist troll.