"Intelligent Design"

Me too. Or a discussion about this book:

http://a1204.g.akamai.net/7/1204/1401/03122213011/images.barnesandnoble.com/images/7210000/7218097.jpg

That's the point!

Ever notice how I.D. arguments always follow this same pattern: "If x, why not y?" Why not guys? Why not?

"if gays marry -- why not turtles?"

Is this response due to the fact that you can't come up with a reasonable argument against "if x, why not y?" Intelligent design can be found in signals, but not genetic code, is that it? When the day comes we modify babies as casually as we modify fruit and vegetables, you'll eat those words, smart guy.

When the day comes we modify babies as casually as we modify fruit and vegetables, you'll eat those words, smart guy.

What does the ability to modify babies have to do with anything? We can split atoms and make big explosions too, but I don't see how that implies a desinger.

The same exact thing happened with global warming("But there's a controversey", no there's NOT), or cigarettes. A deliberate effort is being made to discredit science that some people don't like, so they throw plenty of bullshit into the mix which is duly covered by most media types operating in full-blown "he said/she said/we're clueless" mode. The anti-science side doesn't have to provide shit for scientific evidence, they only have to generate doubt.

"but but but this ad says that 9 out of 10 doctors prefer the cool taste of Lucky Strikes! Surely this means that the arguement isn't settled, and so nothing conclusive can ever be said!"

and start readin'...

As for Utah, followers of Mormanism are often not rational.

and that argument "if x, why not y? why not guys? why not?" is often used for Darwinian origin of species and natural selection. "If this animal is similar to this animal, Why didn't they evolve from each other? why not guys?" or "If life had to come about through some unintelligent means, why didn't it happen in a puddle under many highly unlikely situations? why not guys?"

discussing this argument that way is just a hasty generalization, irrelevant, and will only hinder your way of thinking about it.

xpost

and then you investigate it and it turns out to be... untrue. sometimes. point being that if an interesting "why not" suggests itself - take it further. find out if it actually is the case. you can't just leave a "why not" hanging there, especially if it's more than interesting, but, say, totally opposed to what anyone would imagine to be true.

Presumably because in the two cases you're talking about there's some obvious potential causal link to be investigated ie. They're similar because their DNA's similar, so they're probably related, which would imply that they have a common ancestor...Or, that the chemistry of life looks a lot like the chemistry of warm puddles in a reducing atmosphere, so maybe one led to the other.

ID adherents tend to try and make links between phenomena that have no connection to one another ie. SETI signals and genetic codes.

ps As either only one religion or none of them can actually be correct, I would argue that makes Mormons at least as rational as every other religious grouping.

Because, once we become expert at baby modification, as with produce, we will be able to look at genes and say, "Yes, that had to be designed that way" with some authority, just as we analyze a signal and say, "yes, that had to be designed" after we mastered language and radio frequencies. Get it?

Anyhow; as for the code of DNA having to be that way; when Crick and Watson first took their look at DNA, Crick suggested it might be coded in a way that is actually more efficient than the one that is used - obviously it turned out he was wrong (that is they eventually found out the actual code used by DNA) but it does show you that things don't have to be the way they are.

This makes absolutely, utterly no sense. I mean we already are experts at produce modification and scientists aren't admitting, "hey, well, guess tomatoes came directly from god's intelligent design! Babies, OTOH, obviously not!" They already are experts at modification in OTHER lifeforms and they AREN'T saying, "Oh yes, that HAD to be designed that way!" I mean you're talking in one enormous nonsensical circle.

Show us your tits.

I mean, I can say, "Hey! This sheep is a clone!" but that's not proof of either evolutionary theory or intelligent design. Like your orange.

xpost maybe you shouldn't phrase your arguments like a complete fuckbag and you'd get people replying to you. One day, we might understand so well as to say, "There is no such thing as god!" That day isn't here, and claiming that ability to geneticaly modify produce is proof that it is coming is a "Hey, this, why not this!" argument. Hopefully you can comprehend now.

xpost

Actually, Aleister Crowley proved it perfectly well (better than any other philosophical tenet) in his 0=2 chapter of Magick Without Tears... and he's a total fuckbag, too! But, he still proved it: you don't need a God and there is no reason why there would be one. In fact, it proves to be more of a problem.

Now, show us your tits.

xpost It's more like an ignorant version of Christianity that came up with the concept of "God is good and happy and loves us all."

Also: Christianity, the world's only religion.

It's honestly not a theory advanced in good scientific faith -- instead of establishing any testability, it uses the whole unquestionable-designer thing in order to skirt the whole issue. It's deliberately stripped of anything that would mean enough to be investigated on a non-mystical level.

