Discovery's Creation [The rise & fall of the Discovery Institute]

Seattle Weekly ^ | 01 February 2006 | Roger Downey

[shuckmaster]

The problem most fence sitters have with understanding the theory of evolution is that the critics always ignore the basic central principles and divert the conversation by dwelling on the most obscure way out tangent. The evos then go into great detail giving the most likely explanation for this extreme tangent and the casual lurker is totally baffled by the argument and no closer to understanding the basic principles.

Over multiple generations, interbreeding populations gradually change their features as the ongoing process of replication, heritable difference, and natural selection adjusts the surviving population to severe pressures caused by changes in the environment. Adverse pressure can come from any combination of war/predators, disease, starvation/drought, or natural disasters including meteor strike or inevitable large scale climate change, etc.

When overall situations are good, the population breeds and multiplies becoming more heritably diverse in the process. When situations are bad, these pressures become the most severe and the only survivors to seed the next generation will be the few whose heritable differences makes the difference in whether they are 'selected' to live while the masses die. The future generations will thus all be adapted to the the distinct inherited features of the groups survivors and will tend to hold those features even when they are no longer necessary to survive the next inevitable environmental crises.

Darwin's theory states that whenever an interbreeding population is somehow geographically separated into two different groups which can't reconnect to interbreed, each group will thereafter face different environmental challenges and evolve in different ways. This process will continue indefinitely until each group is eventually so different that the two groups will no longer interbred if they ever again come in contact with each other. Once that step occurs, there will no longer be a cross mating to recombine the two groups and the process of evolving into different species will be complete.

I hope this helps...

[unlearner]

"The center's first and so far only director was Meyer, who retains his day job in the Department of Theology, Philosophy, and Chaplain Services at Whitworth College in Spokane, a 115-year-old private liberal-arts college whose mission is 'to provide its diverse student body an education of the mind and heart, equipping its graduates to honor God, follow Christ, and serve humanity.' To this end, the mission statement continues, 'Whitworth's community of teacher-scholars is committed to rigorous and open intellectual inquiry and to the integration of Christian faith and learning.' (The Whitworth connection is not mentioned on the center's Web site, where Meyer is described as holding a Ph.D. in the history of philosophy and science from Cambridge University in England.)"

How ominous! /s Pretty much any university founded more than a hundred years ago had a similar mission. That goes for Harvard, Yale, Princeton, as well as Oxford and Cambridge University in England (which the above statement seems to note as an obviously secular institution). But Cambridge was centrally religious to begin with - all its education centered around religious duty.

Christians start great institutions and liberals hijack them. Same goes for this great nation.

"The evidence, said the judge, should persuade a reasonable person that the purpose of intelligent design is to slip God into the classroom through the transparent device of refusing to mention his name."

Oh, but God is allowed in the classroom - contrary to the revisionist interpretation of the Constitution. He does not need to be slipped in, since He is entitled to march through the front door, publicly. If it is impossible for the free exercise of religion to be carried out in public schools, then public schools are unconstitutional. Public education was begun by people whose goal was educating youths about the Bible and the Judeo-Christian God. These included some of the founders of our nation. They fully understood the meaning of the first amendment, and saw Christian education within public education as harmonious and lawful.

It is unconstitutional to interfere with the free exercise of religion. Those who brought this suit were motivated by a desire to use the government to engage in unconstitutional religious censorship. And the judge ruled in favor of censoring religious expression. According to him, it is enough that a person is religiously motivated to censure their opinions. They do not even need to mention God, let alone actually impose a sectarian religious practice or doctrine.

I want to know which specific religion is established by teaching ID. What are its theological tenets? What is its statement of faith? Who practices this religion? How do they practice it? Who is not part of it due to non acceptance of its essential religious doctrines?

The Bill of Rights "countenances" religions in general (the supposed crime asserted by this author). The prohibition is of establishing a specific state religion.

[Senator Bedfellow]

The problem that most fence sitters have is that they're not really fence sitters - ever notice how none of them ever have a list of questions for creationists to clear up?

[hawkaw]

Thanks for the excellent article!

[hawkaw]

Good point. All they need to do is actually go into Patrick Henry's or Ichnemon's personal sites on FR and start reading for themselves.

[shuckmaster]

1) Big number one. Claiming to know what God does or does not do.

Who or what is this god you refer to and why does he need you to presume to speak for him?

2) The assertion that they alone can judge what is science and what is not science.

I'm comfortable with allowing scientists judge what is science and what is not science, thank you!

3) Science holier than thou.

Barf alert.

4) Refusal to debate intelligent design proponents.

Now you're flat out lying! Scientist's have debated and totally discredited every single intelligent design proponent to come along.

5) Intellectual bullying. Ichneumon's long posts are Exhibit A.

