Creationist Evolution in Texas: Updated

There's scientific evidence for Intelligent Design?

Has anyone told the people at the Discovery Institute, yet?

I'm always somewhat amazed when anti-evolutionists can Pandas And People themselves so blatantly and still think that they're doing good, moral work by being completely dishonest.

Stanton said: There's scientific evidence for Intelligent Design? Has anyone told the people at the Discovery Institute, yet?

Richard,

Does any of the material in your course explore the underlying misconceptions and misrepresentations of various fundamental scientific concepts that have flowed from creationism to the current arguments of Intelligent Design and onward to the “strengths and weaknesses” shtick?

I have found these to be among of the most interesting and unifying sets of “genes” running through the evolutionary progression of this ID/Creationist creature.

No matter what they try to throw at the public to disavow any genetic relationship to their earlier ancestors, those fundamental scientific misconceptions remain the same, and are simply reapplied to some other phenomena. They simply cannot get those scientific concepts right and still maintain sectarian dogma and their political “big tent”. They have no choice but to maintain the misconceptions and misrepresentations and hope their followers won’t notice.

While the TFN findings are interesting, it would be much more informative linked with a discription of the methodology FMF used to arive at their rankings.

Does any of the material in your course explore the underlying misconceptions and misrepresentations of various fundamental scientific concepts that have flowed from creationism to the current arguments of Intelligent Design and onward to the “strengths and weaknesses” shtick?

3. Sexual Orientation: Add a law protecting students from sexual orientation discrimination."

12. Homosexuality: School counseling or teaching about homosexuality."

RBH said: The first to do that was the American Scientific Affiliation, which was originally founded as an anti-evolution organization, but metamorphosed into a broader membership.

djlactin said: Shovels to get rid of them.

Henry J said: They should be called wordology and bugology

Sorry, disregard last comment; wrong window/thread.

Creationist evolution is merely in their mating displays. Beneath the surface they're still paleocreationists. What else do they have?

Pete Dunkelberg said: Creationist evolution is merely in their mating displays. Beneath the surface they're still paleocreationists. What else do they have?

Good grief! Not just the three current board members but ALL the board of education candidates shown on the sample vote guide pages provided by the TFN are either undecided (U), favor (F), or strongly favor (SF) teaching creationism or evolution's "strengths and weaknesses" in Texas public schools.

How do you get a gig like that? Now I know what I want to be when I grow up.

Hi RBH,

Just wondering if you've gone as far back as the 19th Century to look at American Fundamentalist Protestant Christianity's initial reactions to Darwin and his theories of evolution? Apparently widespread opposition from these Christians didn't occur until during World War I, as a political and cultural reaction to Imperial Germany's atrocities committed against the Belgians and other occupied peoples.

Am delighted to see that Glenn Branch provided you with ample assistance on this.

Regards,

John

Wheels said: I'm always somewhat amazed when anti-evolutionists can Pandas And People themselves so blatantly and still think that they're doing good, moral work by being completely dishonest.

My basic contention is that if the ID movement succeeds in defeating naturalism and the Enlightenment and institute some sort of “theistic science,” the very next day the purges will begin and blood will flow in the aisles and over the pews as they fight it out over purely theological issues. Phillip Johnson thinks they’ll have a grand time debating the age of the earth. Baloney. They’ll have a bloody fight over it.

— RBH

"If science is limited to only natural explanations but some natural phenomena are actually the result of supernatural causes then science would never be able to discover that truth–not a very good position for science. Defining science to allow for this possibility is just common sense.

Science must limit itself to testable explanations not natural explanations."

Um... exactly how does a scientist test for a supernatural explanation?

If the hypothesis is "An object at rest will remain at rest as long as Inertia, Goddess of Momentum, is appeased with a blood sacrifice," what the heck does the lab report look like?

Science doesn't really have a problem testing extraordinary claims. It simply hasn't verified any. Randi's million dollars seems safe.

Cash said: Um... exactly how does a scientist test for a supernatural explanation?

Cash said: If the hypothesis is "An object at rest will remain at rest as long as Inertia, Goddess of Momentum, is appeased with a blood sacrifice," what the heck does the lab report look like?

Science doesn’t really have a problem testing extraordinary claims. It simply hasn’t verified any. Randi’s million dollars seems safe.

What bothers me most about the pro-supernatural "science must change" arguments is that no change is necessary. This is a capitalist country. If you think you have a great idea, find an investor and go to it. No one is stopping venture capitalism in theistic science. No one is stopping private universities from doing research according to its rules (whatever they are). There's plenty of money out there - DI spends between $1-2 million on "research" every year.

The truth is that the strongest "supporters" of theistic science don't invest any (zero, nada, zilch) resources in it. No philosophical proof is more damning than that simple economic fact.

Cash said: If the hypothesis is "An object at rest will remain at rest as long as Inertia, Goddess of Momentum, is appeased with a blood sacrifice," what the heck does the lab report look like?

Richard B. Hoppe wrote: More incredible given McElroy’s claim above, as recently as August of this year McElroy himself explicitly argued for the inclusion of supernatural explanations in science.

Jeremy Mohn said:

Richard B. Hoppe wrote: More incredible given McElroy’s claim above, as recently as August of this year McElroy himself explicitly argued for the inclusion of supernatural explanations in science.

I was hoping someone else would point it out because I hate to be a nit-picker, but his last name is spelled "McLeroy" not "McElroy."

McLeroy has specifically mentioned creationism much more recently. Not to be too self-promotional but I discussed this in a recent blog entry: http://religionsetspolitics.blogspot.com/2008/10/don-mcleroy-jenkins-epic-failure-by.html In an October 19 op-ed in the Waco Tribune on October 19th (which is now behind a paywall) he explicitly talked about challenging claims of evolution "by creationists".

Don McLeroy said: Texas is adopting new science standards. Scientists representing evolutionists and calling themselves the 21st Century Science Coalition say that creationists on the State Board of Education will inject religion into the science classroom. Should they be concerned? No. This will not happen. They also say that the board will require supernatural explanations to be placed in the curriculum. This will not happen. The National Academy of Sciences in its recent booklet Science, Evolution and Creationism, 2008, defines science as "the use of evidence to construct testable explanations and predictions of natural phenomena, as well as the knowledge generated through this process." This definition should be acceptable to both sides. But, the coalition also makes claims about evolution that will be challenged by creationists.

Cash said: If the hypothesis is "An object at rest will remain at rest as long as Inertia, Goddess of Momentum, is appeased with a blood sacrifice," what the heck does the lab report look like?

I can’t decide if McElroy McLeroy knows he’s lying or is simply incapable of remembering his own claim made in writing just a few months ago.

— Richard B. Hoppe

Following Phillip Johnson, in his talk McLeroy portrayed "intelligent design" as a "big tent," explaining, "It's because we're all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. Whether you're a progressive creationist, recent creationist, young earth, old earth, it's all in the tent of intelligent design." He urged his listeners, biblical inerrantists like himself, "to remember, though, that the entire intelligent design movement as a whole is a bigger tent. ... just don't waste our time arguing with each other about some of the, all of the side issues." Yet he described theistic evolution -- which is opposed to naturalism -- as "a very poor option," continuing, "no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it."

He then goes on to list a few standard anti-evolution talking points.

— Joshua Zelinsky

If the hypothesis is “An object at rest will remain at rest as long as Inertia, Goddess of Momentum, is appeased with a blood sacrifice,” what the heck does the lab report look like?

It would have to be written in the blood of the sacrificial animal, of course. Which brings us to the question of which animal's blood is most compatible with ink-jet printer technology.

Following Phillip Johnson, in his talk McLeroy portrayed “intelligent design” as a “big tent,” explaining, “It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is.

They're all lined up against a fact? Nice of them to admit that, even if it was inadvertent.

...“no one in our group represents theistic evolution, and the big tent of intelligent design does not include theistic evolutionists. Because intelligent design is opposed to evolution. Theistic evolutionists embrace it.”

Old-Earth creationists also embrace evolution (with qualifications and exceptions where necessary, of course); so even within the context of standard cretinist "big tent" BS, this guy is still a hypocrite. (And why does he have to single out "theistic evolution" from "non-theistic" evolution? It really looks like he's going out of his way to attack the notion that one can believe in a God and still accept evolution. A little afraid of competing ideas, are we?)

And to think, in the Zoo thread some people/sock puppets are whining that not making room for the Big Tent is intolerance.

Raging Bee said: Following Phillip Johnson, in his talk McLeroy portrayed “intelligent design” as a “big tent,” explaining, “It’s because we’re all lined up against the fact that naturalism, that nature is all there is. They're all lined up against a fact? Nice of them to admit that, even if it was inadvertent.

(And why does he have to single out “theistic evolution” from “non-theistic” evolution? It really looks like he’s going out of his way to attack the notion that one can believe in a God and still accept evolution. A little afraid of competing ideas, are we?)

— Raging Bee

Mike O'Risal has a suggestion for an appropriate place for McLeroy: Romania, which has just removed evolution from its secondary school curriculum.

A Critique of Barbara Forrest Speaking at Southern Methodist
Video found at Littlegreenfootballs.com

7:33 – 7:37

Here is the set-up by Ms. Forrest. Her claim is that the proponents of I.D. are trying to -

“…wedge into the public mind that science requires a supernatural designer, that it requires God.”

She has skewed the argument from the very outset. It is not “science” but life that requires a supernatural designer. That she would say this makes sense as the notion that “evolution is science” is often expressed by adherents to Darwinism – and it is simply wrong. This tactic, equating evolution with science, is understandable – if one dares to dissent from Darwin, then it follows: he is antiscience and his arguments can be dismissed as religious zealotry. This tactic provides for the end of all dialogue and any serious consideration of your opponent’s position.

Ms. Forrest makes it clear: those questioning and critiquing the claims of Naturalism are engaged in “Stealth Creationism.” Ms. Forrest, however, then goes on a lengthy critique of the ideas she opposes and the message is clear: Critique of Darwin is inherently sinister, based on “stealth” (secret and subversive) motives. Extensive critiquing (her words) of Intelligent Design Theory (or any other theory) is fair play. Questions can be asked in one direction but not the other.

Is this how science works? Sadly, yes – this is a common attitude and approach among Naturalists.

15:30
In her critique of Behe’s irreducible complexity, Ms. Forrest says dismissively that he presents in “stylized fashion” the flagellum as a little outboard motor, but then goes on to concede that he draws the information from a “legitimate science textbook.” She then condescendingly remarks “he just kind of adopted it” and “the bacterial flagellum is not really a motor.” No kidding? It’s not really a motor, Ms. Forrest? To quote someone famous, it is obvious she is “…straining at a gnat…”

16:17
She shows a clip from a “legitimate scientific organization.” One has to ask - What legitimizes a scientific organization, their adherence to accepted conclusions? Recall that she admitted Behe used illustrations from a legitimate science textbook – though he just “adopted them.” While the video from the “legitimate” Protonic Nanomachine Project shows a flagellum, that, good golly gosh, they have illustrated to look like a motor, with gears and such, Ms. Forrest then says -

16:30
“I’m just showing it to you because I think it’s just really pretty.”

She is showing it to us because she thinks it’s pretty? This is a woman who authored a book on a subject about which she testified in a court of law, a woman from the scientific community who is attempting to persuade her audience to her position, and she is showing us this video clip because she thinks it’s pretty?

17:20
After stating Behe’s position on irreducible complexity using the mousetrap metaphor, she then draws from Kenneth Miller’s material to refute Behe.

Miller’s “research” consisted of him asking his students to come up with all the things they could do with a mousetrap if they began removing parts, and they arrived at the following: – nose ring, fish hook, toothpick, tie-clip, refrigerator clip, clipboard holder, doorknocker, paperweight, kindling block, catapult, and nutcracker.

Noticeably missing from this list is MOUSETRAP. How does this fact escape an educated person involved in a scientific critique of an idea? The argument from Behe was if you take away the parts, you do not have a functioning whole…which is what Miller’s “research” proves. This is a perfect example of dogma getting in the way of common sense and clear thinking. The statement on the slide says:

“Individual parts of a supposedly irreducible (sic) complex machine are fully functional for different purposes.”

Who would begin to argue that a functioning, purposeful object would still serve as a functioning, purposeful object after it has been stripped of its parts? Ms. Forrest does! -

17:43 – 17:53
What Miller’s “research” shows is that - “Even Dr. Behe’s analogy doesn’t work.”

“I mean, you know, you can take parts off a mousetrap and it still works. Some (stammering speech) you (stammering speech) could work as a mousetrap, or it could work as something else, like a tie-clip.”

As at the outset, a false argument is being attacked. The argument is not that individual parts can’t be used for something else, but that the whole has a specific purpose and does not work without the parts. Let’s be clear, this is no refutation of Behe. To simply state that parts of a mousetrap can be fashioned for some other purpose is no refutation of irreducible complexity, and it certainly is no proof of Naturalism! Intelligence (the students) was sought to determine FUNCTION and PURPOSE for the parts, just as intelligence and design was needed for the mousetrap itself. There was nothing “random” about it!

To finish the quote from someone famous, Ms. Forrest has “…swallowed a camel.”

Moving on to her critique of Dembski, Ms. Forrest is even less persuasive. She states her opponent’s position, remarks that the position has been critiqued by so and so, and then shows pictures of some plants.

21:31- “…but, this (Dembski’s argument) has been scrutinized by many, many capable people...”

How do we know that the people are capable? What are the criteria? It is important to ask these things!

As the slides of flora are shown, the only things offered are the names of the people who looked at them, found them in a grocery store, and the names of the plants. No evidence or explanation is offered of how Natural processes alone brought these organisms about; just the statement from Ms. Forrest that it happened! The only thing proven is that Ms. Forrest believes that Naturalism can explain what only has “appearance of design.” 22:28

22:30
“…so, Dembski, of course, has been shown to be wrong…”

If he was, it was not in her presentation.

After dismissing Dembski for the same (21:42), Ms. Forrest simply applied her own preferred “conceptual framework” to get the result she wanted. Without any evidence or explanation to the contrary, just on her word alone and those of other “capable people,” we are to believe her.

Folks, this is not science.

I watched this video until the 35 minute mark and had to leave it alone due to time constraints. It became clear to me what Ms. Forrest’s real argument is, and it is not about science. This debate is about the influence of Religion in our educational system with the “foothold” being the open critique of the Naturalist/Materialist view of life.

Many, like Ms. Forrest, have accepted a view of science which has left them incapable of free inquiry. A Naturalistic/Materialistic view of the world does not automatically open people to new avenues of discovery – to the degree that these views are held dogmatically - it limits them.

The powers that be have declared the acceptable view of Reality. All who dare to question or interpret differently are branded “heretic,” or worse.

Galileo, anyone?

"A man does not attain the status of Galileo merely because he is persecuted; he must also be right."

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002), "Ever Since Darwin", 1973

"They all laughed at Albert Einstein. They all laughed at Columbus. Unfortunately, they also all laughed at Bozo the Clown."

William H. Jefferys

Jeff Said;All who dare to question or interpret differently are branded “heretic,” or worse.

Jeff said: A Critique of Barbara Forrest Speaking at Southern Methodist Video found at Littlegreenfootballs.com ... 21:31- “…but, this (Dembski’s argument) has been scrutinized by many, many capable people...” How do we know that the people are capable? What are the criteria? It is important to ask these things! ... I watched this video until the 35 minute mark and had to leave it alone due to time constraints...

Jeff said: The powers that be have declared the acceptable view of Reality. All who dare to question or interpret differently are branded “heretic,” or worse.

Jeff said: Here is the set-up by Ms. Forrest. Her claim is that the proponents of I.D. are trying to - “…wedge into the public mind that science requires a supernatural designer, that it requires God.” She has skewed the argument from the very outset. It is not “science” but life that requires a supernatural designer.

As at the outset, a false argument is being attacked. The argument is not that individual parts can’t be used for something else, but that the whole has a specific purpose and does not work without the parts.

Many, like Ms. Forrest, have accepted a view of science which has left them incapable of free inquiry. A Naturalistic/Materialistic view of the world does not automatically open people to new avenues of discovery

The powers that be have declared the acceptable view of Reality. All who dare to question or interpret differently are branded “heretic,” or worse.

— Jeff

For the supernaturalist, the phrase ‘natural explanations’ does not just undermine his view of science but actually excludes it by definition.

My basic contention is that if the ID movement succeeds in defeating naturalism and the Enlightenment and institute some sort of “theistic science,” the very next day the purges will begin and blood will flow in the aisles and over the pews as they fight it out over purely theological issues.

FL said:

My basic contention is that if the ID movement succeeds in defeating naturalism and the Enlightenment and institute some sort of “theistic science,” the very next day the purges will begin and blood will flow in the aisles and over the pews as they fight it out over purely theological issues.

Whoa, whoa there. Just now seeing this statement, and yes I am surprised to see it, even though this is PandasThumb. I for one, would like to see some peer-reviewd social-science research that actually supports this kind of alarmist rhetoric. FL

eric said:

FL said:

My basic contention is that if the ID movement succeeds in defeating naturalism and the Enlightenment and institute some sort of “theistic science,” the very next day the purges will begin and blood will flow in the aisles and over the pews as they fight it out over purely theological issues.

Whoa, whoa there. Just now seeing this statement, and yes I am surprised to see it, even though this is PandasThumb. I for one, would like to see some peer-reviewd social-science research that actually supports this kind of alarmist rhetoric. FL

FL, Aren't you the one that claims no one is christian except biblical literalists and (maybe) the pope? If some of those false, nonliteralist christians get hold of the education system and seek to teach nonliteralist biblical creation in schools, are you going to let them without a fight? My point being that I don't think RBH meant literal knives would come out, and as for the figurative ones, you've already started brandishing them with statements about who doesn't count as christian.

Jeff said: A Critique of Barbara Forrest Speaking at Southern Methodist Video found at Littlegreenfootballs.com

Jeff said: Here is the set-up by Ms. Forrest. Her claim is that the proponents of I.D. are trying to - “…wedge into the public mind that science requires a supernatural designer, that it requires God.”

Jeff said: It is not “science” but life that requires a supernatural designer. That she would say this makes sense as the notion that “evolution is science” is often expressed by adherents to Darwinism – and it is simply wrong.

Jeff said: This tactic, equating evolution with science, is understandable – if one dares to dissent from Darwin, then it follows: he is antiscience and his arguments can be dismissed as religious zealotry. This tactic provides for the end of all dialogue and any serious consideration of your opponent’s position.

Jeff said: Critique of Darwin is inherently sinister, based on “stealth” (secret and subversive) motives. Extensive critiquing (her words) of Intelligent Design Theory (or any other theory) is fair play. Questions can be asked in one direction but not the other.

Jeff said: Is this how science works? Sadly, yes – this is a common attitude and approach among Naturalists.

Jeff the lazy said: I watched this video until the 35 minute mark and had to leave it alone due to time constraints.

Jeff the creationist liar said: It became clear to me what Ms. Forrest’s real argument is, and it is not about science. This debate is about the influence of Religion in our educational system with the “foothold” being the open critique of the Naturalist/Materialist view of life. Many, like Ms. Forrest, have accepted a view of science which has left them incapable of free inquiry. A Naturalistic/Materialistic view of the world does not automatically open people to new avenues of discovery – to the degree that these views are held dogmatically - it limits them. The powers that be have declared the acceptable view of Reality. All who dare to question or interpret differently are branded “heretic,” or worse.

Jeff the creationist liar said: Galileo, anyone?

FL said:

My basic contention is that if the ID movement succeeds in defeating naturalism and the Enlightenment and institute some sort of “theistic science,” the very next day the purges will begin and blood will flow in the aisles and over the pews as they fight it out over purely theological issues.

Whoa, whoa there. Just now seeing this statement, and yes I am surprised to see it, even though this is PandasThumb. I for one, would like to see some peer-reviewd social-science research that actually supports this kind of alarmist rhetoric. FL

lambda the lying sack of shit said: ....wrong! read more about history

In THIS forum, I like to see people SAY that they're being figurative when they talk about purges and when they use the term "blood" twice in the same paragraph with no qualifiers/modifiers.
Believe it or not, there are evolutionists who are pretty intense with their alarmist sky-is-falling rhetoric---(but that never happens on PT, right???)

So all those who spoke up in RBH's stead, I'm sure he appreciates ya!

FL :)

So, in addition to denying evolution, you deny the entire history of the human race, specifically the countless bloody senseless massacres over competing interpretations of imaginary gods.

phantomreader42 said: If you think I'm wrong, show some evidence! We all know you won't, because you can't. The very idea of evidence is beyond the grasp of your feeble little mind. Go fuck yourself, brainless troll!

FL said:

So, in addition to denying evolution, you deny the entire history of the human race, specifically the countless bloody senseless massacres over competing interpretations of imaginary gods.

Uh-Ohhhhh!!!! Better de-literalize THIS guy too, boys!!!!!!

FL said:

So, in addition to denying evolution, you deny the entire history of the human race, specifically the countless bloody senseless massacres over competing interpretations of imaginary gods.

Uh-Ohhhhh!!!! Better de-literalize THIS guy too, boys!!!!!!

Someone check whether lambda's messages are being sent from the same computer/address as bobby's/lilly's etc... My 'design inference' :) is detecting a similarity in the poster's style: quoting a sentence without responding to the specific post, not using blockquotes, and then offering a substantively vacuous one-liner in response.

*****

FL,

You never gave a substantive answer to my question. If nonliteral christians attempt to teach nonliteral creation in schools, are you going to oppose them? If so, that would provide support to RBH's contention that sectarian conflict would break out the moment religious explanations are allowed in science classes.

It's pretty obvious, eric. I suggest adopting Robin's strategy.

FL said: In THIS forum, I like to see people SAY that they're being figurative when they talk about purges and when they use the term "blood" twice in the same paragraph with no qualifiers/modifiers. Believe it or not, there are evolutionists who are pretty intense with their alarmist sky-is-falling rhetoric---(but that never happens on PT, right???)

eric said:

FL said: In THIS forum, I like to see people SAY that they're being figurative when they talk about purges and when they use the term "blood" twice in the same paragraph with no qualifiers/modifiers. Believe it or not, there are evolutionists who are pretty intense with their alarmist sky-is-falling rhetoric---(but that never happens on PT, right???)

Except that RBH was talking about the behavior of ID-believing theists not "evolutionists." So what you seem to be saying here is that you found a literal interpretation of church-going christians spilling each other's blood in sectarian conflict to be credible, which is why you didn't take it figuratively. If you find a literal interpretation of his words credible, that says something about your opinion of christians, not your opinion of RBH.

I suspect it says something about his capacity for projection.

— phantomreader42

Jeff said: 16:30 “I’m just showing it to you because I think it’s just really pretty.” She is showing it to us because she thinks it’s pretty? This is a woman who authored a book on a subject about which she testified in a court of law, a woman from the scientific community who is attempting to persuade her audience to her position, and she is showing us this video clip because she thinks it’s pretty?

The thread has been cleaned up and the postings by 'PvM' which did not originate with me have been removed. It is sad that someone has thought it necessary to 'borrow' someone's alias. The management has taken appropriate actions.

Why is it that the people who moan and bitch about how "naturalistic materialism" {sic} unfairly excludes all other potential explanations, namely supernatural explanations, have absolutely no desire to learn anything in the first place?

Is talking about "the evils of naturalistic materialism" Creationist newspeak for "lobotomies for Jesus"?

Why is it that the people who moan and bitch about how “naturalistic materialism” {sic} unfairly excludes all other potential explanations,[...]

FL said:

My basic contention is that if the ID movement succeeds in defeating naturalism and the Enlightenment and institute some sort of “theistic science,” the very next day the purges will begin and blood will flow in the aisles and over the pews as they fight it out over purely theological issues.

Whoa, whoa there. Just now seeing this statement, and yes I am surprised to see it, even though this is PandasThumb. I for one, would like to see some peer-reviewd social-science research that actually supports this kind of alarmist rhetoric. FL

PvM said: The thread has been cleaned up and the postings by 'PvM' which did not originate with me have been removed. It is sad that someone has thought it necessary to 'borrow' someone's alias. The management has taken appropriate actions.

RBH said:

PvM said: The thread has been cleaned up and the postings by 'PvM' which did not originate with me have been removed. It is sad that someone has thought it necessary to 'borrow' someone's alias. The management has taken appropriate actions.

Gack. I was out most of the afternoon and evening and didn't see them. Sorry, Pim.

Stanton said: Why is it that the people who moan and bitch about how "naturalistic materialism" {sic} unfairly excludes all other potential explanations, namely supernatural explanations, have absolutely no desire to learn anything in the first place?

Jeff said: The powers that be have declared the acceptable view of Reality. All who dare to question or interpret differently are branded “heretic,” or worse.

Stanton said: Why is it that the people who moan and bitch about how "naturalistic materialism" {sic} unfairly excludes all other potential explanations, namely supernatural explanations, have absolutely no desire to learn anything in the first place?

Miller’s “research” consisted of him asking his students to come up with all the things they could do with a mousetrap if they began removing parts, and they arrived at the following: – nose ring, fish hook, toothpick, tie-clip, refrigerator clip, clipboard holder, doorknocker, paperweight, kindling block, catapult, and nutcracker. Noticeably missing from this list is MOUSETRAP. How does this fact escape an educated person involved in a scientific critique of an idea? The argument from Behe was if you take away the parts, you do not have a functioning whole…which is what Miller’s “research” proves. This is a perfect example of dogma getting in the way of common sense and clear thinking. The statement on the slide says: “Individual parts of a supposedly irreducible (sic) complex machine are fully functional for different purposes.”

Dan said: When I was an undergraduate (1972--1976) the humanities students would come up to science students like me and accuse us: "You're trying to remove the wonder and poetry from the world. You're trying to turn the whole universe into science!" I would explain: "No, not at all. There are vast domains outside of science: great questions of right and wrong, of love and hate, of justice and inhumanity, as well as little questions of whether to cook chicken or tofu for dinner tonight. These questions are forever outside the purview of science." And now these same sorts of incomprehending people, people like Ben Stein and John Calvert and the 2004-2005 Kansas State Board of Education, are saying "We've got to expand science outside of its little box of purely naturalistic answers." To which I give the exact same reply.

Henry J said: It wasn't an a priori exclusion of anything; essentially, if something is testable, then that something is effectively natural; any exclusion is due to lack of testability, not to any presumed status as supernatural.

When I was an undergraduate (1972--1976) the humanities students would come up to science students like me and accuse us: "You're trying to remove the wonder and poetry from the world. You're trying to turn the whole universe into science!"

Seems to me that if we ignored the trolls, there would be hardly any discussion at all, just a few congratulatory posts, a few thoughtful additions, and then a long string of troll-posts. Not that it would be necessarily a bad thing...

iml8 said: In a sense, the supernatural, very literally by definition, excludes itself. Given some scientific mystery, the sciences ask: "We don't know what's going on here. What's the explanation?" THE EXPLANATION IS THAT IT IS SUPERNATURAL. "So ... how do you define the term 'supernatural'?" IT MEANS THERE IS NO TECHNICAL EXPLANATION. IT JUST MAGICALLY HAPPENED. “Well, we don’t have an explanation now, to be sure, but are you saying we never will have an explanation? Absolutely never?” CORRECT.

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."

"Any sufficiently analyzed magic is indistinguishable from science."

Actually, after hundreds of years of testable science without these putative demonstrable exceptions, it is pretty clear that there are no supernatural explanations for anything - you could say that it is a testable hypotheses on natural systems that have held up.

Yet, these same people simultaneously readily dismiss supernatural explanations for less arcane topics, like gremlins impairing the function of their cars' engines, or trusting in domovoi to make breakfast for them. iml8 said:

Actually, after hundreds of years of testable science without these putative demonstrable exceptions, it is pretty clear that there are no supernatural explanations for anything - you could say that it is a testable hypotheses on natural systems that have held up.

That's always been my puzzled rejoinder on the obligatory Darwin-basher sniping about abiogenesis: YOU HAVE NO EXPLANATION AND IT IS OBVIOUS IT ABSOLUTELY HAD TO BE A SUPERNATURAL EVENT. "Well OK, I will admit that we don't have a solid handle on the matter yet but I am puzzled as to why the supernatural option would be obvious. Ah, I know -- it's because of the long list of other things that have been determined to be due to supernatural causes. You're right, you got me, with so many precedents, I would be in complete denial not to accept it." White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Stanton said: Yet, these same people simultaneously readily dismiss supernatural explanations for less arcane topics, like gremlins impairing the function of their cars' engines, or trusting in domovoi to make breakfast for them.

iml8 said:

Stanton said: Yet, these same people simultaneously readily dismiss supernatural explanations for less arcane topics, like gremlins impairing the function of their cars' engines, or trusting in domovoi to make breakfast for them.

Well, I was a technical troubleshooter for a big corporation for a long time, and I will admit that the temptation to believe in gremlins can become overwhelmingly strong at times. Think along the lines of Terry Pratchett's "anthropomorphic personifications" ... if reality is giving me a hard time, there's a inclination to figure out somebody to blame it on. White Rabbit (Greg Goebel) http://www.vectorsite.net/gblog.html

Bill Gascoyne said: Seems to me that if we ignored the trolls, there would be hardly any discussion at all, just a few congratulatory posts, a few thoughtful additions, and then a long string of troll-posts. Not that it would be necessarily a bad thing...

Wheels said: I like this story and the poignant observations therein. May I use it in future discussions?

I emailed Mr. McLeroy regarding these recent comments myself. He basically said he had forgotten about those early voter's guides. You can read more about it on my blog if interested. http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com

Airtightnoodle said: I emailed Mr. McLeroy regarding these recent comments myself. He basically said he had forgotten about those early voter's guides. You can read more about it on my blog if interested. http://airtightnoodle.wordpress.com

eric said: Nicely done. Like you, McLeroy's response leaves me wondering what, exactly, he was "strongly favoring" if not intelligent design. (Actually I don't wonder, IMO he does favor teaching ID in school and just doesn't want to admit it. My wonder is really about how he would answer the question "so what were you strongly favoring, then?")

D'oh...that should say "you ARE certainly welcome"...not "you is"...gosh, I'm tired. :)

But this past week, Romania decided to abandon the teaching of evolution in its public schools

In place of evolution, kids are taught more about human ecology and the environment.

---------- this is a bad thing??