The Case Against Intelligent Design. The Faith That Dare Not Speak Its Name.

The New Republic ^ | 8/11/05 | Jerry Coyne

[Right Wing Professor]

I guess you can point out all the articles in right leaning media criticizing "Intelligent Design".

Charles Krauthammer wrote one a couple of weeks ago. Derbyshire has written at least one in National Review. A TNR survey of prominent conservative journalist/columnists showed a majority pro-evolution.

The right is split on ID. This is the classic wedge issue.

[narby]

But, as usuall, they greatly misappraise the importance or significance of "the fight."

The template of the left is that conservatives are stupid. This will reaffirm that stereotype. This fight will provide great entertainment value for them, and will bind them together to continue their other efforts against conservatives, because in their minds nothing conservatives do or think is valid.

This fight is important to them, and they will win it.

Big Time.

[Stultis]

As an evolutionist I agree almost completely with your analysis of Inherent the Wind (even if I'm not clear why you bring it up). In fairness to the authors (of the play on which the movie is based) their introduction makes it clear that the play is a fictionalization only loosely based on Dayton and Scopes. What they were really about, however, was furthering the myth of "McCarthyism".

[tallhappy]

Here's another conservative on the subject of ID: A Debate That Does Not End, by George F. Will.

Yes. Again, making my point. Published in Newsweek.

Why are the liberal MSM the ones that play up this issue?

[Stultis]

Krauthammer [...] is very hostile to Christianity.

Bull$#!+.

[tallhappy]

What they were really about, however, was furthering the myth of "McCarthyism".

And these issues, as well as others, are inextricably linked to the leftists.

Which is still the case today in articles like the one this thread is based on.

[narby]

This is a social political religious controversy with nada to do with science.

It has to do with the future of science.

The Kansas school board is in the process of changing their definition of "science" to include ID. A handful of elected religious ideologues cramming their viewpoint down an academic community.

If that doesn't involve the scientific community, then I don't know what does.

[narby]

Why are the liberal MSM the ones that play up this issue?

I answered that in post #28. Was I incorrect?

[microgood]

Interesting article in USA Today on the subject

Evolution: Debate it.

What was interesting is that there were over 400 PHDs signing on to questioning the mechanism of standard evolutionary theory.

[tallhappy]

Krauthammer's article on the Mel Gibson film was very strange and quite angry in a very uncharacteristic intellectual dishonesty on his part and was consistent with a common animosity against Christianity.

[tallhappy]

If that doesn't involve the scientific community, then I don't know what does.

Then you don't know what does.

This is classic mountain out of mole hill stuff and is commonplace among ecclesiastical battle, such as this one.

One side, or perhaps both, cloak their religious rhetoric in science, but it has nothing to do with science.

[MEGoody]

LOL Yet another individual who doesn't know the difference between ID and Creationism.

[Junior]

First off, they were not all Ph.D.s Secondly, the question they were asked and the one that appeared above their names were subtley, but specifically different. It was a classic "bait-and-switch." Creationists are renowned for such underhanded tactics, which begs the question: if their position is so good, why do they have to resort to subterfuge.

[Dimensio]

You followup your own post on "evolution is stupid" with a link to a site that exposes the logical fallacies of one of the ID-movement's biggest names...

[microgood]

First off, they were not all Ph.D.s

Here was the quote from the article(I guess PHD level is somewhat different?)

Recently, 400 Ph.D.-level scientists, including a distinguished embryologist and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, signed a statement questioning the creative power of the natural selection/mutation mechanism.

Secondly, the question they were asked and the one that appeared above their names were subtley, but specifically different.

What were they actually asked?

[msf92497]

Who said I support ID? I attacked the religion of evolution.

[Dimensio]

The template of the left is that conservatives are stupid.

Not just stupid, but theocratic-stupid. Using religion to deliberately promote a policy of ignorance and deliberately cutting off scientific investigation.

Problem is, that is true for some creationists.

[malakhi]

Has nothing to do with it whether or not ID is true or untrue or evoluton is true or untrue.

That may be your opinion; I, however, disagree. ID is not science, and should not be taught in science classes.

[Dimensio]

I attacked the religion of evolution.

Your first post attacked evolution through trite off-the-cuff remarks that did nothing but show that you don't like evolution but you don't actually have a rational argument against it. Your second post provided a link to talkorigins, which is hardly an anti-evolution website. Why did you post the link anyway?

[Mister Da]

All you ID proponents out there are gonna choke on your own desires when your kid comes homes and explains how krishna, budda, or allah created the heavens & earth!

And when you ask, "What about jehovah or yahweh?", they will say "Who's that? Never heard of him!".

If you like what they teach in sex ed. classes, you will love the course: Theories of Intelligent Design 101.

Please, please, stop trying to give the keys to your children's religious education to government bureaucrats and the NEA. Take your kids to church, temple, or mosque instead.

If there is a god, evolution is NOT a refutation of his existence, but a celebration of how perfect a creation it is that creatures can change & adapt to meet the challenges presented over eons of time.