Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Discovery Institute's “Wedge Document” How Darwinist Paranoia Fueled an Urban Legend
Evolution News ^ | 10/07/05 | Staff

Posted on 10/07/2005 7:48:04 PM PDT by Heartlander

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 581-595 next last
Mr. Douglas Kern sums up the current neo-darwinist stance:

"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops with community-college degrees who're trying to sell a gussied-up creationism to a cretinous public! No need to address their concerns or respond to their arguments. They are Not Science. They are poopy-heads." - Douglas Kern

Kern does raise an interesting point in his article - How does one logically adhere to neo-darwinism yet separate oneself from sociobiology?

For example, if one believes we owe our existence to random mutations and natural selection (RM&NS):

I have argued that the discontinuous gap between humans and 'apes' that we erect in our minds is regrettable. I have also argued that, in any case, the present position of the hallowed gap is arbitrary, the result of evolutionary accident. If the contingencies of survival and extinction had been different, the gap would be in a different place. Ethical principles that are based upon accidental caprice should not be respected as if cast in stone
-by Richard Dawkins, Singer

Come on now, if evolution is a fact (just like gravity is a fact) then why would a neo-darwinist distance his/her self from this philosophy? And speaking of philosophy, why does philosophy allow this debate without name-calling or political aspects as shown here ? There is no dualism within the neo-darwinian paradigm.

Now back to this infamous “Wedge Document”… I would like to submit a couple of ‘wedge documents’ myself that show the other side of this debate from people who take a strict ‘neo-darwinian’ stance:

The Bright Movement:

The movement's three major aims are:
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
Brights

Humanist Manifesto I & II

And for the record, why was there no uproar about this peer-reviewed paper ? The stats were bad and so were the conclusions. Where is the outcry? Why should this be allowed as peer-reviewed without the same criticism as a paper from Meyer?

1 posted on 10/07/2005 7:48:07 PM PDT by Heartlander
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Poopy-head? I resemble that remark!


2 posted on 10/07/2005 7:58:20 PM PDT by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wallcrawlr; Alamo-Girl; betty boop

(((ping)))


3 posted on 10/07/2005 7:58:58 PM PDT by Heartlander (Please support colored rubber bracelets and magnetic car ribbons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Don't discuss dogs at a cat show, nor cats at a dog show.

Don't go to Burger King and ask for a Big Mac, nor for a Whopper at McDonalds.

Don't go to a theater and ask to see a menu, nor to a restaurant and ask the waiter "What's playing?"

Don't go to church and talk about science, and don't discuss your religion when doing biology.


4 posted on 10/07/2005 8:01:01 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

"Don't go to church and talk about science, and don't discuss your religion when doing biology."

You'd think that this was self-evident, but the Discovery Institute obviously doesn't get it.


5 posted on 10/07/2005 8:08:11 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
…and don't discuss your religion when doing biology.

This is my point – and I don’t see a need to get a burger at a movie to draw the conclusion.

6 posted on 10/07/2005 8:08:18 PM PDT by Heartlander (Please support colored rubber bracelets and magnetic car ribbons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
As ID is to Creationism, evolutionnews.org is to Discovery.org.

I wonder why they didn't put this material on the original website?

Not.

7 posted on 10/07/2005 8:10:49 PM PDT by Hoplite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

"Darwinist fringe" ?


8 posted on 10/07/2005 8:12:00 PM PDT by mlo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mlo

Not content to re-define the word "science," they are now trying to re-define the word "fringe" to mean "a group less than 99% of the whole."


9 posted on 10/07/2005 8:22:32 PM PDT by highball ("I find that the harder I work, the more luck I seem to have." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Thanks for the ping!


10 posted on 10/07/2005 8:27:51 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: highball
Booo!!!
11 posted on 10/07/2005 8:28:33 PM PDT by Heartlander (Please support colored rubber bracelets and magnetic car ribbons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Bit late for spin control. The Wedge Document is part of the court record. The Thomas More lawyers, who are doing a pretty good impression of the Three Stooges, failed to exclude testimony about the document, and (better yet)pages of other testimony about public testimony by Johnson, Dembski and others, proving that the Wedge Document is completely consistent with public statements by other prime movers in the Discovery Institute.

The ID scam is exposed, guy. Time to find another euphemism for creationism, and this time tell your guys to keep their big mouths shut about how this is really just a Kewl Scheme to get Biology Class turned into Church Service.

BTW, what a really cool idea it was to try to question Forrest about the connection between evolution and bestiality. I wonder are these Thomas More lawyers regulars on the Designed Universe website.

But what I find particularly telling is your indignation at the Brights. You've been attacking them since they were founded. And what are they looking for? Global domination? Nope. Just understanding and tolerance for atheists and agnostics. It appears that's too much to ask from the likes of you. You'd prefer to the good old days when you could set the Inquisition on them.

12 posted on 10/07/2005 8:31:49 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Word play?
13 posted on 10/07/2005 8:39:14 PM PDT by Heartlander (Please support colored rubber bracelets and magnetic car ribbons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Link to AntiEvolution.org.
14 posted on 10/07/2005 8:42:08 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
“…Singer defended his previous writings that humans and nonhumans can have "mutually satisfying" sexual relationships as long as they are consensual. When asked by CNSNews.com how an animal can consent to sexual contact with a human, he replied, "Your dog can show you when he or she wants to go for a walk and equally for nonviolent sexual contact, your dog or whatever else it is can show you whether he or she wants to engage in a certain kind of contact."
Singer

15 posted on 10/07/2005 8:51:22 PM PDT by Heartlander (Please support colored rubber bracelets and magnetic car ribbons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
Casey Luskin is apparently auditioning for the part of Humpty Dumpty.

“It was only in that very generic sense that the book used the notion of "creation"—that is, that signs of plan, purpose, and intelligence in nature point to an intelligent cause,” added Luskin. “Pandas makes it explicitly clear in many instances that they are not postulating a supernatural cause, because to do so would go beyond the limits of science. No ‘word-processor-conspiracy-theory’ from Forrest can change the fact that Pandas’ arguments were always distinct from those of traditional ‘creationism’.”

Once that term had been so defined, it’s understandable and perfectly appropriate that people trying to use the term in a completely different way (reasoning from scientific evidence to design) would be all the more interested in finding a term that more precisely fit what they were actually doing. Without changing the substance of their argument (from evidence in nature to intelligence, and not speculating about the supernatural), the authors found a more generic term that was less likely to be misunderstood.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

16 posted on 10/07/2005 8:58:28 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander

Other than displaying that you share the fascination so many creationists seem have with bestiality, I can't image what this has got to do with the Wedcge Document.


17 posted on 10/07/2005 9:00:48 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Impenetrability, that's what I say.


18 posted on 10/07/2005 9:03:04 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Heartlander
And for the record, why was there no uproar about this peer-reviewed paper ? The stats were bad and so were the conclusions.

Ask the Christian university that published it. Don't take it up with me. I've already described it on another thread as a piece of crap.

19 posted on 10/07/2005 9:07:15 PM PDT by Right Wing Professor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Right Wing Professor
Prof, you are a member of the Bright movement along with many other scientists…
The Bright Movement:
The movement's three major aims are:
A. Promote the civic understanding and acknowledgment of the naturalistic worldview, which is free of supernatural and mystical elements.
B. Gain public recognition that persons who hold such a worldview can bring principled actions to bear on matters of civic importance.
C. Educate society toward accepting the full and equitable civic participation of all such individuals.
Brights

This is different from the wedge document?

20 posted on 10/07/2005 9:07:51 PM PDT by Heartlander (Please support colored rubber bracelets and magnetic car ribbons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 581-595 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson