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.

[whattajoke]

Gosh, y'know... that pic reminds me that "The Call of the Wild" is a more or less perfect book. Jack London was a great writer - often overlooked b/c his stories are straightforward and "simple."

But I love 'im.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"What I don't understand is the near panic Darwin people go into at the mere mention of Intelligent Design."

It seems to me that this panic exists on the other side of the argument.

It's so bad actually, that people who believe in Creation have made up a "science" in order to try and shore up their beliefs.

If we took Intelligent Design seriously, and examine it closely (quoting from The Intelligent Design Network):

The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process.

"Certain features"?

I thought God created EVERYTHING?

You are down to arguing for the remains of the day, not the spoils.

If you have the evolutionists in a panic, then why is it that you guys are the ones giving ground?

[ml1954]

"Certain features"

AKA, the features the ID'er didn't get quite right the first time and had to go back and tweak. The ID'er gets a C+.

[PatrickHenry]

Placemarker

[DesScorp]

"Hey Dimensio...did you evolve from a monkey? Heh! That's the funniest joke I've ever heard! Did you make it up yourself?"

Answer the question...do you believe your ancenstors are apes?

[Fester Chugabrew]

I'm confused, why would someone want to proscribe their own viewpoint . . .

Ain't no spellchecker gonna catch that one. Make that "prescribe," please.

Thank you. Otherwise, perhaps I am mistaken. For some reason I thought you were of the opinion that the shaping principle of intelligent design should be omitted from public education by law.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Where science begins we begin to rely on data . . .

Data does not exist for its own sake. Were it not for free inquiry, a great deal of data would remain wholly beyond consideration. To reduce science to a body of facts solely attained by empiricism is to eliminate the greater part of scientific endeavor and expression. Consciousness, opinion, wishful thinking, etc - while we may yearn deeply to dismiss them - attend to our very being in such a way as to make pure objectivity impossible. Who would enjoy the life of a purely objective scientist? Whoever it is already indulges wishful thinking.

Yes, science relies upon data. Eventually, however, science must take the data and interpret, apply, and even subjectively assess its merits. If it is true, as the author you quote above asserts, that science consists merely of "what are the facts, and to how many decimal places," one is still faced with his own experience which may literally blind him from the facts.

[Dimensio]

Answer the question...do you believe your ancenstors are apes?

Your original question was about monkeys, not apes. But yes, my ancestors were apes. In fact, humans are apes.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"...the shaping principle of intelligent design should be omitted from public education by law."

It already is.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

With respect -- I think that you have misrepresented my post. I'm trying to remain relatively (no pun intended -- it just slipped from my keyboard) disinterested here. I've been an adherent of the ToE since I first learned about it -- and am not trying to argue either for or against it here. I've tried to focus on teaching methods and the philosophy of science.

I'm not focused on labels. However, if you look back on the multitudinous threads on this topic -- you will see that there is a debate about what a "theory" means on many of them. Proponents of ToE (once again -- that category would include me, except that I'm trying to sit out the debate about the core issue) have defined theory as:

"Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses." Addendum: "Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws."

They have then gone on to say that the ToE -- by virtue of being labeled a "theory" is ipso facto a "well-substantiated explanation ...." That is Begging the Question -- i.e. "a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.

To put it more elegantly -- "A rose by any other name is still a rose". If we relabeled the ToE the "Myth of Evolution" -- that would not diminish it's truth value one iota. By the same token -- a pumped up definition of Theory does not increase it's truth value one iota.

The best we can say about any theory is that it is not yet disproven. You cannot conclude from that that an untested theory is then as good as a throughly tested one. A completely untested theory is "a completely untested theory". Or we could even say "totally unsubstantiated conjecture".

Regarding the falsification principle -- I fully realize that there are opposing viewpoints about this. However, I would point out that a frequently made argument against I.D. is that it is not "science", because it cannot be falsified. I don't know whether or not I.D. can be falsified -- but I do agree that a scientific theory must be falsifiable.

[Creationist]

I will pray for you. My prayer is that our Lord Jesus will open you eyes to the truth. That he will not allow you to be deceived by the great deceiver's lie any more. That your heart will be softened to the true word of God. That you will have uncommon knowledge and wisdom. That you will be able to discern the spirits around your life and walk with God. I bind the spirits of hindrance deception and release the spirits of truth, compassion, knowledge, wisdom, charity.

I plead the Blood of Jesus Christ upon your life.
In Jesus name I pray Amen.
May God Bless you Brother.

[higgmeister]

Why don't you anti-evolutionists go read some science journals for a change, instead of parroting the lies of the creationist pamphlets written by people ignorant of science?

I can't understand why supposedly religious men lie
like they do just for substantiation of their own faith.
I suppose clay feet can show up in the best of men
nowadays.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I don't require you to broker my relationship with God, stand down and worry about yourself.

I have uncommon knowledge and wisdom, my gift from God, as you have it, a gift from God.

Where you appointed by God to be His middle man here on Earth, or is this appointment of your own making?

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Was there ever a point where the Theory of Evolution was called the "Hypothesis of Evolution"? If so, when was that? At what point was it dubbed the "Theory of Evolution"? What criteria did the ToE have to meet in order to be elevated from the status of "hypothesis" to that of "theory"?

Just asking.

[Creationist]

May God Bless you.

[Luis Gonzalez]

He has...without help from you.

Your pride once again gets in the way of your judgment.

I have my own personal relationship with God, neither He nor I require your services as a facilitator.

[spunkets]

"Was there ever a point where the Theory of Evolution was called the "Hypothesis of Evolution"?

If so, when was that?"

On the Canary islands, on the Beagle and for the time time Darwin pondering and was collecting his evidence.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

"You'll have to work on your logic. Taking claims from 2 groups in conflict and forming a logical construct from their contradictory claims, as if they were one person is not an example of "begging the question". The act is irrational though."

Respectfully, that's actually not what I said. Please see my post 950 to clear this up.

"At this point in the history of the theory, the Correspondence principle applies. That says that any new theory must contain the old as a limiting example. Tossing out "fallible" is pointless. Evolution ain't going down."

Please refer to "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas Kuhn for an opposing viewpoint.

"Well, here's one you're claiming. For your information the Newtonian theory of gravity is correct. It is a limiting case of the more general theory in the limit of small local energy density.".

Please refer to my post #483; wherein I said:

"Newton's law obviously wasn't actually proven -- just as no theory can actually be proven. It was, however, disproven. (Actually, many argue that it is still valid as a special case -- it is still useful for ordinary purposes here on earth.)"

It's not that we don't have relativistic effects on Earth -- it's just that for most practical purposes (e.g. calculating the trajectory of a bullet), Newton's formulae work just fine, and are much easier to work with. However, if took the trouble to measure things very, very carefully, you would see that there is a discrepancy.

BTW -- it seems that newer theories of gravitation are emerging. See:

"http://www.crystalinks.com/holouniverse1.html"

(I'm not claiming to understand this -- It's pretty far out -- but, then again so was Newton's stuff in his day.)

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

Then, at what point did it transend from "hypothesis" to theory? What were the criteria used to determine it's status?

[ChiefBoatswain]

Sorry to blow your cover, but I had to reply because I loved the message. Not so much the content as the delivery.