The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design Review: Introduction

Does Jonathan Wells, aiming once again at the popular market, restore his scientific and academic reputation with his latest book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, or is it just old trash in a new bag? To find out, you will need to read our multi-part review, which begins tomorrow.

Now, an interesting thing about The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is that it is fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to "intelligent design". Nowhere can one find any information on when a designing agent might have designed or how a designing agent manufactured its designs in matter and energy. In fact there is not a single, clear statement of what was and wasn't designed.

PZ does an excellent job of analyzing just one bit of the rampant quote mining littering this trash (is that redundant?) over on pharyngula as well, so between the two tag teams, this book will be nothing more than confetti in about a week I'd guess.

what's sad is that this trash hits the shelves right on the heels of Coulter's.

to turn Mummert's infamous phrase on it's head:

"Help, we're being attacked by the lying, ignorant, irrational part of society"

Everyone who thinks Wells will restore his "scientific and academic reputation" stand on your head....

Wells pretty much admits he got his biology degree so that he could claim to be a scientist, which he needed to do in order to claim there's a scientific controversy. His efforts are directed toward those who don't know what science is, with the appearance of appropriate authority, because that's the majority of people, and all he needs is a large enough majority for his political goals to be reached.

To the degree those goals are reached, the number of people who know what science is shrinks, and Wells' success rate rises.

I confidently predict that the upcoming critique of the Guide will focus on the science, and be presented to a community that knows and cares about science, and thus doubly miss the point. I predict that we will read NO assessments of how successfully the Guide persuades those who don't know any better, and thus how well Wells succeeds in his actual purpose. This is, as the title at least *tries* to get through to us, a political book written for political purposes. Any valid critique examines the book's political success. The science is deliberate doubletalk not meant to be scientific, but to further the political agenda.

This is, as the title at least *tries* to get through to us, a political book written for political purposes. Any valid critique examines the book's political success. The science is deliberate doubletalk not meant to be scientific, but to further the political agenda.

Aagcobb:

Yes, I think it is political. When has defeat (political, legal, or scientific) even slowed down creationist zeal? And indirectly but just as important, IF there is money to be made selling this book, it's made selling the book to potential votes. Corollary: IF the book bombs in the market, politics might be turning against creationism. But I note Coulter's book has sold very very well. Where there is widespread public acceptance or approval, the political base is there. It's just a matter of how to organize and mobilize it.

"...fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to "intelligent design"."

This should be no surprise since that's all that ID is in the first place. It asserts nothing in support of its own hypothesis and pretends that, by demonstrating that evolutionary theory doesn't explain every single observed biological phenomenon, that constitutes sound reasoning for rejecting it in its entirety and conclusive proof for ID.

While we, the rational, inquiring, not-willing-to-take-the-easy-way-out people might be able to see through the BS, I fear that many (see majority of US population) don't, can't, or are unwilling to even consider the problem objectively in the first place.

I confidently predict that the upcoming critique of the Guide will focus on the science, and be presented to a community that knows and cares about science, and thus doubly miss the point. I predict that we will read NO assessments of how successfully the Guide persuades those who don't know any better, and thus how well Wells succeeds in his actual purpose. This is, as the title at least *tries* to get through to us, a political book written for political purposes. Any valid critique examines the book's political success. The science is deliberate doubletalk not meant to be scientific, but to further the political agenda.

"Now, an interesting thing about The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is that it is fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to "intelligent design". Nowhere can one find any information on when a designing agent might have designed or how a designing agent manufactured its designs in matter and energy."

I think that it is conceivable for the design of the desiging agent to be unable to conceive of the methods and presence of the designing agent. Consider a robot. Without eyes or sensors can it detect it's maker? To assume that all that we can see is really all there is, is, although a reasonable position, not necessarily the truth.

That is not to say we should believe in the matrix http://www.newscientistspace.com/channel/astronomy/cosmology/mg17523535.900.html , but rather that we should be open to other possibilities if the evidence suggests it. I think that's the point that intelligent design is trying to make, and I find it a reasonable one.

I should be "open to concepts which are inconceivable"?

I'll get right on it, as soon as I eat this food that is impossible to swallow, draw a five-sided square, and count to the integer that is so large that 1 cannot be added to it.

>...we should be open to other possibilities if the evidence suggests it. I think >that's the point that intelligent design is trying to make, and I find it a >reasonable one.

That is a reasonable position and reasonable people hold it. But it is not the ID position at all. The ID position is that you should ONLY be open to their position (in spite of the evidence not supporting it) and that you should NOT be open to a position that IS supported by the evidence.

I think it would be neat if some PTer would attend the Discovery Institute's party for Wells' book and report back, ideally with pictures and interviews. I think Prof. Steve Steve is most qualified for this task, but undoubtedly there are others capable of doing an adequate job. The air fare would be a little steep for me, so I can't make it.

It's also somewhat curious exactly how Wing|ess draws that relatively innocuous, if somewhat wishy-washy, principle of epistemic humility from anything the IDers have ever said.

To return the subject to Wells's PIGDID: could you please explain how you move from Wells lying about the data and what scientists say about it to the conclusion that his point is "we ought to be more open-minded"?

RBH:

Not such an easy analysis, of course. By most measures, Coulter's book was an immense political success - it reached bestsellerhood, it elicited commentary in broadcast and print media, it was debated (and thus publicized) intensely on the internet, in a great many venues. I don't know if it was pimped from any pulpits, but I sure wouldn't be surprised. I don't know how to tell if it changed any minds, but it probably ratified the suspicions of anyone with tendencies in that direction.

Whether Wells can reach the same levels of sales and publicity is doubtful. And even these measures are indirect, showing the size of the target audience without any clear indication that it increased that size. Nonetheless, it occupies somewhat different political territory. Coulter is a rightwing editorialist, clearly pushing a political agenda. Wells is trying to push the same political agenda but far less honestly - by pretending to be an objective scientist assessing the Scientific Truth. So I expect Wells can accomplish more despite lower sales - he's much harder for the ignoranti to dismiss. Here is a "real scientist" showing that my opinion was right all along!

I'll be most interested to read the reviews of the book, to see if some of them accept Wells' science at face value. But hopefully we're all aware that even the "great books of history" are problematical in terms of influence. With well over a century of hindsight, did Uncle Tom's Cabin influence any elections, prewar federal policies, war battles, reconstruction policies, etc? Can the decline in public morals be attributed to the automobile electric starter? Hell, we can't even agree whether morals have declined!

Kennedy made a 30 minute version of Sunday's "documentary" and broadcast it on his radio show this morning. Collins and Behe are both featured -- Collins at length -- at about 20 minutes in (was still in bed so wasn't keeping close track) on the usual ID talking point about the cell containing a whole library of information which is far too complex to have evolved naturally. Ann Coulter is also featured and even quotes the word "phyla" - I wonder if she knows what it means?

The audio link is at the top of this page.

http://www.truthsthattransform.org/

I had stopped by Barnes and noble yesterday and read the first section of chapter 1 and then started reading the second section and realized that he had set up a strawman in the very first chapter of his book not even 6 paragraphs in. He went from supporting evolution to saying however he doesn't support Darwinism and proceeded to label what darwinism is from there on and trying to debunk it. I didn't spend much time reading it but once I saw that I just put the book back and decided that what we really need to do is start publishing small rebuttal papers for each book or for common criticisms of TOE (like 2nd law etc) and going to libraries and book stores and placing these papers inside the books.

"I eventually decided to join the fray by returning to graduate school in biology. I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of Darwinism; one cannot understand how organisms evolve unless one understands how they develop."

Umm, how did that strategy work out? EvoDevo is currently about the hottest area of biology, and the insights from development into how evolution works are nothing short of stunning.

...fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to "intelligent design".

That is not to say we should believe in the matrix http://www.newscientistspace.com/channel/astrono... , but rather that we should be open to other possibilities if the evidence suggests it. I think that's the point that intelligent design is trying to make, and I find it a reasonable one.

— Wing|esS

Anyone in the Seattle area interested in taking Wells to task in person? He is having an open-to-the-public book release party. All you have to do to attend is contact Annelise Davis at adavis@discovery.org or call
(206) 292-0401, ext. 153.

When: September 7, 2006 4:30-6:00 p.m.
Where: Rainier Square Atrium in Seattle 1333 Fifth Avenue
Cost: Free

Hey, if you actually had to pay money for the book, you might as well get it signed by Dr. Wells, himself.

Oops, sorry I missed the link already provided in the initial post the first time I read it.

Oh my non-god, he's a Moonie?

Who the hell cares what he thinks? The guy's a frickin' cult-headed lunatic!

Are IDers so ethically bankrupt they'll accept support from anyone, even those who don't buy into six days in the garden? (I guess that question's rhetorical.)

Wells pretty much admits he got his biology degree so that he could claim to be a scientist

I cannot tell you how it steams me that someone who is this privileged and has the intellectual ability to pursue biology at this level would choose to snow us "little people" for his own cynical purpose.

I don't know what I resent more, the fact that these pedigreedy hucksters make a mockery of how the rest of us must wait tables, etc., just to get through college at all (because we actually want to apply what we've learned), or that they would do so in order to destroy what is most precious to the world out of their obvious contempt for humanity.

It is a fact that individual members of a mass movement do not love each other, no matter how heartfelt the hugs set to sappy music in the happy-clappy megachurch, but I assure you, the general populace thinks that Wells & Co. are doing what they do out of love for them! I jest not. No, it is I who "hates people."

Comment #122685 Posted by Kristine on August 25, 2006 11:52 AM (e) | kill Wells pretty much admits he got his biology degree so that he could claim to be a scientist I cannot tell you how it steams me that someone who is this privileged and has the intellectual ability to pursue biology at this level would choose to snow us "little people" for his own cynical purpose.

To assume that all that we can see is really all there is, is, although a reasonable position, not necessarily the truth.

Check out Wells table of contents page at:

http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/0-Toc.htm#TableOfContents

with articles on Unification theology interspersed with ID articles. The site tparents.org is the "True Parents" organization of the Unification Church:

Darwinism: Why I Went for a Second Ph.D. (Jonathan Wells)

Evolution by Design (Jonathan Wells)

Marriage and the Family: Fall and Restoration (Jonathan Wells)

Marriage and the Family: the Unification Blessing (Jonathan Wells)

The Case For Intelligent Design In The Classroom (Jonathan Wells - October 13, 2005)

Oh my non-god, he's a Moonie?

To take this all in, we advise you to relax and open your mind for a while.

What I find amusing about Well's membership in the Unification church is how many fundamentalist Christians who would consider the UC satanic will agree with him, without even investigating his theological background.

Now, an interesting thing about The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design is that it is fat with specious criticisms of modern biology but nearly emaciated when it comes to "intelligent design". Nowhere can one find any information on when a designing agent might have designed or how a designing agent manufactured its designs in matter and energy. In fact there is not a single, clear statement of what was and wasn't designed. So while the title is modest in some respects, it's also incorrect in one more: there's no guide to "intelligent design" in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. Ah, well. Maybe next year. Or the year after that. Or the year after ... pigs fly.

ID proponents primarily argue for design through negative arguments against evolution, as illustrated by Professor Behe's argument that "irreducibly complex" systems cannot be produced through Darwinian, or any natural, mechanisms. (5:38-41 (Pennock); 1:39, 2:15, 2:35-37, 3:96 (Miller); 16:72-73 (Padian); 10:148 (Forrest)). However, we believe that arguments against evolution are not arguments for design. Expert testimony revealed that just because scientists cannot explain today how biological systems evolved does not mean that they cannot, and will not, be able to explain them tomorrow. (2:36-37 (Miller)). As Dr. Padian aptly noted, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." (17:45 (Padian)). To that end, expert testimony from Drs. Miller and Padian provided multiple examples where Pandas asserted that no natural explanations exist, and in some cases that none could exist, and yet natural explanations have been identified in the intervening years. It also bears mentioning that as Dr. Miller stated, just because scientists cannot explain every evolutionary detail does not undermine its validity as a scientific theory as no theory in science is fully understood. (3:102 (Miller)).

Well, he is right that a fossil record consistent with evolution doesn't mean it happened. DNA evidence consistent with commen descent doesn't necessarly mean it happened. Then again, is he retarded?

What annoyed me most were the lies saying slavery was justified by evolution (civil war in 1865, Origin in 1859, something else must've been justifying it first) Or that only Darwinism(I still use the term, I'm reclaiming it from creationists, oops, Intelligent design theorists. I so meant ID theorists, not creationists)inspired people to think that human races were of indepedendent origin (evolution from separate prehuman hominids for us, separate creations for them) He never mentions the separate creations idea. Wonder why.

In clear, non-technical language, Wells explains who is fighting whom, the root of the conflict, and the evidence for and against Darwinism and Intelligent Design. He also explains what is ultimately at stake for liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians, educators, policymakers, and scientists.

How many have ever seen an honest book written in layman's terms at an eighth grade reading level (think Reader's Digest) on evolution and its relationship to God and religion.

— Keanus

That is not to say we should believe in the matrix http://www.newscientistspace.com/channel/astrono... , but rather that we should be open to other possibilities if the evidence suggests it. I think that's the point that intelligent design is trying to make, and I find it a reasonable one.

He's a cultist retard, is what I'm trying to say.

All right Steve S, I'll cut Wells some slack for being an honest Moonie dingbat.

But I have to wonder where the moolah rolls in from for these characters to get three Ph.Ds. (Any sugar evo-daddies out there want to help me finance my paltry education?)

And he's a cultist retard that just wrote an accessible book that I think is simply unconscionable, and that I'm afraid lots of people are going to read, and believe, and be damaged by.

And money isn't any motivation for him?

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design was a fun, quick read. I should state upfront that I work at the Discovery Institute, where the author Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow. I'm not getting paid extra to write this review--in fact it's late, I'm hungry, and I want to leave the office and go home as I write this. Nonetheless, I feel it's only fair for the sake of disclosure and honesty that I say who I am as a reviewer. Jonathan Wells will get called a lot of names for writing this book. In fact, look at the other reviews---namecalling and personal attacks have already begun! But as Wells recounts in chapters 7, 9, 10, 11, 13 and 16, a number of pro-intelligent design faculty have been similarly persecuted because they were sympathetic to intelligent design (ID). So if you're a curious [...]browser wondering why critical reviewers engage in so much personal attack and namecalling against Jonathan Wells, you'll understand these tactics completely after you read the documentation in Well's book. Wells starts off by defining the debate: the debate isn't about whether evolution (i.e. change through time) has occurred, and it doesn't center around the age of the earth. The debate about design in biology is over whether undirected natural selection acting upon random mutations has produced all of the complexity of life, or whether some aspects of life are best explained by intelligent causation. So what is intelligent design? Wells explains that it isn't an argument from ignorance, it isn't an argument for God, it isn't an argument for perfection, and it isn't an argument against all forms of evolution. But it is an argument that some aspects of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause. [...] Let's also talk about honesty. Wells has a good discussion of the Cambrian explosion. Wells explains he believes this fossil evidence challenges Neo-Darwinism, while honestly and openly acknowledging that prominent paleontologists like James Valentine believe Neo-Darwinian theory can withstand the fossil evidence. Wells also concedes that claims from an old pro-ID textbook "Of Pandas and People" were overturned when scientists later discovered fossils cited to support the evolution of whales. Would a dishonest Darwin-critic make these concessions? Wells does find some Darwinists making questionable claims. For example, the book recounts a fascinating incident about the documentary film Flock of Dodos. The film insinuates that Dr. Wells lied to claim that the fraudulent embryo drawings by the 19th century embryologist Ernst Haeckel still appear in modern biology textbooks. Wells writes that the film "claims Haeckel's embryos haven't appeared in biology textbooks since 1914." (pg. 28) Yet Wells also writes, "Yet [the film's producer, Randy] Olson knows that many recent textbooks do contain Haeckel's faked drawings." This is true, because many modern biology textbooks do contain Haeckel's embryo drawings. Wells also exposes some false scientific claims by Darwinists. For example, the author of one of the textbooks I showed to Randy Olson also wrote "Molecular phylogenies support many of the relationships that have long been postulated from morphological data." Wells then recounts much data which shows otherwise, letting evolutionists speak for themselves about the contradictory data. A similar incident occurred when Darwinist scientist Gary Hurd told the Kansas State Board of Education that the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" "have no meaning outside of creationist polemics." (pg. 56) What's that again? Wells quotes numerous pro-Darwinian biologists discussing the meanings, and distinctions, between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." Hardly "creationist polemics." Finally Wells turns to intelligent design. Wells explains that ID is based upon positive evidence, because "[w]e observe in the present that intelligent agents can and do generate new information." (pg. 98) The inference to design is not an argument-from-ignorance, but an argument based upon our positive understanding of the information created when intelligent agents act. But is it science? Wells explains Darwinists criticisms "collaps[e] into a contradiction: ID isn't science because it isn't testable, and, besides, it has been tested and proven false." (pg. 140) But Wells also reports the sad truth that some of these misrepresentations have had an impact upon law and education. One federal court judge in Georgia ruled that a disclaimer encouraging students to question evolution was unconstitutional due to the alleged religious motives of Darwin-critics. Yet Wells notes that a Darwinist educator in Ohio claimed that God guided her to remove "creationism" from the Ohio science standards! If you're looking for a highly technical book, this isn't it. The "PIG" series is notoriously easy-to-read, and mainstream and so I have to admit that as someone with a science background, I would have loved more detail. If you're anyone seeking a book full of fascinating anecdotes and straight-talk about the debate over Darwinism and intelligent design, written by a credentialed biologist with enjoyable writing skills, this truly is the book for you.

steve s wrote:
"He's a cultist retard, is what I'm trying to say."

But aren't most fundies also cultist retards too?

How many have gone to Naz--, I mean Hitler--, no I mean Christian Youth Camps?
http://movies.aol.com/movie/jesus-camp/27214/synopsis

Like Pastor Becky Fischer's "Kids on Fire" summer camp where kids as young as 6 years-old are taught to become dedicated Christian soldiers in "God's army." A camp where they hone their "prophetic gifts" and are schooled in how to "take back America for Christ." Where recruited born-again Christian children are trained to become part of America's political future.

I was just wondering whether you also plan to post your review up on Amazon, in part because so few IDers will bother to read it here and also in part to counter reviews on Amazon by someone who calls himself "The Professor" (who he?), who seems to give 5 star reviews to virtually ever ID book there is ?

Regarding Luskin's slobbering review at Amazon, can't people indicate that they didn't find the review useful? Surely there are enough people here who could honestly say that and push his review into obscurity?

The creationist reviews there, including Luskin's, have been graded 'not helpful' by the majority of graders.

If you're anyone seeking a book full of fascinating anecdotes and straight-talk about the debate over Darwinism and intelligent design,

If you're anyone seeking a book full of fascinating anecdotes and straight-talk about the debate over Darwinism and intelligent design...

It would be great if you collected links to specialists criticizing each chapter, if you haven't already. I'm pretty lazy, so I didn't look

Slightly OT, but Book TV (on CSPAN2) on Saturday, August 26 at 7:00 pm will present John West and Casey Luskin discussing "Traipsing Into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Decision". The venue will be the Discovery Institutes home turf, so the audience should be the choir.

So say it, so be it. The Discovery Institute has published its whine after the Dover bad beat. Entitled "Traipsing Into Evolution," it appeals to the court of public opinion. Appeal denied. This is a wretched book.

It would be great if you collected links to specialists criticizing each chapter, if you haven't already. I'm pretty lazy, so I didn't look

You say there is more than what we can see (or measure, sense etc.). But what earthly use is it...

But aren't most fundies also cultist retards too?

robert.. just... go.

But I have to wonder where the moolah rolls in from for these characters to get three Ph.Ds.

It would be great if you collected links to specialists criticizing each chapter, if you haven't already. I'm pretty lazy, so I didn't look

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned (or perhaps I've not yet read far enough) about the endorsement on the cover: The endorsement is by none other than our beloved Ann Coulter, who exclaims in print nearly as large as the title "Annoy a godless liberal, buy this book!" This, for me, set the entire tone and intention of the book, and for most educated individuals, would be a dead giveaway that it was not science. If it were science, some scientist would be willing to put their endorsement on the cover.

Links to chapter reviews will appear here as the reviews are posted. The links will have the format

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/the_politically_n.html
== http etc.../the_politically_n.html

for the nth chapter.

Furthermore, Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, a public policy think tank located in Seattle, Washington.

Furthermore, Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow with the Discovery Institute's Center for the Removal of Science and Culture, ...

I think that it is conceivable for the design of the desiging agent to be unable to conceive of the methods and presence of the designing agent.

How many have ever seen an honest book written in layman's terms at an eighth grade reading level (think Reader's Digest) on evolution and its relationship to God and religion.

— Coin

I'd be a little surprised if at least one candidate didn't exist already. People are writing pop science books all the time. Here's the thing, though--- pop science is not a big thing right this instant. Even if there were a A Brief History of Time of biology, how would we get people to read it?

Very few people are going to pick up a pop science book and read it no matter how good it is, but an adventure story with scientific morals stuck in it could do wonders.

Bad news, AC. The cancellation of Stargate was announced this morning.

I agree that books are, sadly, going to be ineffective, or at least less effective, than a TV program would be. I left some comments on skeptical television on a thread around here somewhere. I think something done in the CSI mode could be a hugely successful venture.

Bad news, AC. The cancellation of Stargate was announced this morning.

I think something done in the CSI mode could be a hugely successful venture.

From The Discovery Institute blurb:

You are invited to join Discovery Institute as we celebrate a new book by biologist and Discovery Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells, titled The Politically Correct Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

"Politically Correct"?
Well, maybe.

JH

Wells stated:
"I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of Darwinism;...."

IMO, symmetry is the Achilles' heel of Darwinism.
IMO, chaos is natural. Order is mind made.

For more of my thoughts on this, go to:

bloglines.com/blog/hereoisreal

Zero

"I was convinced that embryology is the Achilles' heel of Darwinism;...."

Well, forgive me for being REALLY cynical, but we don't have to create a nation of skeptics to win the battle.

The sixties saw a very quick turnover between racism being the defacto state of affairs to it being socially unacceptable. I'm not sure how many racists were actually convinced that racism was wrong or just that it was no longer acceptable to express such emotions in public. In the aftermath, racism itself has largely been smothered. Not rendered non-existant, of course, but seriously smushed.

Science used to be strongly respected in this country. Not strongly understood, but respected. The image of the kindly elder scientist is just as unrealistic as the Dr. Frankenstein, but there you go.

If we accept that the public largely is never going to care enough to pursue an accurate view of the complexities of the world, isn't it worthwhile to create a view where they at least respect those of us who do?

Like I said, this is me at my most cynical. Even I don't agree with this most of the time. Today's just a bad day for wanting to tollerate idiots.

If we accept that the public largely is never going to care enough to pursue an accurate view of the complexities of the world, isn't it worthwhile to create a view where they at least respect those of us who do? Like I said, this is me at my most cynical. Even I don't agree with this most of the time. Today's just a bad day for wanting to tollerate idiots.

What the hell is "Darwinism"? Is it anything like "Newtonism", "Einsteinism" or "Faradayism" . . . ?

test

test again

Stop testing me!

IMO, symmetry is the Achilles' heel of Darwinism. IMO, chaos is natural. Order is mind made. For more of my thoughts on this, go to:

From wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

"Qualitatively, entropy is often associated with the amount of SEEMING disorder in the system. For example, solids (which are typically ordered on the molecular scale) usually have smaller entropy than liquids, and liquids smaller entropy than gases. This happens because the number different microscopic states available to an ordered system is usually much smaller than the number of states available to a system that APPEARS to be disordered given the HUMAN desire for symmetry."

(Emphasis mine)

Remember, if it seems disorderly to us humans, then it must be disorderly, because it's us humans who are important. God said so. ;)

Entropy in the sense of disorder isn't the same as thermodynamic entropy; it's just a metaphor. A messy desk, for instance, has no more entropy than a tidy one.

The fundamental thing to remember about all of this creationist, intelligent design, propaganda is that there is no controversy of "Darwinism" among professional biologists, among life scientists. The controversy is that some fundamentalist Christians controvert Darwinism. That does not constitute "a controversy about Darwinism." I, as a Jew, controvert the concept of trinity in Chrisianity. Does that mean that there is a controversy about the trinity? Hardly.

Jacob Silver:
"I, as a Jew, controvert the concept of trinity in Chrisianity.
Does that mean that there is a controversy about the trinity? Hardly"
*************************************
Jacob, everything in reality (and science) is held together by triangles.
Life is (or should be) about home and family. (mother, father, and child) Rev. 12:5

I am not a christian either. A christian is someone
who thinks God permitted his son to die on a cross.
John 3:16 says nothing about that.
Blessings
Zero

It's good to see something like this when the creationists are gaining so much power. It angers me both as a scientist and a Christian.

1) Science is science. You don't get to throw it out just because you don't understand every single aspect of evolutionary theory.

2) Evolution is the amazing, beautiful "invisible hand" of God. Why would anyone want it to be different? The Creator created evolution (if he created all things), and to deny it is to deny the truth of His Creation.

3) If you need the world to be flat for your faith to be whole, the problem is not with science or God but with you. Faith is FAITH, you can't "build your house on the sand" and tie it to science or anything else of the material, rational world. And if your faith is secure and well-reasoned, you should not have to.

It's good to see something like this when the creationists are gaining so much power. They seem to be winning over the students at my university, and I can only see it as a sign of the fall of western civilization. Plus, it angers me both as a scientist *and* a Christian.

1) Science is science. You don't get to throw it out just because you don't understand every single aspect of evolutionary theory.

2) Evolution is the amazing, beautiful "invisible hand" of God. Why would anyone want it to be different? The Creator created evolution (if he created all things), and to deny it is to deny the truth of His Creation.

3) If you need the world to be flat for your faith to be whole, the problem is not with science or God but with you. Faith is FAITH, you can't "build your house on the sand" and tie it to science or anything else of the material, empirical world, because the nature of God is the nature of divine mystery and it's like trying to put a square peg in a round hole. If your faith is secure and well-reasoned, you should not have to force everything to fit. I went through a similar crisis of faith regarding this myself and came out of it stronger. Don't fight the truth- take the opportunity to come to a better understanding of God.

sorry about the double post, I couldn't fix it. :(

Did you know the most popular pastime in America is NOT celebrity voyeurism or sports, but *gardening?*

Whaddaya know.

Well, forgive me for being REALLY cynical, but we don't have to create a nation of skeptics to win the battle.

Jonathan Wells's education was wasted on him. All those years of study and searching for truth, for what? To be even further from truth than when he began. It's sad...
...Not even mentioning all the trees that have died to supply the paper for his books, as well as the books of others like him.

Re "All those years of study and searching for truth, for what?"

As I understand it, he never was searching for truth - he went in already convinced that his opinions were "Truth". [rolls eyes]

Re "All those years of study and searching for truth, for what?"

As I understand it, he never was searching for truth as such - he went in already convinced that his opinions were "Truth". [rolls eyes]

Re "As I understand it he never was searching for truth as such"...

When he "went in" I agree with you, however I was refering to events through the course of Wells's life, such as prior studies, the influence of Rev Moon and any other earlier influences, leading up to his perception of "truth". Furthermore, even if one "went in" already convinced of what they ultimately perceive as the "truth", it is likely that they are still searching for further "truths" to back up their ultimate perception of "truth". Sorry for not being more clear.
- What's with this? [rolls eyes]
- Are you rolling your eyes at my statement or at Wells's conviction of "truth"?

Re "- Are you rolling your eyes at my statement or at Wells's conviction of "truth"?"

At Wells.

i need help

Test

The judge who put coded messages in his Da Vinci Code plagiarism trial ruling has written another...