The Case Against Intelligent Design. The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

The New Republic ^ | 8/11/05 | Jerry Coyne

[hc87]

Exactly eighty years after the Scopes "monkey trial" in Dayton, Tennessee, history is about to repeat itself. In a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in late September, scientists and creationists will square off about whether and how high school students in Dover, Pennsylvania will learn about biological evolution. One would have assumed that these battles were over, but that is to underestimate the fury (and the ingenuity) of creationists scorned.

The Scopes trial of our day--Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover Area School District et al--began innocuously...

[js1138]

Am I getting grumpier, or are things really degenerating around here lately?

No, just more popular. The stakes have been raised by recent school board decisions, and until the courts reverse them, we are witnessing premature celebration.

[Junior]

So it's your fault.

[Dimensio]

Virtually every science textbook in the country adheres 100% to what you want, yet you would oppose a sticker with a few sentences being slapped in the front of the book, or a thirty-second statement being read, both of which essentially say "there are people who don't believe evolution as taught."

1) "ID" pushers are demanding far more than this.

2) Why don't we have a push for similar disclaimers for Relativity Theory, heliocentrism, electromagnetic theory or any other scientific explanation out there? Why is evolution, out of all theories in science, being singled out for a disclaimer when its standing is no less firm than any other established scientific theory?

[Junior]

Evolution, at best, is junk science.

Really? In what way? Be specific, now.

This ought to be good.

[DBeers]

The evolutionists are terrified of ID -why? That's the real question...

If evolution does not posit an anti-religious undercurrent or does not attempt to discredit concept of creator -whats to fear from ID and why the defensive stance? In my opinion the science of evolution but harbors safely the hatred of anti-Christianity AND this is why the secular evolutionist zealots are up in arms...

[Dimensio]

Evolution, at best, is junk science. It is intellectually dishonest and for any `true' scientist to say otherwise makes that individual an outright liar.

Do you have any actual evidence to support your claims, or are you just going to spew this nonsense and arrogantly insist that you be taken seriously without actually putting forth a real argument?

[Junior]

The evolutionists are terrified of ID -why? That's the real question...

Not wanting pseudo science taught to our kids != "terrified." You give yourself far too much credit.

[Dimensio]

The evolutionists are terrified of ID -why? That's the real question...

That's a loaded question.

There's no terror, there's simply recognition that ID is not science, and opposition to teaching non-science as if it were science.

If evolution does not posit an anti-religious undercurrent or does not attempt to discredit concept of creator -whats to fear from ID and why the defensive stance?

ID is not science. Pushing ID as science is intellectually dishonest and will encourage scientific ignorance.

[PatrickHenry]

we are witnessing premature celebration.

[js1138]

The mirror image of American creationists.

[b_sharp]

"Over billions of years,by random chance,from a tiny one-celled organism,more complex species evolve until you just happen to get the most complex creature of all--man(all of this by accident, of course). If none of this was by accident, then how did each species arrive at the decision it wanted to evolve into something else?

It was neither random (unless you use the definition of random meaning undirected) nor decided upon.

"I don't see how the socialism-serving doctrine of evolution can be anything but illogical. Belief in a First Cause(God-the Intelligent Designer) makes a sensible explanation for an orderly Universe. Blind faith in random chance over billions of years does not."

I will assume by random you mean 'by chance' and will use it in that sense for the rest of the post. Even mutations are not strictly random, since different areas of the genome experience very few mutations, some areas are self correcting to a certain extent and other areas experience frequent mutations. The mutations that are experienced can only build on what is already there and are limited by a range of possibilities. Not every possibility can happen. Once the mutation has occurred, selection takes place removing those whose survivability has been lowered by mutation, environment or by others 'getting ahead'. This is not random.

What does it gain you to fuse socialism and the science of evolution? How does it change the observed fact of evolution.

[b_sharp]

I agree.

[Right Wing Professor]

The lack of transitional fossils was a glaring weakness, one that was sure to be eliminated as technology advanced and uncovered a staggering wealth of transitional fossils that left no doubt. A century and a half later, the technology has certainly improved but those darned pesky transitionals are still missing.

Here's a long list of transitional vertebrate fossils. Could you list the ones that are missing, when they were missed, and the names of any individuals whom you might suspect of taking them?

Thanks.

RWP, your friendly policeman from DarwinCentral.

[b_sharp]

"Which means it's your fault ;)

I hope you can see what I am waving in your face. ;\

I thought I told you not to tell anyone.

[BMCDA]

The mirror image of American creationists.

Aw thanks! Now I have this image of an ululating Kent Hovind and Kathy Martin in my head :-(

[DBeers]

No real argyments are needed -what children are taught is based upon subjective criteria and based upon who makes the decisions... Intelligient Design is coming... I myseldf see no conflict between ID and the faith based evolution and would suggest as previously that the only evolutionists up in arm are the anti-Christian evolutionists... Hatred cloaked in science is hatred nonetheless...

[b_sharp]

"So it's your fault.

Always pickin' on the guy at the bottom of the totem pole. :-P

[anguish]

What's more interesting than 400 "PhD-level's" that may or may not agree (as seen by later interviews with the signers) with that statement, is the 585 (thus far) scientists named Steve that have signed this:

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

[js1138]

What does it gain you to fuse socialism and the science of evolution?

It's a break from fusing evil capitalism (social drwinism) with evolution. Consistency is so boring.

[BMCDA]

I thought I told you not to tell anyone.

No, I'm sorry but you didn't ;-Þ