Intelligent Denials: Bush's science adviser defends evolution!

The American Prospect, ^ | 22 February 2005 | Chris Mooney

[PatrickHenry]

When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topi."

[PH here:]
I'm not sure the whole article can be copied here, so please go to the link to read it all:
Chris Mooney, "Intelligent Denials", The American Prospect Online, Feb 22, 2005.

[AntiGuv]

Again, stop using "Darwinism" when you mean secularism - Darwinism is hardly incompatible with theism - and I don't care what your opinion is about liberal secularism.

[Matchett-PI]

"Keep theology out of science, and science out of theology."

I agree. Macroevolution is a blind-faith religion.

[mlc9852]

Just passing the time with some light-hearted entertainment. That's one of the reasons I love Free Republic - never a dull moment.

[Long Cut]

"Why does a Creator frighten you so?"

It doesn't. I've simply not seen any evidence to conclude with certainty that one exists, and none which flat contradicts a natural explanation for the universe.

Nice try at misdirection, however. I asked YOU a question, too, which you seem unwilling to answer.

[js1138]

But their theory does the same thing.

No it doesn't. ID can't predict anything or suggest research, because there is no limit to the designs possible by an omnipotent designer. ID has been around as a formal idea since at least the 1700s without progressing in any way. There is not a single argument presented by Behe that was not published by Paley in 1802.

[mlc9852]

Actually, it's the "law" of gravity - there is a difference.

[Long Cut]

"So you don't like it when people disagree with you?"

Where did you get this from? I only don't like it when they refuse to support their assertions with evidence.

"Believe me, a lot of intelligent people a whole lot smarter than I am think evolution is foolish."

They're wrong, too. You haven't complimented yourself, here.

" Contrary to your vaunted opinion of yourself, you don't have all the answers."

Contrary to your unfounded assertion, I do not believe I do.

However, since you have made it clear that you are in no way seeking any knowledge on this thread, but simply "playing", I shan't waste any more time on you.

However, that behavior is quite rude, considering your lack of substance.

[crail]

Firstly: There is no such thing as logical entropy. Entropy comes in two flavors, informational and thermodynamic. Google agrees with me. "Logical entropy" returns 408 hits on google, none of which seem scientific. On the other hand "snoober" returns 1400 pages when limited to only English pages, and it's not even a word. Long Cut could learn three times as much if you asked him to look up snoober, rather than logical entropy.

Secondly: Perhaps you meant informational entropy. Informational entropy was named entropy because it shares some of the properties of thermodynamic entropy. However, there is no second law which governs informational entropy. Nor is there a first law of informational entropy. Informational entropy can be created, it can increase, it can decrease, it can be wiped out by a hard drive crash, or it can appear spontaeously with cries of "Eureka!"

[mlc9852]

I think silly theories are quite rude and I'm amazed that otherwise logical human beings can fall for such assumptions. But until either God can be "proved" or evolution can be "proved", there will be continuous conflict.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

You haven't been doing much reading on the subject then. Much of the ID theory is based on very new science. The more we discover in science the more it points to a different theory than Darwinism. All ID scientists want is to say "when I look at that data, I see such and such..." They do not want to be told what there conclusions must be.

[Long Cut]

I've got a soft spot for BIG explosives. ;)

...CASTLE BRAVO, the US's largest nuclear detonation (15 Mt)

[js1138]

Tell me what ideas in ID are new.

[Heartlander]

OK… Well, if you will excuse me, there is a wall here just asking for an argument.

[AntiGuv]

Well, I didn't mean that to come across as harsh as it probably did, but I rather doubt I disagree with you about liberal secularism (although that accurately describes only one general class of leftists -- the non-ethnic minority, white-collar liberals -- who also happen to provide much of their political leadership) and I am not interested in arguing about anything aside from evolution at this particular time in this particular thread (even assuming that I disagreed with your seeming actual point).

I don't consider science to be at odds with theism.

[js1138]

http://www-phil.tamu.edu/~gary/intro/paper.paley.html

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I'll answer your question in some detail, but I'm going to have to do it later. The fast version is that the more we know about the precise fine tuning of the universe, the complexity of the simplest cell, the amazing information in the DNA code....the more it makes the case for intelligent design.

I am not an expert, but I read experts. To answer you better will require more time than I've got right now.

My original point was that scientists ought to be allowed to look at the physical data and come to different conclusions. I think it is ugly to push one school of thought out based on the implications of the conclusion. On origin of life issues, everything has implications. It was no better for Evolutionists to be pushed out of the debate because of the implications of their conclusions way back when. It's really the same thing.

[js1138]

The ID argument hasn't changed in 200 years. Even longer, since Paley was sued for plagerism. It's always the same thing: design is obvious; complex things are irreducible. Neither the argument nor the terminology has changed.

[stremba]

Actually you are right. There is a difference between the law of gravity and the theory of gravity. Both do in fact exist in modern science. I wonder if you really know what the difference is. (HINT: It's been posted on these crevo threads in the past.)

[Dimensio]

Some whould argue that first life was as complicated as a 747. I think that's what the argument is.

Even if that were true, the fact is that 747s do not make imperfect copies of themselves (or copies of themselves at all) and life forms do. That is the fundamental flaw of the analogy, and that is why only the ignorant repeat it as though it has meaning.

[Dimensio]

I laugh at evolutionists.

I guess that's one thing that you can do when you don't have any actual arguments.