Exposing extreme ignorance as Ichneumon and many others here frequently do can't hardly be called intellectual bullying. ...unless you're feeling the pressure to extract your head from the sand (or whatever) it's buried in.

6) Stepping out of their proper role. The role of biologists should be a humble one: to work on developing useful medicines, hardy plant and animal varieties, and a general understanding of life. They have no role in politics, religion or education.

Ha! ...and what are your qualifications to determine someone else's proper role?

7) Assertions of the truth of evolutionary theory on the basis that it has been "widely accepted" or "believed by all scientists."

If you're having a problem with the truth, feel free to reinsert your head back into the sand (or wherever you keep it inserted)!!!

[shuckmaster]

ever notice how none of them ever have a list of questions for creationists to clear up?

Yep!

[Senator Bedfellow]

Hi there, I don't know which side to support, and I'm not leaning either way, but here's a list of seventy-five problems that I don't think you Darwinists can answer. If you all would do me a favor and drop everything to answer my obviously loaded questions, I'd sure appreciate it.

One of those pops up every few weeks or so, I guess. It would get a bit annoying after a while, if it weren't so hilariously transparent, anyway.

[steve-b]

In 1998, members of a Seattle nonprofit think tank drafted a secret five-year plan with an ambitious goal: to "defeat scientific materialism" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

Writing down a naked admission that you're slapping Groucho glasses on religious doctrine in order to pass it off as a scientific alternative wasn't a very intelligent design on their part.

[steve-b]

Refusal to debate intelligent design proponents. This is offensive to American tradition.

So, I guess that George Bush's refusal to debate Michael Moore proves that Bush is offensive to the American tradition and implies that the claims advanced in Farenheit 9/11 are true.

[steve-b]

Intellectual bullying. Ichneumon's long posts are Exhibit A. It's very ugly and it's outside both American and Christian tradition to behave this way.

ROFL!!! Presenting facts is "intellectual bullying" and "outside both the American and Christian tradition"??

[steve-b]

The Communist Manifesto was also believed by all members of the Supreme Soviet.

The communist apparatchiks in power (as opposed to the useful idiots who did their bidding) didn't really believe that tommyrot any more than the Discovery Institute really believed that ID had nothing to do with religion.

[highball]

(and I don't view the theory of evolution as being in any way valuable)

That pretty much tells us all one needs to know about you and your opinion of the sciences.

The ToE is the very underpinning of much of the natural sciences. If you don't think that an understanding of biology or genetics is "in any way valuable," why should we listen to your opinion of what is or is not science?

[Coyoteman]

Good article ===> Placemarker <===

[aruanan]

In 1998, members of a Seattle nonprofit think tank drafted a secret five-year plan with an ambitious goal: to "defeat scientific materialism" and "replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God."

I guess it's irrelevant that the same situation existed back in the pre-Darwin days, but with the players reversed. Darwin was the Rosa Parks of the movement back then to eliminate the idea of theism with respect to origins of nature. Many then disagreed with Darwin but saw him as a good rachet mechanism in getting them farther toward the goal. Of course, many of those claiming orthodoxy now are simply unaware of their own origins, lost, as it were, in the mists of history.

[jec41]

The problem that most fence sitters have is that they're not really fence sitters - ever notice how none of them ever have a list of questions for creationists to clear up?

I have a list. How do you prove God exists, ID exists, or creation exists? Did ID design God? Is ID God? If God created everything other than himself who created God? Does ID have a agenda? What is the ID agenda? Does creation have a agenda? What is the creation agenda? What is the philosophy of philosophy? What is the agenda of philosophy? What is the philosophy of science? What is the agenda of science? What is the philosophy of mathematics? What is the agenda of Mathematics? What is the philosophy of all theology? What is the hidden philosophy of theology? What is the agenda of theology? Are faith and belief only thoughts of philosophy? Are there any proofs that would verify faith and belief?

If the answer to all of the above is but faith and belief
in the thoughts and opinions of yourself they are irrelevant except that you aspire to a philosophy of your own opinion. However if you can provide proof or truth or refute any proof or truth of the above questions the world would be eternally grateful and we would all aspire to the same thoughts.

[PatrickHenry]

I believe evolution on a macro level exists. The proof is everywhere. But as for micro-evolution ...

Micro-evolution, Macro-evolution, and Speciation.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Presenting facts is "intellectual bullying" and "outside both the American and Christian tradition"??

Presenting facts is bullying to American Creationists. Those unwilling to do the work necessary to understand science often feel threatened by other people having knowledge. Similarly for those who fear algebra.

[Right Wing Professor]

Great article.

[Right Wing Professor]

Intellectual bullying. Ichneumon's long posts are Exhibit A. It's very ugly and it's outside both American and Christian tradition to behave this way. It's a leftist type of tactic: shouting down the opponent.

Gosh, that's pathetic.

If nasty Ich's big posts huwt youw feewings, then just don't wead them, baby. No one's going to make you.