Darwinist Ideologues Are on the Run

Human Events Online ^ | Jan 31, 2006 | Allan H. Ryskind

[Sweetjustusnow]

The two scariest words in the English language? Intelligent Design! That phrase tends to produce a nasty rash and night sweats among our elitist class.

Should some impressionable teenager ever hear those words from a public school teacher, we are led to believe, that student may embrace a secular heresy: that some intelligent force or energy, maybe even a god, rather than Darwinian blind chance, has been responsible for the gazillions of magnificently designed life forms that populate our privileged planet.

[longshadow]

Do you goofballs recognize the absurd irony of you complaints re Ichneumon's posts? You constantly appear on these threads (Hoplite, I don't recognize you so I'm using the perjorative "you") and whine about how there's "no evidence."

So Ichneumon performs a valuable service to folks like you, sparing you the trouble of opening a textbook or seeking out knowledge on your own. And then you complain; "Ahhh, it's too much! Too much evidence! Aaaahhh." (Despite the fact that his posts represent less than a thousandth of a percent of the known evolutionary evidence, give or take.)

And then you'll pop up on another thread to whine about how there's no evidence again. Can you feel my frustration through the internet. Can you visualize me shaking my head at you people? Do you EVER stop to wonder why we call creationists head-in-the-sand liars?

Well said.

I've commented on this phenomonon previously; and append it for your edification:

It's worse than that; much worse. In the history of the world, only a tiny fraction of all the people who ever lived have had the opportunity to ask highly qualified scientists direct questions, and learn from their wisdom. Happily, because of the internet and places like FR, it is now possible for people from all walks of life to converse directly with all sorts of scientific experts; we have physicists, microbiologists, mathematicians, astronomers, and chemists, to specify but a few, roaming these threads, and eager to explain what they know and how they know it to virtually anyone willing to ask an intelligent question.

But there is another segment of people on these threads who, instead of asking these learned folks intelligent questions and thus expanding their knowledge and understanding, insist instead upon bludgeoning them with their ignorance, and questioning the patriotism, honesty, and intellect of people who have dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

I submit that such people are not here to learn anything, but are in fact interested in quite the opposite. I submit they are here to interfere with the dissemination of scientific knowledge that they find offensive. They don't want other people to ask the experts questions and learn from them; no, they are here to attack the experts and cast doubt upon their wisdom, in the desperate hope that others will turn away and not listen to them.

IMHO that is why the same people show up over and over again parroting the same refuted diatribes and misinformation, and spewing the same bogus out-of-context quotes designed specifically to disrupt the dissemination of scientific knowledge. That's why the same people show up over and over again misrepresenting what scientific theories and laws are, despite having had it explained to them 1^720th time; they are here to instill confusion and spread their ignorance, not to disseminate knowledge.

The experts here on these threads ought to be revered and thanked for sharing with us their insights and explanations of the natural world around us; instead scorn is heaped upon them and their knowledge by the belligerently ignorant. I submit that these purveyors of unknowledge should be treated for the intellectual disruptors that they are. They stare the best opportunity any of us will ever have to gain more insight and understanding in the eye, and spit in the faces of those who offer and have the knowledge to help make that a reality.

Behold, I give you the belligerently ignorant, the intellectual Luddites of our time. Know them for the anti-knowledge disruptors they are.

The people you refer to as "goofballs" and the people I refer to as "perveyors of unknowledge" are one and the same; the belligerently ignorant, the intellectual Luddites of our time.

[Fester Chugabrew]

It is the search for natural explanations for the facts and phenomena of the natural world.

Here again you've place science under a restriction it is neither obligated nor empirically qualified to adopt. Science in general is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." If it cares to restrict itself to so-called "natural phenomenon" it is free to do so, but I would expect it to state outright that it has thereby arbitrarily eliminated explanations that may be objectively true.

[dread78645]

Ned LuddDidit placemark

[whattajoke]

You: [Re: Reasons for goosebumps] Another would be a heightening of sensory response.

Me: Why would humans have a built in trigger to heighten sensory response?

You: Death Wish?

Huh? Aside from maybe the Romans throwing the Christians to the lions, I can't for the life of me figure out why the "designer" would build this into us. You hand-wave it off though. What's fascinating here is that YOU ACTUALLY WROTE AN EVOLUTIONARY IDEA AND DIDN'T EVEN KNOW IT. And now you're going to pretend you didn't.

[Dimensio]

What I see are evolutionists mocking Christians because the Christians' faith doesn't match up to your naturalistic world view.

That's because you want to see it. What is really happening is a mocking of a subset of Christian creationists (not all Christians reject evolution) for deliberately and willfully ignoring reality (witness editor-surveyor's outright dismissal of Ichneumon's post as "propaganda", without even addressing the content, and then claiming that no one ever presents evidence for evolution).

The reason I connected the TOE and no mention of God and no other scientific theory, is that the TOE directly contradicts the Christian creation story.

It is not the fault of reality that it produces observations contrary to a certain interpretation of a specific religious story. Evolution is not attempting to "contradict" your religious belief, it just so happens that observed reality happens to contradict it, in addition to a multitude of other religious stories of various other religions.

The TOE attempts to explain our origins, creation (yes, I know, but the TOE relies on the Big Bang, etc. theories)

Actually, the ToE does not "rely" on the Big Bang theory at all. The ToE does not require that the Big Bang theory be correct.

and tries to discredit the Creator.

No, it does not "try" to do this at all. The ToE is simply an explanation of species diversity based upon observations of the natural universe (constrained, of course, to where such observations are relevant). It is not "attempting" to overthrow any particular religious belief. You are mistaking reality contradicting your religious beliefs with those who observe reality actively trying to "overthrow" your religious belief. That is your paranoid delusion, not what is really happening.

[jwalsh07]

LOL. You're clueless.

[Dimensio]

LOL.............. OK, if you say so.

It's not really me. I'm relying on the guidelines of the scientific method.

Of course you saying so and anyone else saying the same thing does not make it so. It is sort of like a 'theory'.

You are dishonestly equivocating one definition of "theory" that is not the scientific therm with the scientific term "theory". They are not equivalent words. The "Theory" of evolution is not a "theory" in the sense that you have defined it. A "theory" in the context of science, such as the "theory" of evolution, is a set of statements backed by a sufficient standard of evidence, that explains the cause of observed phenomenon within the natural universe. Your "GOD"-based explanation requires an invocation of an element outside of the natural universe, and as such does not qualify as science. Note that I am not saying that your explanation is necessarily false -- it may well be true -- however because it invokes elements outside of the scope of scientific inquiry it cannot qualify as a scientific theory.

[Right Wing Professor]

Exactly. It is not the physical process itself.

Exactly. I'm the one who said it was an algorithm. You're the one who said it was a physical process. Put the beer down.

[Dimensio]

Before anyone takes nmh seriously, everyone should keep in mind that nmh is a known liar. Note that anyone wishing to dispute my charge of nmh being a liar is free to do so, but please try to explain how nmh's

[Dimensio]

Theory is THEORY!!! By definition, theory is NOT fact.

Very true. A theory has far better grounding than "fact". Theories are much better things to trust than "facts" when it comes to science.

The theory may be based on fact, but it is still a theory.

All theories are based upon fact. Theories are explanations of facts.

I don't see anyone referring to the Laws of Evolution.

Of course not. A law is a generalization of observed events, but not explanatory. Evolution is explanatory, therefore it is theory. Why would anyone refer to the "Laws" of evolution? Do you know what "law" means in the context of science?

[Dimensio]

Are you actually trying to tell me that the TOE assumes there is a God? It's one or the other.

False dichotomy. It is entirely possible for it to make no assumptions on the subject at all.

Are you utterly incapable of non-binary thinking?

[Dimensio]

I agree that He is outside the realm of science.

Which means that you also have to agree that absolutely no scientific theory can make any statement on Him one way or another. And if this is the case, then it is impossible for the ToE to "assume" His nonexistence, as such an assumption would be a statement on Him.

So that leaves me with a question: when you claimed that the ToE "assumes" that God does not exist, were you lying, or just demonstrating a lack of logical reasoning ability?

At the very least, given the possible consequences of a wrong choice, wouldn't you rather err on the positive side?

What is the "positive side" of rejecting the abundant evidence for the theory of evolution?

[Dimensio]

Oops. Screwed up my HTML.

Before anyone takes nmh seriously, everyone should keep in mind that nmh is a known liar. Note that anyone wishing to dispute my charge of nmh being a liar is free to do so, but please try to explain how nmh was not lying when he made the comments that I have directly referenced rather than shouting "You call everyone a liar!" and pretending that you've made a solid refutation against my charge against nmh.

[Ichneumon]

Darwinism has always been a theory but is taught as fact.

No, the theory part is taught as theory, the fact part is taught as fact. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

Which is disingenuous of our education system and needs to be corrected.

No, you just need to correct your misconceptions.

[WildHorseCrash]

Here again you've place science under a restriction it is neither obligated nor empirically qualified to adopt. Science in general is "the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena." If it cares to restrict itself to so-called "natural phenomenon" it is free to do so, but I would expect it to state outright that it has thereby arbitrarily eliminated explanations that may be objectively true.

No, this is you trying to lawyer things which are not science into the definition of science. Science deals with natural phenomenon. If something is "objectively true" but cannot be determined using the scientific method, by the empirical study of the natural world and natural phenomena, then the study and description of it is just not science.

[Ichneumon]

OK.... Darwin's Theory is taught as fact and it is not a fact.

Feel free to attempt to document this claims -- both halves of it.

[Dimensio]

"The appendix serves no purpose". BZZZ- WRONG!

What purpose does it serve?

[Dimensio]

No, this is you trying to lawyer things which are not science into the definition of science.

Actually, he doesn't like the current "limitations" of science only offering naturalistic explanations for naturalistic events, so he wants to declare said "limitation" to be arbitrary and be allowed to define anything that he wants as "science". Essentially, he's upset that his religious beliefs don't have the "credibility" of science, so he wants to destroy science and replace it with a philosophy of his own definition and rename that to be "science".

[Dimensio]

Sounds like an appeal to ignorance to me. "I can't explain it through natural events, so it must have been supernatural!". Also, it says nothing whatsoever regarding the theory of evolution.

[Ichneumon]

[Literally hundreds of geneticists, biologists, paleontologists, chemists, mathematicians and other scientists]

You can get "hundreds" of (people capable of passing themselves off as) scientists to assert that space aliens are visiting Earth for the purpose of abducting people and sticking probes up their nethers.

Meanwhile...

I refer you to project Steve, "literally hundreds" (696 at current count) of actual scientists (two thirds of them biologists) JUST WITH THE NAME STEVE who have endorsed evolutionary biology and rejected "ID" and other forms of creationism via signing the following statement:

"Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools."

There are more scientists JUST NAMED STEVE who endorse evolutionary biology than GRAND TOTAL scientists who the creationists can find to express some form of skepticism (the "400+" list the Discovery Institute likes to wave around have only endorsed a *very* mild statement of skepticism, nothing like the "rejection" of evolution that many try to claim about it -- hell, it's so mild *I* might have signed it.)

That alone makes the anti-evolution creationists' list of "skeptical scientists" look pretty foolish, but *this* one *really* blows their agenda out of the water:

The "Clergy Letter Project": An Open Letter Concerning Religion and Science

"Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.

"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

[As of 29 January 2006, there are 10,230 signatures collected to date]

Click the links that follow to see the alphabetical lists of clergy members who have endorsed this letter

A to E  - F to J - K to O - P to S - T to Z

Listing by States

But hey, I guess the science-haters here know better than ~10,000 Christian clergy, eh?

...or are they all part of the "vast Darwinian conspiracy" too