Creationism and intelligent design in University of Kansas

I thought infidel will be interested in this

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10283676/

Comments

  • : I thought infidel will be interested in this
    :
    : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10283676/

    ID is more dangerous than plain old Creationism because it sounds better to average Americans who don't know any better. The ID supporters have learned a lot from the debate over the years and now shroud their pseudo-theory in terms of "fairness", "intellectual debate", rooting for the "underdog" and other such terms that score well with American values. It works so well that they have a sizeable percentage of Americans believing that the scientists are the fundamentalists, rabidly decrying any alternative to their "faith" (darwinism). It's like living in the Twilight Zone, really.

    As far as the Kansas professor, he made a tactical blunder. He gave the Christians another example they can point to and claim they're being persecuted. Many christians seem to really enjoy pretending they're the persecuted minority. Yet these people in their very next breath are quite likely to insist that this is a "Christian Nation".


    [size=5][italic][blue][RED]i[/RED]nfidel[/blue][/italic][/size]

    [code]
    $ select * from users where clue > 0
    no rows returned
    [/code]

  • : ID is more dangerous than plain old Creationism because it sounds better to average Americans who don't know any better.
    [blue]I agree with that but in order to successfully debate/dispute with ID supporters somebody have to show to average American wrong sites of ID. That's why I think it must be studied in public schools. If you will simply say ID is wrong, it won't work[/blue]
    The ID supporters have learned a lot from the debate over the years and now shroud their pseudo-theory in terms of "fairness", "intellectual debate", rooting for the "underdog" and other such terms that score well with American values. It works so well that they have a sizeable percentage of Americans believing that the scientists are the fundamentalists, rabidly decrying any alternative to their "faith" (darwinism).
    [blue]IMO it happens because ID supporters studied Darwinism very carefully. They learned its week points and use them in their "theory" against Darwinism supporters.[/blue]
    It's like living in the Twilight Zone, really.
    :
    : As far as the Kansas professor, he made a tactical blunder. [blue]That's right. It was his misstake [/blue]
    He gave the Christians another example they can point to and claim they're being persecuted. Many christians seem to really enjoy pretending they're the persecuted minority. Yet these people in their very next breath are quite likely to insist that this is a "Christian Nation".
    :
    :
    : [size=5][italic][blue][RED]i[/RED]nfidel[/blue][/italic][/size]
    :
    : [code]
    : $ select * from users where clue > 0
    : no rows returned
    : [/code]
    :
    :

  • : :
    Sound like case was not closed
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10343414/
  • : Sound like case was not closed
    : http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10343414/

    *sigh*


    [size=5][italic][blue][RED]i[/RED]nfidel[/blue][/italic][/size]

    [code]
    $ select * from users where clue > 0
    no rows returned
    [/code]

  • : : ID is more dangerous than plain old Creationism because it sounds better to average Americans who don't know any better.
    : [blue]I agree with that but in order to successfully debate/dispute with ID supporters somebody have to show to average American wrong sites of ID. That's why I think it must be studied in public schools. If you will simply say ID is wrong, it won't work[/blue]

    Of course. The "problem" is that their side consists of simple rhetorical devices and fallacious arguments. The scientific side has to very methodically explain all kinds of principles and define words like "theory" and whatnot. All while the "audience" is already biased towards the ID position. That's why the scientific side tends to remain rather silent on the topic most of the time. Partly because it's so tedious and difficult to present the case in a manner that average Americans will listen to and understand, and partly because to actually "debate" the ID people gives them an air of credibility they don't deserve.

    : [blue]IMO it happens because ID supporters studied Darwinism very carefully. They learned its week points and use them in their "theory" against Darwinism supporters.[/blue]

    It's also presented in a non-scientific way, using soundbites and red herrings and all kinds of "politician speak" to sway public opinion. One supporting article in the local paper stated that something like 40% of all medical doctors don't believe in Darwinism. It doesn't matter that such a statistic is completely irrelevant to the validity of Darwinism, all that matters is that Americans believe that a lot of people who should be really smart and had a lot of schooling don't support Darwinism. This paints a picture of widespread intellectual doubt regarding Darwinism, which makes people more receptive to the idea of presenting "alternative theories" to children. It also makes the scientific community's resistance appear more like dogmatic zealotry.




    [size=5][italic][blue][RED]i[/RED]nfidel[/blue][/italic][/size]

    [code]
    $ select * from users where clue > 0
    no rows returned
    [/code]

  • : It's also presented in a non-scientific way, using soundbites and red herrings and all kinds of "politician speak" to sway public opinion. One supporting article in the local paper stated that something like 40% of all medical doctors don't believe in Darwinism. It doesn't matter that such a statistic is completely irrelevant to the validity of Darwinism, all that matters is that Americans believe that a lot of people who should be really smart and had a lot of schooling don't support Darwinism. This paints a picture of widespread intellectual doubt regarding Darwinism, which makes people more receptive to the idea of presenting "alternative theories" to children. It also makes the scientific community's resistance appear more like dogmatic zealotry.
    :
    As you know, I don't believe in Darwinism. Well, 'don't believe' may be are too strong words. I think there are too many black spots in that theory. At the same time I do not believe in ID also. For me last one mostly based on nice stories rather than on scientific evidences. But I know that for sure because I tried to study ID. Without that knowledge I would not even try to dispute/debate with its supporter's.
  • : As you know, I don't believe in Darwinism. Well, 'don't believe' may be are too strong words. I think there are too many black spots in that theory.

    Name three.

    : At the same time I do not believe in ID also. For me last one mostly based on nice stories rather than on scientific evidences. But I know that for sure because I tried to study ID. Without that knowledge I would not even try to dispute/debate with its supporter's.

    You don't have to study ID to debate/dispute it. I heard the president of the Discovery Institute (an English major, if I recall correctly) interviewed on the radio and I could have torn his arguments to shreds myself on the spot. Their main argument is "irreducible complexity", meaning "this cell/organ/whatever is composed of X number of different parts, and if any one of them were to be removed the whole cell/organ/whatever would cease to function." This is the same argument that Darwin himself faced in "how could something as magnificent and complex as the human eye have evolved from something lesser?" The ID crowd asserts that this means there must have been an "intelligent designer" of said cell/organ/whatever. You don't have to study ID to see the fallacies in their statements. All these decades later, scientists have a pretty fair understanding of how something as complex as a human eye could evolve, as well as eyes on other species like the octopus that developed from the outside in rather than from the inside out like ours.

    That basically sums up 99% of their argument. They find something that Darwinism is unable to explain (yet) and point to that as "evidence" of an intelligent designer. Anyone who understands the basics of the scientific method can see that such statements are not science. THAT is why people like myself are adamantly opposed to ID being taught in science classes. It isn't science. It's the same old "god of the gaps" argument, though the ID supporters try to deny that until they're blue in the face. Put bluntly, they have no testable hypotheses. All they can do is look for things that nobody has explained yet, and try to convice everyone that the probability of that thing happening via Darwinian Evolution is so exceedingly remote that it somehow "makes more sense" to believe an "higher intelligence" set it up that way.

    The rest of their arguments seem to be rhetorical devices and abuse of statistics. They'll take something like a flagellum on a certain species of bacteria and describe it in mechanical terms. They'll call it a "rotary motor" with "pistons" and "drive shafts" and other mechanical terms. Normally analogies like this are OK, but then they turn around and say something patently absurd like "you wouldn't expect a car's engine to assemble itself out of pieces in a junkyard, would you?"

    Or they quote misleading and irrelevant statistics like "X% of medical doctors don't believe in Darwinism". Or "Y% of Americans feel ID should be taught alongside Darwinism". Or "Z PhDs have signed this list saying they reject Darwinism". So what? What difference would it make if every PhD in English around the world rejected Darwinism? What difference would it make to the orbits of the Solar system if, God forbid, the majority of humans still believed the Earth was the center of the universe?


    [size=5][italic][blue][RED]i[/RED]nfidel[/blue][/italic][/size]

    [code]
    $ select * from users where clue > 0
    no rows returned
    [/code]

  • : : As you know, I don't believe in Darwinism. Well, 'don't believe' may be are too strong words. I think there are too many black spots in that theory.
    :
    : Name three.
    :
    I thought we already disscussed it few years ago ;-)
  • : : : As you know, I don't believe in Darwinism. Well, 'don't believe' may be are too strong words. I think there are too many black spots in that theory.
    : :
    : : Name three.
    : :
    : I thought we already disscussed it few years ago ;-)

    Science keep moving forward!

    Just saw an article yesterday that male monkeys prefer "boy" toys like cars and balls, while female monkeys prefer "girl" toys like dolls, which indicates that many of our gender-specific brain developments occurred way back in our evolution, specifically before our common ancestor with monkeys, something like 25 million years ago.


    [size=5][italic][blue][RED]i[/RED]nfidel[/blue][/italic][/size]

    [code]
    $ select * from users where clue > 0
    no rows returned
    [/code]

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories