Posted on 04/12/2006 11:48:01 AM PDT by Paddlefish
I am not surprised.
On an HIV thread, there were several luddites who were spinning flat-out lies:(1) that HIV had not been isolated (not only has it been isolated, its DNA has been partially decoded); (2) AZT (AIDS drug) causes AIDS --- which does nothing to explain those who died of AIDS before its discovery or in Africa where it is seldom found . . . etc.
And, like some (again, some, not all) of the the YEC babble, it superficially sounds reasonable.
Of course, good lie sound reasonable.
I thought it was flouride.
LOLOL! But how would you know that I appreciate you, dear PatrickHenry? *smooch*
Insulin is obviously an addictive narcotic peddled by greed crazed drug companies. Scientology could cure diabetes in three days.
Guillermo Gonzalez & JayW Richards, The Privileged Planet.
I know I'm a day late, but Get a room!
The Vise Strategy: Squeezing the Truth Out of Darwinists
Molecular Machines: Experimental Support for the Design Inference
Whether Intelligent Design is Science
Michael Behe On The Theory of Irreducible Complexity
The Origin of Intelligent Design: A brief history of the scientific theory of intelligent design
Five Questions Evolutionists Would Rather Dodge
The Problem With Darwinian Solutions
In Defense of Intelligent Design
Uncommon Descent (William Dembskis blog)
Intelligent Design: The Future blog
Evolution News & Views: News Analysis of Media Coverage of the Debate Over Evolution blog
Recommended Reading
Uncommon Dissent. If youve never heard the term "post-Darwinian," welcome to the world of thinkers who reject evolutionary theory and its reliance on the notion of chance (i.e. "random mutation"). In this provocative volume, biologists, mathematicians and physicists as well as theologians and other intellectuals argue, as editor Dembski writes, that "the preponderance of evidence goes against Darwinism." The contributors invoke mathematics and statistics to support their theory that an "intelligent cause is necessary to explain at least some of the diversity of life." In other words, the degree of diversity and complexity in life forms implies the need for an intelligent designer. The nature and identity of this designer is not discussed by all the writers; others call this intelligence God. Supporters of intelligent design differentiate themselves from creationists, but they, too, argue that their theory should be taught in high school biology courses. Anyone interested in these debates and their implications for education will find this collection to be important reading.
Doubts About Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design. Woodward's account shows that the problem with the template of "religion versus Darwin" is that it simply doesn't fit the ID movement, although many detractors try to insist otherwise. The founder of the movement, Phillip Johnson, was, until his recent retirement, a Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. While on sabbatical in the late 1980s, he studied the scientific case for and against Darwinism and concluded that the empirical case for Darwinism was surprisingly weak. He then presented his findings at a symposium held through his law school and was further encouraged to pursue his criticism of Darwinism. As Woodward documents, the proponents of ID argue that Darwinism lacks crucial evidence, begs important questions, and often caricatures alternatives unfairly. They make their case against Darwinian evolution by pointing out flaws in the arguments and gaps in the evidence, not by citing religious texts.
There are a growing number of books defending and criticizing ID, but Woodward's book is unique in that it assesses the history of this movement of the past decade from the perspective of the classical discipline of rhetoric. Given the book's rhetorical angle, the reader is treated to both the straight arguments for and against Darwinism, as well as an inside look at the personalities and persuasive strategies used on both sides of the debate. (For example, when noted Darwinist Stephen Jay Gould first met Phillip Johnson, he dispensed with pleasantries and said, "You're a creationist and I've got to stop you.") In Woodward's account, Johnson emerges as the rhetorical mastermind of ID, who, though an outsider to the scientific guild, nevertheless mastered the scientific case against Darwinism and helped develop a consistent strategy for the ID movement. His simple charge is that Darwinism is driven more by a commitment to a materialistic worldview than by the actual evidence of biology. This book details the rise of the intellectual, scientific, and philosophical challenge to Darwinism.
Darwins Nemesis: Phillip Johnson and the Intelligent Design Movement. This book honors Phillip Johnson, the Berkeley law professor whose 1991 publication Darwin on Trial and later books helped intelligent design emerge as a highly visible, and highly controversial, alternative to Darwinism. While it may be premature to hail Johnson as "Darwin's Nemesis," these essays reveal him as an influential strategist and mentor within the ID movement. Contributors to the 2004 symposium that spawned this collection include leading ID advocates Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan Wells and Scott Minnich, as well as Darwin defender Michael Ruse, who has engaged Johnson in debate. Other contributors address cultural and political questions beyond evolution itself, such as Francis Beckwith's timely review of legal controversies over ID in the classroom, J. Budziszewski's discussion of naturalism and the Natural Law tradition and editor William Dembski's commentary on the professionaland often personal"backlash" against ID advocates. Readers who are familiar with the basics of ID and curious about the movement's development and inner workings will find much of interest, although for an account of the most recent and current controversies over ID, they will need to consult other sources. Forward written by Sen. Rick Santorum.
Privileged Planet. Is Earth merely an insignificant speck in a vast and meaningless universe? On the contrary. The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery shows that this cherished assumption of materialism is dead wrong. Earth is more significant than virtually anyone has realized. Contrary to the scientific orthodoxy, it is not an average planet around an ordinary star in an unremarkable part of the Milky Way.
In this original book, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay W. Richards present an array of evidence that exposes the hollowness of this modern dogma. They demonstrate that our planet is exquisitely fit not only to support life, but also gives us the best view of the universe, as if Earth-and the universe itself-were designed both for life and for scientific discovery. Readers are taken on a scientific odyssey from a history of tectonic plates, the wonders of water, and solar eclipses, to our location in the Milky Way, the laws that govern the universe, and the beginning of cosmic time.
Review of The Privileged Planet (The Royal Astronomical Society)
What Darwin Didnt Know. This book has to do with medical facts and how they conflict with the theory of evolution. Darwin may have made a sincere effort to explain the life around him in the nineteenth century, but he knew little, if anything, about the human cell, heredity (why a child resembles his parents), immunity, hormones, blood pressure and scores of feedback loops that tell the body when it's too hot or too cold, hungry or full, sick or well, and tired or refreshed. These examples and many more are discussed. They all speak clearly for Intelligent Design, a discussion that needs to re-enter mainstream American dialogue. "There is a tide of data mounting against the Darwinian concept that randomness can explain the wonder of life. In What Darwin Didn't Know, Geoffrey Simmons converts the tide into a tidal wave of evidence." -- Gerald Schroeder, Ph.D.
Intelligent Design. "Einstein once remarked that the most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible." This statement, quoted by William Dembski, is a way of summarizing intelligent design theory, which argues that it is possible to find evidence for design in the universe. The author of The Design Inference (a scholarly exploration of this topic published by Cambridge University Press) aims in this book to show the lay reader "how detecting design within the universe, and especially against the backdrop of biology and biochemistry, unseats naturalism"-- and above all Darwin's expulsion of design in his theory of evolution. Intelligent Design is organized into three parts: the first part gives an introduction to design and shows how modernity--science in the last two centuries--has undermined our intuition of this truth. The second and central part of the book examines "the philosophical and scientific basis for intelligent design." The final part shows how "science and theology relate coherently and how intelligent design establishes the crucial link between the two." This suggests that Dembski is not simply rejecting Darwin and naturalism on fundamentalist or biblical grounds. While grounded in faith, he wishes to show how "God's design is accessible to scientific inquiry."
The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician who has been an important theorist for the intelligent design movement, handles a wide range of questions and objections that should give both fans and detractors of ID plenty to chew on. While most of the core arguments of this book will be familiar to readers of the ID literature, they are presented here in (if one may say so) more highly evolved form: explanations are clearer, objections are borne more patiently, distinctions and concessions are artfully made. Without denying the theological and cultural implications of ID, Dembski is more concerned with ID's future as a scientific enterprise: a point where despite some successes the movement continues to struggle. The book's format makes for a clear read. Chapters can focus on a single issue and adopt an appropriate tone: basic questions get basic replies, pointed objections get forceful rejoinders, and technical questions allow Dembski to unleash a faculty for technical detail that can only be called impressive.
Darwins God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil. Joining the ranks of Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, Cornelius G. Hunter gives us Darwin's God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil, the latest must-read installment of scholarship on human origins. Beginning with the provocative statement that "evolution is neither atheism in disguise nor is it merely science at work," Hunter denies evolution's claim to be pure science, beyond the "entanglements" of faith or belief. Ultimately, he shows how Darwin's theological concerns-particularly his inability to reconcile a loving, all-powerful God with the cruelty, waste, and quandaries of nature-led him to develop the theory of evolution.
Hunter provides the crucial key to engaging the intelligent design debate in the context of modern theology. He addresses the influences of Milton, rationalism, the enlightenment, and Deism, quoting extensively from Darwin's journals, letters, and scientific writings. Readers of history, science, philosophy, and theology will enjoy this honest telling of a complex and engrossing story.
Not By Chance. Physicist Dr. Lee M. Spetner's book has biologists and geneticists praising this book as one of the most serious challenges to the modern theory of evolution. "It is certainly the most rational attack on evolution that I have ever read"--Professor E. Simon, Department of Biology, Purdue University.
We learned on the Original Undead Thread (we blew out the back with 65K posts) that extra-long threads start to cause performance problems.
So we start new ones after 5K or so...
After reading many of these threads, I think your tagline is most appropriate.
Used to live in Abilene TX. It's sort of west.
And, I do know law, especially as an attorney representing school districts. Thus, when an article is presented purporting to state the law, but which totally misrepresents the law and the facts, I take that into consideration when considering anything else from that source. Which leads us to the Discovery Institute's article, ACLU Demands and Dover Designs.
It is not entirely (but certainly mostly) wrong legally, but it is hugely misleading (and one must assume intentionally since it hasn't been pulled). And then it says that one of the authors is an attorney and a past legal advisor to it, ostensibly to give it some credence! Wow!
Well, if this is how the Discovery Institute misleads people on things I do know about, what reason to I have to believe them on the issues on which I'm not as educated. Simply put, the Discovery Institute and their purported scientific leaders, Mr. Dembski and Mr. Behe, have a ways to go to regain any credibility in my eyes.
I noticed in your last post that you left Phillip Johnson out of your critique. What are your thoughts on his writings? I have read, extensively, the works of Behe, Dembski, Johnson, Comninellis, Ham, Denton, Wells, Morris, Lubenow, et al and found him to be of a different vein of writings. I'd like to hear your thoughts.
K4
Anyway, with regard to ID, my impression is that Johnson is rather intellectually dishonest. He has an idea which is a goal because the Bible says so, and there are no facts which would change his mind. However, he is apparently willing to change his underlying theories not on the basis of science, but on what would change the opinions of the uneducated layperson. Note that the DI, after each setback, doesn't say that they need to develop more science, experiments, groundwork, etc. Instead, they change how they will present it to the layman!In other words, no matter what the experts and informed people know, DI knows that it takes a lot of work to be informed and people are much more willing to accept simple principles if said often and loudly (see the successful Clinton/Carville election strategies).
Let's just go with his admitted purposes as set forth in "The Wedge". Note that the purposes as set forth in the Wedge were not to bring scientists in line with scientific principles, but to get laymen to force scientists to make science conform to religious ideas. IMHO.
Good job as a Librarian marker.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.