Prof Speaks at 'Intelligent Design' Trial

AP - Science ^ | 2005-10-17 | MARTHA RAFFAELE

[JasonSC]

From Creationism Is Evolving... It Has No Choice by Max Borders:

Point Two:

ID will win because the pro-Darwin crowd is acting like a bunch of losers.

I agree that there is more than a little priggery among Darwinists. But even an intelligent man like Douglas Kern must admit the sheer number of troglodytic bible-thumpers in the Creationist ranks -- a number that does little to quell Darwinist condescension. In any case, to say that Darwinists are condescending is not to argue against their position. Kern of all people should know that he cannot criticize Darwinists for employing ad hominem arguments only to turn around and commit the very same fallacy.

Point taken.

[Matchett-PI]

Point 1: There were 5 points.

Point 2: One of those points is that (as this, all the crevo threads prove), he just saved everyone the trouble of reading 90% of the responses to the ID position by condensing the Darwinist's arguments down to their vacuous essence:

"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."

[jennyp]

Web-of-truths PLACEMARKER.

[Oztrich Boy]

Don't confuse a man with a dolphin. (Traditional Saying)

[Antonello]

Haven't you been saying that ID isn't a scientific theory because it ISN'T falsifiable? Is it, or isn't it?

The blood clotting question wasn't so much a test of ID as it was one of evolution. ID didn't fail this test; instead evolution passed it. And even if evolution didn't pass, ID still wouldn't just win by default.

[connectthedots]

The blood clotting question wasn't so much a test of ID as it was one of evolution. ID didn't fail this test; instead evolution passed it.

Evolution has not passed this test; at all!

While it doesn't prove IS, it does tend to disprove evolution. Your logic is faulty.

[whattajoke]

"Ewww…intelligent design people! They're just buck-toothed Bible-pushing nincompoops..."

let's explore your new hero Behe.
He fully accepts common descept and major portions of Evolutionary theory and he fully accepts a 6 billion year old earth.
Has anyone brought up how they could bring this stupid trial to it's knees? How about they call in as witnesses every scientist who disagrees with Behe's idea (nowhere near a "theory" by the way). That would take, oh, about 400 years to get through them all.

Lastly, I saw Behe on The Daily Show (of all places) a few weeks ago. He was asked point blank, "Did you come up with IC before or after your religious conversion? Of course he stammered and admitted the obvious - after. Now, would the lawyer please ask him that on the stand and be done with this nonsense?

[js1138]

Gosh if reality warped to accommodate every bit of sloppy wording, you would be a winner.

When ID makes a specific prediction, it is susceptible to being falsified. Behe predicted that no evolutionary path could be found for blood clotting. Such a path has been described. Therefore that prediction has been falsified.

This is why ID doesn't make many predictions. Because of the way ID is conceived it can only make negative predictions -- that evolutionary pathways cannot be found. Every time such a pathway is found, ID shrinks a bit, and the concept itself erodes.

[whattajoke]

While it doesn't prove IS, it does tend to disprove evolution.

Not at all, but playing your fun game, I guess I could say that your designer is therefore not all that bright.

[Junior]

ID isn't a theory because it cannot be used to make testable predictions.

[curiosity]

Selling charlatan books to fools is smart business.

It's one book. I somehow doubt he made that much on it. He probably makes a fair amount on speaking fees on the lecture circuit.

[PatrickHenry]

Just added to The List-O-Links, suggested by MHalblaub:

NEW Evolution and Creationism: A Guide for Museum Docents. PDF file.

[Coyoteman]

Placemarker

[shuckmaster]

Rile up the congregation and pass the plate preachers haven't even been able to stop alcohol, gambling, adultery, rock & roll, or porn, etc; but you think they're going to stop science education?

[dread78645]

ZeusDidit placemarker

[From many - one.]

Sadly, I think the answer is yes.

One is license, the other is discipline. Science is hard, a meritocracy, often inaccessible.

The whole creationism movement*, as I am seeing it while participating on these threads, is power, period.

It is much easier to exercise power when the masses are uneducated.

To me the most telling point was the acceptance by the Kansas school board of testimony from a fundamentalist Moslem.

*The movement is not the same, in my mind, as individuals who accept Genesis as an act of faith. Those are honest folk who have no trouble finding out what scientist's think and even practicing in the sciences themselves, nevertheless holding literal creation as a fact independent of the other data. I have complete respect for that group.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker