"Intelligent Design": Stealth War on Science

Revolutionary Worker ^ | November 6, 2005

[Constantine XIII]

Don't forget the part about corrupting our precious bodily fluids. :D

[jwalsh07]

You win, whadda I owe ya?

[Torie]

A free golf lesson.

[jwalsh07]

You bet!

[Roots]

I'm right with you in challenging what liberals have to say, I do it every day (I attend a University, we, the College Republicans, live for challenging these mental cases). Your comment annoyed me, it had to be addressed; and since when did I show support for evolution? (searching... searching... comment not found). I merely criticized Intelligent Design and have no problem criticizing evolution if the evidence presented itself - this is the basis of the scientific method. If you've got evidence that disproves evolution, then I'm all ears! (So is the rest of the scientific community). At least evolution can be disproved, we are all aware of that.

It is not my agenda to see to it that evolution remains, it is my agenda to point out that ID is an idiotic idea designed to preserve religion from the "evils" of rational thought and scientific findings... a justification for all that you have already invested in this "absolute". It is you, my friend, arresting critical thought for the sake of your "faith".

[qam1]

For real? Maybe I will read this afterall. What strange bed-fellows Evolution has had coming to its support: Communists, the ACLU, the DU, the MSM, PFAW, Wiccans, Ted Kennedy ... the list goes on and on.

Wrong, Ted Kennedy as well as Robert Bird are on your side.

and since we are doing this guilt by association nonsense, lets not forget whose also on your side, Osama Bin Laden and the Anti-American fundamentalist muslims, The Nazis, The KKK.

What strange bed-fellows your Mythology has.

[Louis Foxwell]

I do not agree with commies, except that idiot Luddites should not be trying to sneak indefensible nonsense into science class.

The consistency with which those opposing ID use straw man arguments insures the victory of ID. Start dealing with ID as scientifically sophisticated and you might catch up.

[American in Israel]

Straight from the white robed priests of the altar of Darwin.

True Science is observaton and discussion. When it devolves to this, it is dogma in the hands of a religious order. Obviously the priests of Darwin are in fear.

[ashtanga]

Wasn't Newton a believer in ID? I am willing to disregard ID, but at this point it makes a great deal of sense to me. Those who aren't willing to jettison the Darwinian construct at any cost aren't scientists at all. They are clinging to a rationalization for atheism, and would prefer death to admitting that they've invested a portion of their life and purse pursuing a fiction.

[so_real]

I'm not sure what you think "my side" is, but I suspect Senator Kennedy falls quite a bit short of it. I'm also quite sure "Osama Bin Laden and the Anti-American fundamentalist muslims, The Nazis, The KKK" would be as surprised to discover you have placed them on the same side as I am to discover you have placed them on "my side". What "Mythology" you feel they all share, let alone share with me, escapes me.

For the record: Senator Edward Kennedy on Intelligent Design

Washington Times March 21, 2002

Evolution is designed for science classes

---

By Edward M. Kennedy

The March 14 Commentary piece, "Illiberal education in Ohio schools," written by my colleague Sen. Rick Santorum, Pennsylvania Republican, erroneously suggested that I support the teaching of "intelligent design" as an alternative to biological evolution. That simply is not true.

Rather, I believe that public school science classes should focus on teaching students how to understand and critically analyze genuine scientific theories. Unlike biological evolution, "intelligent design" is not a genuine scientific theory and, therefore, has no place in the curriculum of our nation's public school science classes.

[so_real]

since when did I show support for evolution? (searching... searching... comment not found)

Mea culpa ... skepticism of one thing does not infer agreement of another thing. That's a trap I've pointed out so many times I'm embarassed to admit I've been snared myself. I'll grant you that, and I'm glad to hear that you too are prone to challenging issues various liberal groups find consensus on.

It is you, my friend, arresting critical thought for the sake of your "faith".

But you are in the same trap :-) My issue with evolution (specifically macro-evolution) -- aside from its bed-fellows -- is that it has largely become dogma. I simply don't know the ID position well enough (yet) to have strong feelings for or against it.

[garandgal]

In addition, it has been claimed that computer simulations of evolution demonstrate that it is possible for irreducible complexity to evolve naturally.

Unless said computer program "evolved" from nothing...with absolutely no biased human input, the results are completely irrelevant.

[Roots]

But you are in the same trap :-) My issue with evolution (specifically macro-evolution) -- aside from its bed-fellows -- is that it has largely become dogma. I simply don't know the ID position well enough (yet) to have strong feelings for or against it.

Very true, I cannot assume a belief system plays a role in your system of thought, I apologize for categorizing you into that group. About challenging liberal groups - I am prone to challenge any and all groups, thoughts, and ideals (and as a result of my attempted objectivity, I agree for the most part with today's conservatives). I am honestly apathetic to who supports/opposes evolution. I only seek truth for myself - whether you counter evolution because liberals support it, or whether the liberals support it because you counter it is childish political games at the expense of higher understanding.

About evolution becoming largely dogma, I somewhat agree and disagree; many scientists accept the popular theory of evolution not because they hate religion and desire to counter it, but that evolution and the origin of life is supported by an incredible amount of experimental evidence. Scientific method will dictate to keep these conclusions and theories in check. That does not go without saying that I have read about evolutionists setting out to further prove evolution through experimentation: that is not science either, experimentation should reveal truth. However, I simply cannot recall that many examples of this, do you have many? I see a stronger total denial of evolution than I see a total acceptance of it... and I presume this to be due to religious beliefs.

[Roots]

Everything is subjective. Scientific method requires the ability to replicate such experiments - you have the option to analyze the methods used and nullify the experiment by citing incidences of bias rather than foolishly presuming their existence.

[Tom Bombadil]

He forgot "knuckle-dragging".

I hadn't thought of that one. I was kind of hard put to add any new ones to his list. I actually feel kinda sorry for the guy. He's not very happy.

[VadeRetro]

This is a rare moment where I agree with the point... if not the style of a liberal article.

I tend to agree that the author of this piece is a flaming, mouth-foaming commie. However, letting this flaming commie pose as the defender of science and science education against the depredations of the evil right wingers was a mistake. We should not be attacking science and science education. Then they don't get to defend them from us.

But they do. Worse, they don't have to portray conservatives as stock Deliverance villains from central casting when we have them for all to see on places like this thread. The self-inflicted bullet wounds are the worst.

[VadeRetro]

Maybe it would be a good idea for the warring parties to cool the rhetoric a bit.

Science can't really meet cultism halfway and still be science. People really just have to adjust to the idea that science is a systematic study of the universe and it finds what it finds because the universe is what it is. (And it has the history that it has, etc.)

[bobdsmith]

Unless said computer program "evolved" from nothing...with absolutely no biased human input, the results are completely irrelevant.

Species do not evolve from nothing, so there is no requirement that computer programs must start from nothing.

[VadeRetro]

The consistency with which those opposing ID use straw man arguments insures the victory of ID. Start dealing with ID as scientifically sophisticated and you might catch up.

You need to catch up. ID got dealt with early. Say, no later than when Behe's book came out ten years back. When you get there, there's no there there.

Ten years later, it's up to ID to show that it generates a program of research likely to someday increase the sum total of our knowledge in the way evolution has. Ten years later, it hasn't crossed the finish line. It hasn't crossed the STARTING line.

What other "scientific theory" devotes itself to dashing off Carville-Stephanopolis-"War Room"-style press releases in rebuttal of real science studies? What other scientific theory in history made a point of bypassing the peer-reviewed literature to address itself to school boards and high-schoolers? What other scientific theory is a grab-bag of odd and mutually inconsistent screeches that another theory is wrong?

[VadeRetro]

http://faithfacts.gospelcom.net//evolution.html

A disconnected cobbling of YEC (AnswersInGenesis, ICR) and ID (Behe, etc.) sources. They should probably get one story and stick to it. Behe, for instance, accepts an old Earth and common descent.