Prof Steve Steve rules

No, no, and no. But I have an engineering degree, so I'm superbly suited for signing some Darwin dissent thing!

Yes, no, yes. But I also have an engineering degree -- maybe I can start an "anti-Steve" list of the pseudo-knowledgable who believe in ID ;-).
(Oops, did I just blow my alias?)

I love how the evolutionists appeal to the authority of a stuffed bear. Christians don't need plush toys to tell us how to think; we have the inerrant, inspired Word of God!

The said: I love how the evolutionists appeal to the authority of a stuffed bear. Christians don't need plush toys to tell us how to think; we have the inerrant, inspired Word of God!

I call Poe on "the".

The problem with inspired inerrant words of God, is deciding which group of people get to decide what those inspired inerrant words are, and what they mean.

In the prior thread, someone suggested that there be a "Friends of Steve" list, open to those with degrees in other scientific disciplines. I'd second that notion, especially if you'd allow MDs to sign up. You could use me to counter Dr. Egnor.

Hmm, I interpreted The's comments as sarcasm. Anyhow, let's get the ball rolling for the FOS list.

The said: I love how the evolutionists appeal to the authority of a stuffed bear. Christians don't need plush toys to tell us how to think; we have the inerrant, inspired Word of God!

Let's see, if 930 is an average number, then times 26 letters gives us 24180 names for every letter total. How many names did the Dishonesty Institute claim?

In response to "The," sure you do, you have a big stuffed toy doll called J.C.

What is "calling Poe"? Is it something to do with the poet of that name?

Henry

Henry J said: What is "calling Poe"? Is it something to do with the poet of that name? Henry

Edgar Allan Poe once said: "Without a blatant display of humour, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious Fundamentalism and a parody thereof."

I feel left out, not having any degree and due to my name. Just imagine how big the list would be if we asked for scientists named Michael, Michelle or variations thereof? Here's a histogram to give us some idea of how utterly the "Scientists Named Mike" would trounce the creationists.

We don't have a mascot, but that could all be worked out.

Stanton said:

Henry J said: What is "calling Poe"? Is it something to do with the poet of that name? Henry

Edgar Allan Poe once said: "Without a blatant display of humour, it is impossible to tell the difference between religious Fundamentalism and a parody thereof."

Ergo, to "call (a) Poe" is to accuse someone of merely pretending to be a religious fanatic, i.e., someone who is impersonating a Creationist for laughs.

People have a tendency to over exaggerate the facts when they want to present a decent opinion. The results are no surprise that the goal has been obtained. One has to wonder if this could have been done with Dave, John, or Christopher. Know the original of a name such as Christopher would have been poetic irony. The dispute in biology relating to the understanding of the theory of evolution does not exist.

Yes, no, yes. But I also have an engineering degree – maybe I can start an “anti-Steve” list of the pseudo-knowledgable who believe in ID ;-). (Oops, did I just blow my alias?)

— Eamon Knight

Christians don’t need plush toys to tell us how to think; we have the inerrant, inspired Word of God!

I'm a fan of Project Steve (I recruited three Steves and am trying for more), but I'm concerned that "overwhelming majority" argument is being used to the exclusion of the even more devastating argument that the antievolution movement has failed to provide data to support its case in peer-reviewed scientific research papers. It's not just that creationism is the minority opinion, it's that it has no validity as science. So yes, bring out the Steves, but don't make it look like you're just comparing lists - give their credibility the ol' one-two punch.

The said: I love how the evolutionists appeal to the authority of a stuffed bear. Christians don't need plush toys to tell us how to think; we have the inerrant, inspired Word of God!

It’s not just that creationism is the minority opinion, it’s that it has no validity as science.

— James F

Frank J said: The public simply does not appreciate how scientists in general live to replace existing theories with new and better ones. The myth that scientists are involved in a conspiracy to protect a dying (or dead) theory is still widespread, so we have a lot of work to do regardless of how many court cases we win.

Antibiotics, not antibodies, I mean.

Stanton,

Sure, but whatever we do, as you know, it won't be easy because the scam artists are ready to keep misleading with well-rehearsed comebacks. With antibiotics it's the trusty old "that's only 'microevolution'." People like Michael Egnor will be quick with the bait-and-switch that medical researchers don't need to know (or accept) "Darwinism."

Not sure what you mean by the second paragraph, but if you mean that they would eliminate or threaten the "whistleblowers," I think that very few of even the most hard-line anti-science people think of scientists as that evil.

Also, in any science-pseudoscience debate, it’s as critical for the science side to be clear as it is for the pseudoscience side to obfuscate, so any form of oversimplification (e.g. saying that ID “is” creationism without detailing the difference between what ID scammers promote and what honest rank and file creationists believe) is self-defeating.

Frank J said: Stanton, Sure, but whatever we do, as you know, it won't be easy because the scam artists are ready to keep misleading with well-rehearsed comebacks. With antibiotics it's the trusty old "that's only 'microevolution'." People like Michael Egnor will be quick with the bait-and-switch that medical researchers don't need to know (or accept) "Darwinism."

Not sure what you mean by the second paragraph, but if you mean that they would eliminate or threaten the "whistleblowers," I think that very few of even the most hard-line anti-science people think of scientists as that evil.

Then, please explain how reading the Bible literally can resolve questions about the diversities of life on Earth better than the theory of Evolution, and please explain how Intelligent Design is a science, even though none of its proponents, including you, have ever bothered to demonstrate how it is a science, or how some of its proponents, such as Michael Medved and John E. Phillips, have admitted that Intelligent Design was never a science in the first place.

Frank J said: It's a Catch-22 of all science-pseudoscience debates, that whenever one draws attention to their arguments, however bogus and/or misleading they may be, one gives them unearned publicity.

1) ID isn't science

2) There is a vast global conspiracy suppressing ID

3) ID is valid, but its proponents are utterly incompetent at doing research

James F said: the even more devastating argument that the antievolution movement has failed to provide data to support its case in peer-reviewed scientific research papers.

But you seem to be the only evolutionist who has enough cajones to even speak up about oversimplification. So, sincere thanks.

— FL

Well, we can either continue countering their rehearsed bullplop with the truth, or we can just give up and let them win, with all of the catastrophic consequences that will result.

— Stanton

This at least gets most of the cdesign proponentsists to admit that they’re conspiracy theorists.

— James F

...Michael Medved and John E. Phillips, have admitted that Intelligent Design was never a science in the first place.

— Stanton

Frank J said:

...Michael Medved and John E. Phillips, have admitted that Intelligent Design was never a science in the first place.

— Stanton

Do you mean Phillip E. Johnson? I know that he and the DI's (allegedly) YEC Paul Nelson have issued clear statements that ID is not (yet?) science. I would not be surprised if Medved has by now, since he seems more interested in how "Darwinism" doesn't measure up than in ID itself.

Frank J said:

This at least gets most of the cdesign proponentsists to admit that they’re conspiracy theorists.

— James F

They'll never admit it...

FL said: conflating ID and creationism [...] oversimplification

Besides the obvious relationships, there’s also the funny fact that no IDiot have ever managed to describe any difference between ID and other creationism, of the even funnier fact that no IDiot have even described exactly what ID is and is not outside of proposing an intelligent designer doing haphazard creation acts.

— Torbjörn Larsson, OM

Ah so. I.D. is the set theoretic complement of Creationism, and actually saying something about what, when, where, how?

Henry

Henry J said: Ah so. I.D. is the set theoretic complement of Creationism, and actually saying something about what, when, where, how? Henry

Well, original Creationism does say when, and implies separate origins of "kinds".

Come to think of it though, there's not really a "how" in there anywhere.

Henry

there's also the funny fact funny fact that no IDiot have ever managed to describe any difference between ID and other creationism

Besides presupposing a supernatural agent, scientific creationism also presupposes the scientific accuracy of the biblical account of creation. Proponents of scientific creationism treat the opening chapters of Genesis as a scientific text and thus argue for a six-day creation, the existence of a historical Adam and Eve, a literal Garden of Eden, a catastrophic worldwide flood, etc. Scientific creationism takes the biblical account of creation in Genesis as its starting point and thebn attempts to match the data of nature to the biblical account. Intelligent design, by contrast, starts with the data of nature and from there argues to an intelligent cause responsible for the specified complexity in nature. --- Dr. William Dembski, Intelligent Design, IVP, c1999, pg 248.

http://www.idthink.net/back/idc/index.html Creationists accept ID.....Yet the inverse is not true. That is, not all Intelligent Design proponents are Creationists. ******************** Clearly, if the definition of "Creationist" can include a proponent of Darwinian evolution, then the definition adds smoke, not light, to the debate. --- Mike Gene, "Intelligent Design Creationism"

Is ID creationism? No. ID is not creationism: ........"The first misunderstanding is that intelligent design is based on religion rather than science. Design theory is a scientific inference based on empirical evidence, not religious texts. The theory proposes that some features of the natural world are best explained as the product of an intelligent cause as opposed to an undirected process such as natural selection. .... While intelligent design may have religious implications (just like Darwin's theory), it does not start from religious premises." (West J.G., "Intelligent design is sorely misunderstood," Seattle Post- Intelligencer, August 9, 2005). ********* ....."University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he 'agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement.' "Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to identify ID with creationism? According to Numbers, it is because they think such claims are 'the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.' (Ostling R.N., "Ohio School Board Debates Teaching 'Intelligent Design'," The Washington Post, March 14, 2002). ********* ....."In other words, the charge that intelligent design is 'creationism' is a rhetorical strategy on the part of those who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case." (West J.G., "Intelligent design is sorely misunderstood," Seattle Post- Intelligencer, August 9, 2005) Stephen E. Jones, website http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/faqdntsl.html

ID is obviously a wrinkle on the old face of Creationism so whether you call it separate species or not depends on whether you are a lumper or a splitter.

Of course nobody in their right minds takes the statements of ID proponents literally. The whole point of the wedge strategy was to deceive. Like believers everywhere, these guys lie with a good conscience.

But philosophically ID and creationism at large are the same (as they argue for creation), and socially they are the same (as has been established in court to society’s satisfaction). The minor details (for example, ID functioning as a content free place holder, i.e. “tent”) aren’t relevant in the larger debate, so there isn’t any oversimplification in evidence. Besides the obvious relationships, there’s also the funny fact that no IDiot have ever managed to describe any difference between ID and other creationism, of the even funnier fact that no IDiot have even described exactly what ID is and is not outside of proposing an intelligent designer doing haphazard creation acts.

— Torbjörn Larsson

So, you’ve been refuted since at least 1999.

FL said:

Intelligent design, by contrast, starts with the data of nature and from there argues to an intelligent cause responsible for the specified complexity in nature. --- Dr. William Dembski, Intelligent Design, IVP, c1999, pg 248.

************************** So, you've been refuted since at least 1999.

but the fact that evolutionists Frederick Crews and P.Z. Myers have publicly labeled their fellow evolutionist Kenneth Miller as a “creationist” for publicly stating his views in print and in speech, dramatically confirms Mike Gene’s latter point even more.

Dale Husband said:

but the fact that evolutionists Frederick Crews and P.Z. Myers have publicly labeled their fellow evolutionist Kenneth Miller as a “creationist” for publicly stating his views in print and in speech, dramatically confirms Mike Gene’s latter point even more.

Not if you don't provide actual examples of them doing just that, it doesn't! Assuming because of "specified complexity" that an intelligence must have been involved in the making of life forms IS Creationism, and stripping specific Biblical dogmas away from it doesn't make it any less Creationist. Dembski and others are merely playing a semantics game. If ID is not Creationism, then we can also say that the Sermon on the Mount is not Christianity, right?

Not if you don’t provide actual examples of them doing just that, it doesn’t!

When (Kenneth) Miller tries to drag God and Darwin to the bargaining table (by finding design or purpose underlying the laws of physics), his sense of proportion or probability abandons him, and he himself proves to be just another “God of the Gaps” creationist. —–UC professor Frederick Crews, New York Review of Books, 10-18-2001

"Thanks, Dr Ken! I know what side you're on, now…it's you and the creationists, best friends 4ever! Did they promise to let you strike the match at the atheist-burning?" --Pharyngula, PZ Myers, "Ken Miller, Creationist", 09-09-2006

Clearly, if the definition of “Creationist” can include a proponent of Darwinian evolution, then the definition adds smoke, not light, to the debate.

Why do people talk to that lying, dull, repetitive shit FL? I mean, I get why he isn't banned (though I do not agree in his case). But since he is incapable of doing more than the most obvious trolling, why even talk to him?

Oh, and when he reads this:

[ahem] FL, please drop (metaphorically) as dead as a dodo.

Thanking you in advance for you assistance,

-- A Mere Human

tiredofthesos:

I may disagree with FL, but if PT bans all dissenting opinions, then PT would reduce itself to the level of UcD. Unlike name-changing trolls like "jobby", who should be banned, FL does not come here for the sole purpose of hijacking threads.

FL:

IIRC you are a YEC, but one who favors the ID tactic of not challenging OECs. Please correct me if that's wrong. Now you say that some "evolutionists" label one of the staunchest critics of ID/creationism as a "creationist." I can top that. A few former theistic "evolutionist" regulars on Talk.Origins insisted on calling themselves "creationists."

All that means is that different groups define "creationist/creationism" differently, and that one must be careful to state clearly which definition one is using when including or excluding ID.

I would imagine that you call yourself a "creationist," yet are far more sympathetic to "non-creationists" like Bill Dembski than to "creationists" like Ken Miller, correct?

Intelligent design, by contrast [to creationism], starts with the data of nature and from there argues to an intelligent cause responsible for the specified complexity in nature.

Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory.

James F said: the more you understand about science, the more ridiculous the idea of a Global Darwinist Conspiracy™ becomes.

Its killing me that except for news of Prof. Steve Steve PT has gone silent at a time when the media is uncritically accepting the Republican assertion that Palin never did anything to "really" push creationism in public school science classes. There needs to be a review of creationism in Alaska schools (for instance: http://dwb.adn.com/life/story/5510310p-5448476c.html), and an explanation of why "just discussing alternatives" is a problem.

Anthony said: One has to wonder if this could have been done with Dave, John, or Christopher.

Mike,

It's ironic (but not to me) that the liberal media "is uncritically accepting the Republican assertion that Palin never did anything to “really” push creationism in public school science classes."

OTOH it is also reporting that she "is" a creationist, yet I have never seen any evidence that she actually believes any specifics that creationists claim, such as a young Earth or independent origin of "kinds." McCain, who like Palin has fallen for the "teach the controversy" scam, even said that he accepts evolution.

What that tells me is that the media as a whole, and probably many individual reporters, has fallen for the bait-and-switch. In one sense, even the designer-free phony "critical analysis" promotes Biblical literalism to most "reasonable observers" (paraphrasing Judge Jones). But many people, like McCain, and possibly Palin, might actually think that allowing the scam artists to contrast their pseudoscience with evolution might help students better appreciate evolution. That's what I thought years ago, before I found out how devious the scam artists, especially the ID variety, are.

When the other side accepts your language and definitions you’ve already won at least half the battle.

— Mike

FL said: The NSCE conflation of ID and creationism is clearly refuted.

Creation means that the various forms of life began abruptly through the agency of an intelligent creator with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, and wings, etc.

Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency, with their distinctive features already intact. Fish with fins and scales, birds with feathers, beaks, wings, etc.

I get the distinct impression (from the media, of course. I'm not famous enough to actually sit down and talk to one of these media stars) that McCain doesn't really take religion very personally. It's not how he views the world. So his approach is purely political: tell these bug-eyed fanatics whatever they want to hear, provided he doesn't paint himself into a corner in the process. The "teach both sides" argument is immensely seductive to a politician - it means nearly everyone is happy, and he doesn't need to commit to anything that will cost him many votes.

Palin may or may not be another story. She's from an evangelical (Pentacostal) background, and is clearly much more religious in the sense that she factors a lot of her religious doctrinal convictions into what she views as realpolitick. McCain supports Bush's wars because they are highly profitable to a lot of people who represent big contributions and big lobbying efforts favorable to his intersts. Palin isn't in a position to appreciate these benefits, but Palin DOES seem to think that Bush's wars are Good Things because her god approves of them. He told her so!

Nonetheless, Palin has shot down creationist efforts in the Alaska legislature to tack riders requiring the teaching of creationism in science classes, to bills primarily concerned with policies toward oil and oil companies. Palin has been (justifiably) concerned that these riders would generate enough opposition to kill the oil bills. And this is good practical politics, not fanaticism.

Flint said: Nonetheless, Palin has shot down creationist efforts in the Alaska legislature to tack riders requiring the teaching of creationism in science classes, to bills primarily concerned with policies toward oil and oil companies.

Stanton said:

Frank J said:

...Michael Medved and John E. Phillips, have admitted that Intelligent Design was never a science in the first place.

— Stanton

Do you mean Phillip E. Johnson? I know that he and the DI's (allegedly) YEC Paul Nelson have issued clear statements that ID is not (yet?) science. I would not be surprised if Medved has by now, since he seems more interested in how "Darwinism" doesn't measure up than in ID itself.

I hadn't had my morning tea yet at the time, but yes, Phillip E. Johnson. Call it a Freudian nightgown.

Dan,

Dembski's clever parsing of words is analogous to what Arafat said about Israel's right to exist to different audiences. To Westerners he remarked frequently how much he supported a "two-state solution" with regards to Israel and the Palestinians. On the other hand, to his own supporters in the West Bank, Gaza, and elsewhere, he pledged that he would throw the "Zionist Entity" "back into the sea".

Personally, I believe Dembski knows that Intelligent Design is merely a sophisticated version of "scientific creationism", which, of course, is a point he emphasizes in his courses at the Texan Baptist seminary where he teaches. Or rather, to paraphrase University of Chicago evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne, Dembski is quite comfortable teaching the "hard version" of Intelligent Design creationism to his fellow Xian supporters, while trying simultaneously to hoodwink the rest of us with his "soft version".

John

Flint said: I get the distinct impression (from the media, of course. I'm not famous enough to actually sit down and talk to one of these media stars) that McCain doesn't really take religion very personally. It's not how he views the world. So his approach is purely political: tell these bug-eyed fanatics whatever they want to hear, provided he doesn't paint himself into a corner in the process. The "teach both sides" argument is immensely seductive to a politician - it means nearly everyone is happy, and he doesn't need to commit to anything that will cost him many votes. Palin may or may not be another story. She's from an evangelical (Pentacostal) background, and is clearly much more religious in the sense that she factors a lot of her religious doctrinal convictions into what she views as realpolitick. McCain supports Bush's wars because they are highly profitable to a lot of people who represent big contributions and big lobbying efforts favorable to his intersts. Palin isn't in a position to appreciate these benefits, but Palin DOES seem to think that Bush's wars are Good Things because her god approves of them. He told her so! Nonetheless, Palin has shot down creationist efforts in the Alaska legislature to tack riders requiring the teaching of creationism in science classes, to bills primarily concerned with policies toward oil and oil companies. Palin has been (justifiably) concerned that these riders would generate enough opposition to kill the oil bills. And this is good practical politics, not fanaticism.

John Kwok said: Neither McCain nor Palin have been anywhere remotely as zealous as, for example, LA Governor Bobby Jindal

Dear everyone,

The organization "Call for A Science Debate" has posted jointly the answers to ten questions it had sent to the McCain and Obama campaigns. You can read them here:

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42

Judging by their answers, I believe McCain has a better, much deeper, understanding as to what we ought to do with regards to energy, climate change, space exploration, science education, and restoring scientific intergrity in the executive branch of the Federal government.

Sincerely yours,

John

Re: Palin/McCain. IMO this whole discussion just reiterates the need for both Presdential and VP debates on science issues. Guessing their opinion from stump speeches is a poor substitute for simply asking them a point blank question.

Even as a nonprofit affiliate I think support for a debate is something PT could legally get behind. In that context it might be more useful for the folks here to discuss potential debate questions, rather than opine on the candidates' opinions. How would you phrase the debate question on teaching evolution?

I'm going to specifically call out FL and Jobby, our two dissenters. There's no reason why we can't come to agreement on the language of a debate question. Do you have any suggestions (re: teaching of evolution) for debate questions you'd like to hear?

eric

McCain's promises are worthless because, as has been demonstrated repeatedly in this campaign and before, he is not an honorable person. He lies without raising a sweat; and the policy of his administration would surely follow the interests of his base, not what he happens to find convenient to say this week.

Neither McCain nor Palin have been anywhere remotely as zealous as, for example, LA Governor Bobby Jindal - who concentrated in Biology at our undergraduate alma mater...

— John Kwok

Guessing their opinion from stump speeches is a poor substitute for simply asking them a point blank question.

— Eric

IIRC you are a YEC, but one who favors the ID tactic of not challenging OECs. Please correct me if that’s wrong.

Now you say that some “evolutionists” label one of the staunchest critics of ID/creationism as a “creationist.” I can top that. A few former theistic “evolutionist” regulars on Talk.Origins insisted on calling themselves “creationists.”

I would imagine that you call yourself a “creationist,” yet are far more sympathetic to “non-creationists” like Bill Dembski than to “creationists” like Ken Miller, correct?

Dear John, If you think a man, who promises to stay in Iraq a 100 years if necessary and promises to give us trickle-down economics, is worthy to be president, than your judgement is severely lacking. So why don't you stop being McCain's campaign manager on PT.

Frank J said: Ever since Al Gore's flip-flop on the 1999 Kansas plan to eliminate evolution from the standards I am suspicious of Democratic candidates who object to anti-evolution legislation.

Folks,

Notice how FL avoided the issue of whether ID is science and went right into semantics (the definition of ID vs. creationism) and tangential subjects (yes, PZ did, in a huff, call Ken Miller a creationist once). This is very instructive for dealing with special creationists. Definitions must be agreed upon a priori; for example, if you define creationism as young earth creationism, then yes, ID is not the same as YEC (although there are a few folks at the Discovery Institute who are openly YEC). If you define creationism as broadly as evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky defined it (“It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God’s, or Nature’s, method of Creation." [Am. Biol. Teach. 35, 125–129; 1973]), then all theists are creationists. Indeed, evangelicals who are theistic evolutionists self-identify as evolutionary creationists. Thus, when I (and, I think, others here at PT) refer to creationism, I mean special creationism, that is, that supernatural causation must be invoked to explain the natural world. ID (unlike theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism, which is reviled by the Discovery Institute) is clearly a form of special creationism, and while it is technically distinct from YEC and OEC, the Wedge Document leaves no doubt about its religious fundamentalist nature, and since there is no secular reason to teach it in a public school science class, it fails the Supreme Court's Lemon Test.

Just depends on the time and the place and the topic. I am not an Old-Earth Creationist, but I agree with OEC’s Hugh Ross and Fazale Rana concerning the origin of life. I like the fact that they consider Adam and Eve’s creation to be literal and that it happened just “thousands of years ago” even though they believe in Old Earth Age. But I don’t agree with OEC Ross’s position that the Noahic Flood was local, instead I agree with the late OEC Dr. Gleason Archer, who agreed with the YEC’s that biblically, the Noahic Flood HAD to be global in scope. So, do I generally want to engage in battle and hash out all these issues out with OEC’s at PandasThumb of all places?? Understandably, the answer is “No”. Gotta pick your times, places, and battles kinda carefully these days.

Frank J said:

Neither McCain nor Palin have been anywhere remotely as zealous as, for example, LA Governor Bobby Jindal - who concentrated in Biology at our undergraduate alma mater...

— John Kwok

Where, IIRC you were taught by that "creationist" Ken Miller, and Jindal wasn't. More evidence that Jindal is zealous, or in my more cynical view, "in on the scam" is that he actually signed the "academic anarchy" bill when, AIUI, he didn't even need to for it to pass.

James F said: Thus, when I (and, I think, others here at PT) refer to creationism, I mean special creationism, that is, that supernatural causation must be invoked to explain the natural world.

Judge Jones

How can the two concepts possibly be different when the definition given by IDers themselves, in a textbook designed to introduce the concept of intelligent design are identical????

"The idea that life had an intelligent source is hardly unique to Christian fundamentalism. Advocates of design have included not only Christians and other religious theists, but pantheists, Greek and Enlightenment philosophers and now include many modern scientists who describe themselves as religiously agnostic. Moreover, the concept of design implies absolutely nothing about beliefs and normally associated with Christian fundamentalism, such as a young earth, a global flood, or even the existence of the Christian God. All it implies is that life had an intelligent source." (pg. 161)

"If science is based upon experience, then science tells us the message encoded in DNA must have originated from an intelligent cause. But what kind of intelligent agent was it? On its own, science cannot answer this question; it must leave it to religion and philosophy. But that should not prevent science from acknowledging evidences for an intelligent cause origin wherever they may exist. This is no different, really, than if we discovered life did result from natural causes. We still would not know, from science, if the natural cause was all that was involved, or if the ultimate explanation was beyond nature, and using the natural cause." (pg. 7)

"Surely the intelligent design explanation has unanswered questions of its own. But unanswered questions, which exist on both sides, are an essential part of healthy science; they define the areas of needed research. Questions often expose hidden errors that have impeded the progress of science. For example, the place of intelligent design in science has been troubling for more than a century. That is because on the whole, scientists from within Western culture failed to distinguish between intelligence, which can be recognized by uniform sensory experience, and the supernatural, which cannot. Today we recognize that appeals to intelligent design may be considered in science, as illustrated by current NASA search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). Archaeology has pioneered the development of methods for distinguishing the effects of natural and intelligent causes. We should recognize, however, that if we go further, and conclude that the intelligence responsible for biological origins is outside the universe (supernatural) or within it, we do so without the help of science." (pg. 126-127)

John Kwok

debate topic

One more quick note:

In the NCSE petition quoted above, the term "creationist" is never defined at all, which means that none of us have any idea whether the NCSE is using the term as Dobzhansky used it, or as James F used it, or as PZ Myers used it.

(Btw, James, thanks for acknowledging that the Wedge Document IS distinct from YEC and OEC. I think you're the first evolutionist around here with the cajones to fess up to that one!!!!!)

At any rate, until all the evolutionists get on the same page with a standardized definition of "creationist" and "creationism", it doesn't even make rational sense to accept the NCSE's blatant conflation of ID and creationism in their petition.

Speak up as an evolutionist, get on the email, and tell that Eugenie Scott to get it right!!!!

(Put some feeling into it, like PZ does!!)

FL :)

There seems to be reactive reflex to accept whatever definition of playing field and terms that the far right fabricates for anti-science campaigns, or whatever. When the other side accepts your language and definitions you’ve already won at least half the battle. “Intelligent design” does not differ enough from “scientific creationism” to warrant any concern of improper use of the terms.

— Mike

Judge Jones has not addressed any of the points made by the four sources I quoted earlier. NONE. Completely ducked ‘em. Especially the opening point, which was made by William Dembski way back in 1999 and which Jones should have been aware of merely by visiting his local library on his days off. Go figure.

— FL

Mike:

I can't find where I read this (killing creationism riders). It might be urban myth, or it might not be part of any written record, just some Alaskan politician recalling that it was part of the informal vote horse-trading that happens in the back rooms.

But I think Palin is not any sort of committed creationist, or religious fundamentalist in general. She's favorable toward religious conservative positions, but more as a means of attracting votes and other political support for an agenda that's not religious.

And so I think she wasn't intimately involved in this issue or been as sensitized as we have here. To her, hey, nobody knows for sure, maybe her god DID poof things, that's for science to find out, censorship is bad PR, valid positions deserve to be presented, she has no clue what "valid" means in a scientific context and doesn't care because her constitutency doesn't know either.

For a long time, Philip Johnson sincerely believed science could find his god's handiwork and investigate it with the scientific method. Science HAS to find his god in nature, because his god IS THERE. If science can't find anything that obvious or self-evident, science is either incompetent or dishonest. Palin probably falls into the early-Johnson camp in terms of scientific ignorance, and layers on the politicians' instinct to try to please everyone.

FL said: Quick notes:

Judge Jones

(1) Judge Jones has not addressed any of the points made by the four sources I quoted earlier. NONE.

FL said: Judge Jones has not addressed any of the points made by the four sources I quoted earlier. NONE. Completely ducked 'em. Especially the opening point, which was made by William Dembski way back in 1999 and which Jones should have been aware of merely by visiting his local library on his days off. Go figure.

FL said: In the NCSE petition quoted above, the term "creationist" is never defined at all, which means that none of us have any idea whether the NCSE is using the term as Dobzhansky used it, or as James F used it, or as PZ Myers used it.

Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

A judge is supposed to consider evidence raised at trial.

— Dan replying to FL

Thus, when I (and, I think, others here at PT) refer to creationism, I mean special creationism, that is, that supernatural causation must be invoked to explain the natural world.

— James F

Frank J said: The problem with that definition is that it allows IDers to play bait-and-switch. The public, even many who do accept evolution, often think "what's the harm," if others believe it - or even teach it too. Plus the term "special creationism" is usually interpreted as independent abiogensesis of "kinds." As you know, ID never committed to that (though "Pandas" comes close), and the one major IDer (Michael Behe) who did slightly elaborate on his alternative rejects it. I have been lobbying for years to define it as "any strategy that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and an unscientific design-based alternative." That certainly includes ID, and even the designer-free phony "critical analysis" if one allows for indirect promotion based on what students are likely to infer. That definition portrays creationism as a strategy, not a belief.

but I also want to use an umbrella term that defines what they propose rather than what they oppose,

Seems to me the debaters here are so engaged in debating FL that they just overlook his annoying habit of bolding his argument(s).

If your argument is good enough, it is good enough even without bolding. Do excessive use of bolding tell us something about the writer himself?

Frank J said:

Thus, when I (and, I think, others here at PT) refer to creationism, I mean special creationism, that is, that supernatural causation must be invoked to explain the natural world.

— James F

The problem with that definition is that it allows IDers to play bait-and-switch. The public, even many who do accept evolution, often think "what's the harm," if others believe it - or even teach it too. Plus the term "special creationism" is usually interpreted as independent abiogensesis of "kinds." As you know, ID never committed to that (though "Pandas" comes close), and the one major IDer (Michael Behe) who did slightly elaborate on his alternative rejects it. I have been lobbying for years to define it as "any strategy that promotes unreasonable doubt of evolution and an unscientific design-based alternative." That certainly includes ID, and even the designer-free phony "critical analysis" if one allows for indirect promotion based on what students are likely to infer. That definition portrays creationism as a strategy, not a belief. Some of the authors of "Scientists Confront Creationism" use the term "creationism" for the honest belief of the misled rank and file, and "creation 'science'" for the anti-evolution activists (I added the quotes around "science" because my stomach cannot take calling it science). That's a compromise I can live with, then both sides could agree that ID is not creationism but it is the (long-debunked) creation "science." And a particularly watered-down version, necessitated by the fact that the mutually contradictory versions that actually do make testable statements regarding what the designer (or Creator) did, when and how are (1) illegal for public school and (2) easily falsified.

Henry J said:

but I also want to use an umbrella term that defines what they propose rather than what they oppose,

But isn't it what they oppose that puts all of them in the same "tent"? What they propose does differ. Of course, the fact of that difference shows that their claims aren't evidence based, since evidence based claims will automatically converge as more and better data becomes available (which is of course why scientists on the whole accept the basic principles of the current theories in all the fields of science). Henry

Henry J said:

but I also want to use an umbrella term that defines what they propose rather than what they oppose,

But isn't it what they oppose that puts all of them in the same "tent"? What they propose does differ. Of course, the fact of that difference shows that their claims aren't evidence based, since evidence based claims will automatically converge as more and better data becomes available (which is of course why scientists on the whole accept the basic principles of the current theories in all the fields of science). Henry

FL said: One more quick note: In the NCSE petition quoted above, the term "creationist" is never defined at all, which means that none of us have any idea whether the NCSE is using the term as Dobzhansky used it, or as James F used it, or as PZ Myers used it. (Btw, James, thanks for acknowledging that the Wedge Document IS distinct from YEC and OEC. I think you're the first evolutionist around here with the cajones to fess up to that one!!!!!) At any rate, until all the evolutionists get on the same page with a standardized definition of "creationist" and "creationism", it doesn't even make rational sense to accept the NCSE's blatant conflation of ID and creationism in their petition. Speak up as an evolutionist, get on the email, and tell that Eugenie Scott to get it right!!!! (Put some feeling into it, like PZ does!!) FL :)

I would think that creationism is easily defined: Creationism The belief that life was created by some specific entity for a specific purpose known to the entity.

— Robin

Jennifer said: Why be so arrogant in your theory that you insult and belittle other people's beliefs? Also, I am surprised that so many intelligent scientists are so ignorant to the fact that just maybe evolution works the way it does because it was designed that way on purpose by God. Check out a little book titled "The Holy Bible", where the order of appearance of organisms follows the same sequence as the Theory of Evolution. How is that for a proper logical argument? I come in peace, Jennifer

Jennifer said: Why be so arrogant in your theory that you insult and belittle other people's beliefs?

Also, I am surprised that so many intelligent scientists are so ignorant to the fact that just maybe evolution works the way it does because it was designed that way on purpose by God. Check out a little book titled "The Holy Bible", where the order of appearance of organisms follows the same sequence as the Theory of Evolution. How is that for a proper logical argument?

"When God began to create heaven and earth, and the earth then was welter and waste and darkness over the deep and God's breath hovering over the waters, God said, 'Let there be light.' and there was light"; the "firmament" separating "the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament;" dry land and seas and plants and trees which grew fruit with seed; the sun, moon and stars in the firmament; air-breathing sea creatures and birds; and on the sixth day, "the beasts of the earth according to their kinds." "Then God said, Let us make man in our image ... in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." On the seventh day God rests from the task of completing the heavens and the earth: "So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all his work which he had done in creation."

I come in peace, Jennifer

Sorry for the double post.

maybe evolution works the way it does because it was designed that way on purpose by God

Check out a little book titled “The Holy Bible”, where the order of appearance of organisms follows the same sequence as the Theory of Evolution

How is that for a proper logical argument?

It is, in fact, an argument from a discredited authority. The evidence contradicts your assertion that the forms of life appeared in the same order as stated in Genesis, as was pointed out above; but quite apart from that, the logic is ridiculous. You are saying that if the Bible got any part of the facts right, it must have got them all right. Nonsense.

Jennifer said: Why be so arrogant in your theory that you insult and belittle other people's beliefs? Also, I am surprised that so many intelligent scientists are so ignorant to the fact that just maybe evolution works the way it does because it was designed that way on purpose by God. Check out a little book titled "The Holy Bible", where the order of appearance of organisms follows the same sequence as the Theory of Evolution. How is that for a proper logical argument? I come in peace, Jennifer

The climb toward 1,000 Steves continues (963 at last count). I asked several Steves and a Stephanie from the Texas 21st Century Science Coalition list, so hopefully some of them will join. I'm happy to report that Prof. Steven W. Squyres of Cornell, Principal Investigator for NASA's Mars Exploration Rover mission, has agreed to sign at my invitation. I don't know him personally, but I heard him on NPR. So, have you invited a Steve? It's easier than you think!

Quick Steve update: the list is up to 982, let's get the last 18 in!

My name is Sandy Lawrence, and I am an MD with sixteen years experience as assistant and then associate professor at a UC Davis-affiliated family medicine residency program. But I would give it all up if I could change my name to Steve and join this list. Oh well.