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...

[Quick1]

Neither do ants.

[narby]

And it of course federalizes the issue of what -- or rather how a subject -- is taught in a classroom thousands of miles awy from DC so that makes Dems very happy.

So how come conservatives handed them this ability to be happy?

The left didn't bring this issue up, conservatives did. Specifically, the Discovery Institute in Seattle.

That in itself is another proof that Republicans are the stupid party. They hand a predictable victory to the Dems for with no possible advantage to our side whatever.

stupid stupid stupid.

[Kokojmudd]

[narby]

It takes more faith to be an evolutionist than to be a creationist. In addition, there are no facts, science or whatever to support evolution.

When are you creationists going to come up with a new argument? Or, to be more precise, any argument at all?

You people just repeat what you heard in church last Sunday with no understanding whatever.

Garbage in, garbage out.

[narby]

I didn't read your post MM. If you can't make your point in a couple of sentences, then you certainly don't know how to communicate and likely don't know what you're talking about.

[RobbyS]

The reason I bring it up is that it is shown ito so many history classes. I did it myself and was chagrined to learn that even after I had layed out the facts of the matter, that they preferred to believe the movie. I guess Spencer Tracy was much nicer than I am. Of course they were after McCarthy, but part of their message is that only ignorant southern Bible pounders feared "progressive" thought. It also obscured the historical fact that Darrow was not a "seeker" like the character Tracy played, but as bigoted and ignorant of the matter at hands as Bryan and a whole lot meaner personally.

As for me, I have never had any difficulty with the theory of evolution since I first read about it in the old ""Book of Knowledge" encyclopedia in the second grade. On top of this was the fact that my dad was an oil man and in thick with geologists. He, in fact, showed me a fossile that his drill bit had accidcentaqlly brought up from the woodbine sands of the East Texas field.
I was a bit confused by the original "One Million B.C." which showed men and dinosaurs living together. But I learned then and there that movies made up a lot of stuff.

[Dimensio]

I didn't read your post MM. If you can't make your point in a couple of sentences

I do hope that this is a sarcastic reply in the same vein as the replies to detailed, informative posts from people like Ichneumon.

[longshadow]

Behold His Noodly Appendage.

"Ein Feste Nudeln ist unser Gott."

[razorbak]

Krauthammer believes we need more anti-2nd amendment gun laws.

[Dimensio]

No real argyments are needed

So you think that just shouting somehow refuts the 150 years worth of research and evidence for the theory of evolution? What, do you just pretend it isn't there and hope that it goes away?

-what children are taught is based upon subjective criteria and based upon who makes the decisions... Intelligient Design is coming...

Even if it is coming, that doesn't make it science.

I myseldf see no conflict between ID and the faith based evolution

1) Evolution is not faith-based.

2) Even if there is no conflict, ID is not scientific and teaching it as though it is science is fundamentally dishonest.

[narby]

I do hope that this is a sarcastic reply in the same vein as the replies to detailed, informative posts from people like Ichneumon.

I'm just being honest. I really don't have time to read all that stuff.

I haven't seen a new point come out of the creationist crowd in, what, two years? And even then the points were 50 years or more old, I just hadn't heard them.

When I see bible verses used to attack science, it's just irrelevant at that point. If the poster doesn't understand that science can't operate in the supernatural realm, then the poster just doesn't have anything to say to me.

Sorry.

[Right Wing Professor]

Eine feste Nudel ist unser Gott.

"Romani ite domum"

[MississippiMan]

I didn't read your post MM. If you can't make your point in a couple of sentences, then you certainly don't know how to communicate and likely don't know what you're talking about.

Believe what you choose, narby. I've been published perhaps fifty times in national magazines, but maybe I just have a few folks fooled into thinking I "know how to communicate," while you really figured me out by way of not reading my post.

Uh-huh.

MM

[Dimensio]

I really don't have time to read all that stuff.

When I don't, I skim through it and look for the most glaring errors, then expose those. When creationists offer up things, it's rarely difficult to find major flaws. MississippiMan, for example, brought up the red herring of textbook disclaimers even though ID pushers are demanding a hell of a lot more than that (and the disclaimers themselves have spurious justification).

[Right Wing Professor]

Gist of MM's post: evidently someone, (IMHO probably a deranged creationist) is stealing transitional fossils. MM wants them back, as should we all.

Or something like that.

[narby]

Believe what you choose, narby. I've been published perhaps fifty times in national magazines, but maybe I just have a few folks fooled into thinking I "know how to communicate," while you really figured me out by way of not reading my post.

Brevity is the soul of wit. Real talent at communication is reducing the essence of your idea to as few words as possible.

The choir loves to be preached to, and I'm sure you entertain your readers. But as soon as you posted bible verses in a discussion about science, I'm no longer interested.

Sorry.

[narby]

Gist of MM's post: evidently someone, (IMHO probably a deranged creationist) is stealing transitional fossils. MM wants them back, as should we all.

Oh, was that it. I agree. Surely.

I got lost somewhere around: II Peter 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:

I guess they're talking about remembering where they put those transitional fossils.

[PatrickHenry]

All right, here are some questions for the ID crowd:

1. If something can be explained without the necessity of a designer, why is ID a better explanation?

Reason for the question -- The Discovery Institute's definition:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. [Emphasis added by me.]
Source: Top Questions

2. If something is not yet explained by natural causes, why is ID the only possible explanation? How can an ID theorist conclusively demonstrate that something could not have arisen naturally?

3. If the Designer designed everything, then what are the distinguishing characteristics of design?

4. Is there any possible observation that could falsify the theory of ID?

5. If an intelligent designer is responsible for the evolution of life on earth, then why are over 90% of all species now extinct?

[atlaw]

MM also brought up

“no transitionals”;

“evolution is a house of cards”;

“evolution as currently taught cannot remotely begin to stand up under real scrutiny” (needs to be taught differently, I suppose);

the standard conspiracy theory (“frenzied efforts to see that it never receives real scrutiny in the public eye” [as opposed to the private eye]; "endlessly and frantically propped up for a hundred-fifty years”);

and a couple of new ones -- “If Darwin were alive, he would almost certainly reject his own theory” (a variation, I guess, on the theme that Darwin recanted on his death bed), and my personal favorite, the previously unexplored concept of “ironic hypocrisy.”

On the whole, a long winded recitation of nothing new. Except for that deliciously bizarre idea of "ironic hypocrisy." That needs some development.

[Right Wing Professor]

I guess they're talking about remembering where they put those transitional fossils

Since the total number of transitional fossils must be in the thousands by now, maybe we should cut them some slack.