Those Defensive Darwinists

THE first court trial over the theory of intelligent design is now over, with a ruling expected by the end of the year. What sparked the legal controversy? Before providing two weeks of training in modern evolutionary theory, the Dover, Pa., School District briefly informed students that if they wanted to learn about an alternative theory of biological origins, intelligent design, they could read a book about it in the school library.

In short order, the School District was dragged into court by a group insisting the school policy constituted an establishment of religion, this despite the fact that the unmentionable book bases its argument on strictly scientific evidence, without appealing to religious authority or attempting to identify the source of design.

The lawsuit is only the latest in a series of attempts to silence the growing controversy over contemporary Darwinian theory.

For instance, after The New York Times ran a series on Darwinism and design recently, prominent Darwinist Web sites excoriated the newspaper for even covering intelligent design, insulting its proponents with terms like Medievalist, Flat-Earther and "American Taliban."

University of Minnesota biologist P.Z. Myers argues that Darwinists should take an even harder line against their opponents: "Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough," he wrote. "The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians."

This month, NPR reported on behavior seemingly right out of the P.Z. Myers playbook.

The most prominent victim in the story was Richard Sternberg, a scientist with two Ph.D.s in evolutionary biology and former editor of a journal published out of the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History. He sent out for peer review, then published, a paper arguing that intelligent design was the best explanation for the geologically sudden appearance of new animal forms 530 million years ago.

The U.S. Office of Special Counsel reported that Sternberg's colleagues immediately went on the attack, stripping Sternberg of his master key and access to research materials, spreading rumors that he wasn't really a scientist and, after determining that they didn't want to make a martyr out of him by firing him, deliberately creating a hostile work environment in the hope of driving him from the Smithsonian.

The NPR story appalled even die-hard skeptics of intelligent design, people like heavyweight blogger and law professor Glenn Reynolds, who referred to the Smithsonian's tactics as "scientific McCarthyism."

Also this month, the Kansas Board of Education adopted a policy to teach students the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory. Darwinists responded by insisting that there are no weaknesses, that it's a plot to establish a national theocracy — despite the fact that the weaknesses that will be taught come right out of the peer-reviewed, mainstream scientific literature.

One cause for their insecurity may be the theory's largely metaphysical foundations. As evolutionary biologist A.S. Wilkins conceded, "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

And in the September issue of The Scientist, National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell argued that his extensive investigations into the matter corroborated Wilkins' view. Biologist Roland Hirsch, a program manager in the U.S. Office of Biological and Environmental Research, goes even further, noting that Darwinism has made a series of incorrect predictions, later refashioning the paradigm to fit the results.

How different from scientific models that lead to things like microprocessors and satellites. Modern evolutionary theory is less a cornerstone and more the busybody aunt — into everyone's business and, all the while, very much insecure about her place in the home.

Moreover, a growing list of some 450 Ph.D. scientists are openly skeptical of Darwin's theory, and a recent poll by the Louis Finkelstein Institute found that only 40 percent of medical doctors accept Darwinism's idea that humans evolved strictly through unguided, material processes.

Increasingly, the Darwinists' response is to try to shut down debate, but their attempts are as ineffectual as they are misguided. When leaders in Colonial America attempted to ban certain books, people rushed out to buy them. It's the "Banned in Boston" syndrome.

Today, suppression of dissent remains the tactic least likely to succeed in the United States. The more the Darwinists try to prohibit discussion of intelligent design, the more they pique the curiosity of students, parents and the general public.

Science can choose between the two.

Yes it can. It can also accept both as viable models. Likewise, science can, and should, adopt an agnostic approach and say it does not know whether intelligent design or other factors are involved in the presence of organized matter. Again, I'd like to know why the presence of intelligent design necessitates the presence of supernatural elements. It certainly is not required in instances where we know an artifact was manufactured by humans. Why must it be required in the event we surmise an artifact otherwise demonstrates organization and process?

The point is not whether a person's position is right or righteous - rather that one's delivery or conduct speaks louder than his words.

Consider all the ways one could assert that another correspondent has lied and how it would be received among the observers - especially, the casual observers. For instance,

That statement is false.
Liar!
You are a $*%@ liar!
You say that now, but back on such-and-such you said.
You have said two things which don't comport; can you clarify this?
You wouldn't know the truth if it smacked you across the head.

The pro-Darwin side of the debate hasn't yet "caught on" that the debate is being played out in the court of public opinion.

"Yes it can. It can also accept both as viable models."

Because both are open to testing, falsification, and make predictions. They both refrain from using supernatural, unobservable, and untestable explanations.

"Likewise, science can, and should, adopt an agnostic approach and say it does not know whether intelligent design or other factors are involved in the presence of organized matter."

Yes? That is exactly what I have been saying. It should remain agnostic. You have been claiming that science CAN make a choice, which is wrong.

"Again, I'd like to know why the presence of intelligent design necessitates the presence of supernatural elements. It certainly is not required in instances where we know an artifact was manufactured by humans."

The existence of human designers says NOTHING about the hypothetical designer of the universe. THAT designer is unknowable and unobservable. THAT designer is the one that ID'ers are talking about. THAT designer is outside the realm of scientific inquiry.

[kimosabe31:] Darwinism has long ago been shown to be pure mythology. It's only supporters are the phoney profs that use it as a vehicle for dumbing down the naive student population and applying for federal grants, AND gullible followers.
[Ichneumon:] Do even *you* believe this goofy twaddle? For frick's sake, go to a LIBRARY or something and educate yourself before you try again. And thank you *so* much for giving lurkers more evidence for the common stereotype of conservatives as gradeschool dropouts...

[kimosabe31:] I have long suspected "knee-jerk" leftists, parlor pinks and islamofascist lapdog groupies of lurking on FreeRepublic so you can run and tattle to your handlers what those awful conservatives are talking about.

Paranoid much? I fail to see how it makes me a "lefist parlor pink and islamofascist etc. etc." when I correctly point out that you said something remarkably silly and ignorantly false about the field of evolutionary biology.

And speaking of remarkably silly and ignorantly false, if you had bothered to do something as simple and easy (and smart) as checking my posting history before you went off on a John Birch rant and accused me of trying to sap and impurify all of your precious bodily fluids and so forth, you'd have noticed that my long posting history on FreeRepublic is hardly the kind that anyone with a functioning brain could mistake for "leftist/pink/islamofascist/blahblahblah".

So in short, you're *still* behaving like a bizarre parody of the worst kind of negative conservative stereotype.

I stand by my original comments 100%. Your strange declarations about "Darwinism" are pure fantasy and transparently false.

There may even be a few of you out there lurking in the hope that some conservative good traits might "rub off" and thereby improve your character suchas common sense and the capability for rational/logical thought.

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who has problems distinguishing his conspiracy theories from reality.

In any case it doesn't seem to be working for you ichneumon.

You're right, your paranoid scenario isn't working for me at all. It's not working very well for you either.

Give it up.

No, I won't give up pointing out when people are behaving irrationally and spewing blatant falsehoods. Make more and I'll continue to call you on it.

Alamo Girl,

A year or so ago, there was a large group of Jew-baitiers who were banned for posting Sam Francis and other similar junk. On their message boards they talk about how much they hate this site, and they discuss their attempts to infliltrate it in order to promulgate their hateful beliefs among polite society. I speculate Stingy Dog was one of these people. It was highly likely that he was a retread troll. I doubt this was his first account because he knew enough to not identify Sam Francis crap as such, was quick to remove it once so identified, and did his best to confuse the issue when confronted. This shows malice aforethought and an attempt to conceal his sources. These are not the actions of a legitimate poster. His type has no place here.

Frankly, I thought you had more sense than this. I disturbed that no one on "your side" stepped forward to condemn him. Furthermore, I regret to see that you are trying to spin this as an attack on creationism. Personally, what bothers me is that you are more concerned with what "lurkers" might think about the exposure of this racist and how this event might help your arguments, rather than of worrying about what "lurkers" might think about racist messages being posted on the forum. You seem to be trying to "finesse" this event such that it appears that some hapless creationist was gang-raped by a bunch of evolutionists. Shame on you! This website does not need people who think that Rosa Parks was a communist plant whose actions were designed to weaken white culture and that interracial marriages cause social destruction. I don't care about winning an argument with a racist or anti-semite. I don't care about appearing mean-spirited when dealing with a racist or anti-semite. I want them gone. Period. Nuking racist trolls is a public service. You should be thanking us instead.

I do not have an empirical methodology laid out for determining the presence of intelligent design as operative, for example, in the creation of an automobile, but I believe it to be well within the bounds of science to produce such a methodology. The interplay between the intelligent design of human artifacts and of entities outside of human endeavor is significant, as for example when farmers plant a crop, or when a sculptor applies implements to a rock.

It is hardly unreasonable, or unscientific, when one comes across a field of corn, to surmise indirectly that this field entails elements of intelligent design. In the widest sense, organization of matter and design go together. So do intelligence and design. It is not unreasonable, or unscientific, to infer from the presence of organized matter that intelligent design may be involved.

If you want to raise science to the level of dealing strictly with absolute proofs and certitude, then the cherished dogmas of evolution must be discarded along with all other statements not grounded in empirical, direct observation.

Science must admit to the presence of intelligent design unless it wants to discard all examples pointing in that direction. From there it becomes a matter of deducing the extent to which intelligent design impinges upon all matter.

Intelligent design is a reasonable starting point for science. By starting point I mean just that: a beginning assumption that seeks supporting evidence. The evidence against intelligent design resides in those instances where matter behaves in a totally unpredictable, and undetectable fashion. Intelligence and intelligibility are coextant. Any artifact lacking design would be unintelligible to human observation, and thus outside the realm of science.

So, just as the definition of science should be large enough to accomodate the extent of human knowledge, the definition of design and intelligence should be large enough to accomodate all that is observable.

The biggest problem is that there is no data for ID. None. Many others have asked for what facts exists that support ID and would lead to ID to be a logical conclusion. There has yet to be an answer by anyone on these threads.

I'm not sure that is precisely true. You may not have observed facts that lead you to that conclusion, but that is not to say those facts do not exist. For some, facts exist that are sufficient to lead to a particular conclusion. Such disagreements happen in the scientific community all the time, don't they? There is still no concensus on what Ponds and Fleischman observed is there?

Bad theories don't move forward.

Actually, bad theories are modified based on new information and move forward in that manner.

There may well be an intelligent designer, but that is something that science cannot probe.

Neither can it reject, which I think is the issue most object to. Under the auspices of science, individuals are told that they cannot have faith and beliefs that are not supported by the scientific community. Yet these beliefs that people have are based on their on experiences and observations of the world. That one person cannot see the hand of God in a DNA strand does not mean that it isn't there for another who is at least open to the possibility. And yet, we are told, you may not believe that or even consider the possibility. Sad I think. Science does not exist in a vacuum. Other disciplines, from mathematics to philosophy to psychology to history are useful in understanding science. Yet those are not thrown out of discussions of science.

You may be surprised, given the nature of the people who attacked me, that I don't have a stake in this debate. I can accept what I choose. But I do object to an individual being told that their data, their observations, have no validity because some other individual does not choose to consider them. The hatefulness of the objection is frequently beyond what can be considered rational. And I agree with you that my concern applies to both sides of the debate.

Thanks for the adult response, and have a good day.

Furthermore, I regret to see that you are trying to spin this as an attack on creationism. [...] You seem to be trying to "finesse" this event such that it appears that some hapless creationist was gang-raped by a bunch of evolutionists. Shame on you!

Also, it's interesting to note that despite the implication that he was attacked because he was a creationist, several people -- including yourself -- had *already* stated that they felt that "Stingy Dog" wasn't even a real creationist at all. So the bit about how this allegedly serves as an example of evolutionists bullying creationists because of a disagreement over views is even more off the mark.

From his ludicrously over-the-top posts, it seems highly likely that "Stingy Dog" was just a disruptor/troll, here to post things that fed all the worst stereotypes about conservatives. The motive would probably be in order to give the folks at DU and elsewhere usable "soundbites" of posts by "Freepers" that they could use in order to smear all of us -- and the site itself -- by association.

...and calling him onto the carpet and making it clear that he's not representative of Freeper values is allegedly making *us* look bad? I think not.

THAT designer is unknowable and unobservable.

That's like saying a car is not designed because one cannot directly observe or know the designer. The evidence for intelligent design is indirect evidence of a designer. No more and no less. That does not mean the designer could not possibly, at some time in the future, become more directly manifest.

Your definition of supernatural is an arbitrary one. Any inexplicable phenomenon can be given a name by science, and thereby be declared "natural."

From what I've read of the ID people - Behe, Dembski, and a few others - their scientific credentials are a hell of a lot better than these clergy.

Dembski has no science credentials. Math is not science. His cluelessness about science was laid bare last week when he posted a link to a quack physics web site about a power source that is claimed to exploit the zero-point energy of the hydrogen atom. Dembski suggested this was another revolutionary discovery in science, rejected by the powers that be. A good physics or chemistry undergraduate knows better.

And Behe, to cite one example, is not "against science" - he is a PhD in microbiology.

He got his doctorate in biochemistry. He may not be against science, but he's interested in limited its domain of applicability.

What sickens me about you Darwinist freaks is your smug arrogance. You are mostly frightened little babies, second rate thinkers, mediocrities, who exhibit none of the intellectual curiosity that marks the great scientists. If your mentality prevailed, we would still be in the Stone Age, because you would ridicule anyone who ever advanced a new understanding of reality.

Ignoring your ad hominem, how does claiming life arose by a supernatural mechanisms that cannot be studied by science advance our understanding of reality?

Under the auspices of science, individuals are told that they cannot have faith and beliefs that are not supported by the scientific community.

No, they are *not* told that.

Yet these beliefs that people have are based on their on experiences and observations of the world.

Feel free.

That one person cannot see the hand of God in a DNA strand does not mean that it isn't there for another who is at least open to the possibility. And yet, we are told, you may not believe that or even consider the possibility. Sad I think.

Again, you are *not* "told" that you "may not believe that or even consider the possibility". Go right ahead and believe it, or consider the possibility. No one's going to stop you.

Science does not exist in a vacuum. Other disciplines, from mathematics to philosophy to psychology to history are useful in understanding science. Yet those are not thrown out of discussions of science.

Neither is faith. But the point is that it should not be mistaken *for* science, or presented *as* science, which is what the IDers/AECreationists do all too often.

But I do object to an individual being told that their data, their observations, have no validity because some other individual does not choose to consider them.

Again, that's not what is actually at issue.

The hatefulness of the objection is frequently beyond what can be considered rational.

I submit that the objections only appear irrational because you have misconstrued what they actually are.

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.