Posted on 11/22/2005 12:44:07 PM PST by Michael_Michaelangelo
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.
That's a pretty good Ad Hominem.
A Great Thanksgiving to all Freepers, even the rebellious elements in the colonies.
I think we'd all be happier if Dawkins stuck to the science and stayed away from pronouncements about politics, where really his opinion is no more valid than anyone else's .
Curiously in the past the left has had a go at Dawkins for presenting a right-wing perspective of evolution. If you read just the "Selfish Gene" in particular without knowing that Dawkins is leftish you'd come away with the impression that he was right-wing. He remarks in particular about the selfishness of organised labor in the UK and the damage caused by it. But Dawkins side-comments in "Selfish Gene" were against a backdrop of the appalling failed consensus socialist governments of the 60's and 70's in the UK. He has since suggested that he regrets the form of words that he used in SG and generally his recent political comments appear well to the left, particularly looney Michael-Moorish stuff about Bush stealing the election from Gore.
AndrewC look away if you aren't interested in UK politics. The lib dems were historically the centre-party of UK politics. But over the last 10-15 years they appear to have moved leftward in their rhetoric while labour has moved rightward in its rhetoric. They advocate much closer ties with the EU than the other major parties, and they openly advocate higher taxation. They opposed the Iraq war which turns out to have been a smart move in short-term UK political advantage. In the longer term who knows; we'll have to wait to see how it pans out though it isn't looking great at the moment.
Increasingly it is hard to tell the lib-dems and new labour apart because new labour is a lot more re-distributive and aggressively socialist and nannying than most of its rhetoric would suggest. New Labour has already presided over a giant increase in the tax burden since 1997 yet the lib-dems declare enthusiastically that they would increase taxes by even more. The only reason that the higher tax isn't biting is (IMO) because (a) they inherited a great economic position in 1997 (b) they continued with conservative economic policies until 1999 (c) the world economy has performed well in general since then with the flood of cheap far-eastern imports keeping prices down. Gordon Brown's high spending is continuing to drive growth through expansion of the public sector but freepers know where growth driven that way ends.
I am intrigued. I wasn't aware that Rolex's are imperfect replicators. If that is the case they really ought to be much cheaper, or is the feed very expensive? Or do they not breed very successfully?
Please do not feed the Troll.
NO!! Now see how things go awry. I meant that Dawkins Ad Hominem was a doozy since Gould could not be there to defend whether he had read the book or not. I have not characterized you in any way, that would be Ad Hominem on my part.
Arrgh, I looked. Pretty interesting information. We seem to be fracturing /realigning here in the U.S. also. Who would have believed Republicans tanking supply as an option against high oil prices, and spending like drunken Democrats away from momma on a business trip.
Happy Thanksgiving to you and all you love.
And this is how Dawkins characterized it.
it appears that Gould didn't read it either. Ah well, why bother to read a book, if the title alone tells you it must be the sort of book you disapprove of on political grounds?
That is Ad Hominem. I would also guess from what I have seen of Gould that he would have read the book. I have it on good authority that Gould was a scientist of some good quality.
Ironically, the only time Bradley comes anywhere near criticising his hero Gould, Gould is right and Bradley wrong. He wonders whether Gould may have gone over the top in suggesting that the evolutionary rise of humanity is a complete historical accident. I am with most biologists in agreeing that Gould's point is so obviously true that it never needed saying. We had thought that Gould was, not for the first time, attacking a non-existent straw man. But even straw men occasionally exist, and this one appears to be instantiated in the form of Clive Bradley. You can see why it would appeal to his politics. It might be thought to appeal to Gould's politics too, but Gould is too good a scientist to let that distort his perception of nature. ---- Dawkins
P.S. Gould died in 2002, Dawkins response was in 2000, I guess I have to revise "doozy".
Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified.
" Your source is biased, thus, totally disqualified."
Just like that? It doesn't matter if the site is biased; what matters is the substance of the arguments put forth. Creationist sites are equally biased against evolution (and much of science in general). In order to debate them though, we still have to argue their points. We do. You apparently don't feel the need to make substantive arguments against evolutionists; just saying they are biased against creationism is enough for you. It isn't for us. If you have a disagreement with a claim made on Talk Origins, make it. Hand waving it away makes you look afraid to address the substance of the issue.
It is Ad Hominem to argue against the person instead of the argument. And what does that have to do with the claim that was brought forth here earlier that evolution is the basis of Marxism/Communism?
Nothing more than what I posted in 617 to starbase, Interesting the twists of the internet.
You brought up the other question.
Defending Dawkins from scurrilous ad hominem attacks is like defending Bill Clinton from being lied about.
It certainly is when Gould was not the writer of the article to which Dawkins was responding.
So. You attack the argument not someone who is not "there" to argue. Dawkins already stated he had handled the arguments made by Gould.
Bradley quotes Stephen (yes, Stephen, well done, Clive) Jay Gould's criticism of alleged atomism in The Selfish Gene, and describes it as "a devastating criticism of not only a scientific approach, but an entire philosophical world-view." Bradley says, "To my knowledge, Dawkins and his co-thinkers have not bothered to respond to this criticism." Let me add to his knowledge. On page 271-272 of the Second Edition of The Selfish Gene, I quote the very same paragraph from Gould, and refute it (really).
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.