"Accept intelligent design as a valid scientific theory" == "Introduce theology as an essential component of science"

By the way, even though Behe's theory is the crux of the pseudoscientific justification for ID, it's been largely debunked. In fact, the Dover opinion discusses Behe's theory in great detail. Check it out--http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf--the discussion of Behe's theory starts on page 72.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/images/12/20/kitzmiller.pdf

I mean, that sort of gap-filling has been religion's role forever. If we don't understand why water falls from the sky now and then, well, it must be the product of some intelligent design -- god makes it rain! If we don't understand why planets move around us, it must be the product of some intelligent design -- god arranged the solar system! And so on and so on; the precedents are not very good at all for assuming that the gap must be filled by some outside intelligence.

Discovery Institute's "Wedge Project" Circulates Online

by James Still

A recently-circulated position paper of The Center for the Renewal of Science & Culture (CRSC) reveals an ambitious plan to replace the current naturalistic methodology of science with a theistic alternative called "intelligent design."

The CRSC, a program launched by the Discovery Institute in 1996, is the major force behind recent advances in the intelligent design movement. The Center is directed by Discovery Senior Fellow Dr. Stephen Meyer, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Whitworth College. Its mission is "to replace materialism and its destructive cultural legacies with a positive scientific alternative." The Discovery Institute hopes that intelligent design will be the usurper that finally dethrones the theory of evolution.

On March 3, 1999, an anonymous person obtained an internal white paper from the CRSC entitled "The Wedge Project," which detailed the Center's ambitious long-term strategy to replace "materialistic science" with intelligent design. The paper describes the CRSC's mission with a sense of urgency:

"The social consequences of materialism have been devastating. As symptoms, those consequences are certainly worth treating. However, we are convinced that in order to defeat materialism, we must cut it off at its source. That source is scientific materialism. This is precisely our strategy. If we view the predominant materialistic science as a giant tree, our strategy is intended to function as a "wedge" that, while relatively small, can split the trunk when applied at its weakest points. The very beginning of this strategy, the "thin edge of the wedge," was Phillip Johnson's critique of Darwinism begun in 1991 in Darwinism on Trial, and continued in Reason in the Balance and Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds. Michael Behe's highly successful Darwin's Black Box followed Johnson's work. We are building on this momentum, broadening the wedge with a positive scientific alternative to materialistic scientific theories, which has come to be called the theory of intelligent design (ID). Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions."

The white paper created quite a buzz among many skeptics after it was widely circulated on the Internet. However, CRSC Senior Fellow and Director of Program Development Jay Richards said that the mission statement and goals had been posted on the CRSC's web site since 1996. Richards also said, "the general concept of the 'Wedge' is described in Phillip Johnson's book Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds." Richards neither confirmed nor denied the authenticity of the document, but he believed that the paper was an "older, summary overview of the 'Wedge' program." Much of the boilerplate content of the paper is posted on the CRSC's web site.

The document in its present form looks to have been written very recently. It sets a target to "accomplish many of the objectives of Phases I and II in the next five years (1999-2003)." If 2003 ends a five-year plan, the paper was probably written or revised in 1998 or 1999. Despite the date of its authorship, however, and even if nothing new is revealed in the paper, proponents of naturalism and science are right to be concerned about its contents.

The paper outlines a "wedge strategy" that has three phases. Phase I, "Scientific Research, Writing, and Publicity" involves the Paleontology Research Program (led by Dr. Paul Chien), the Molecular Biology Research Program (led by Dr. Douglas Axe), and any individual researcher who is given a fellowship by the Institute. Phase I has already begun, the paper argues, with the watershed work of Phillip Johnson, whose Darwinism on Trial sparked the intelligent design movement. The Center hopes that more Christian scientists will step forward and engage in research that would support the intelligent design theory.

Phase II, "Publicity and Opinion-Making" involves communicating the research of Phase I. The Center plans to do this through book tours, opinion-making conferences, apologetics seminars, a teacher training program, use of opinion-editorials in newspapers, television program productions (either with Public Broadcasting or another broadcaster), and the printing of publications to distribute. Phases I and II are to be implemented over the next five years (1999-2003). Phase II is

"to prepare the popular reception of our ideas. The best and truest research can languish unread and unused unless it is properly publicized. For this reason we seek to cultivate and convince influential individuals in print and broadcast media, as well as think tank leaders, scientists and academics, congressional staff, talk show hosts, college and seminary presidents and faculty, future talent and potential academic allies. Because of his long tenure in politics, journalism and public policy, Discovery President Bruce Chapman brings to the project rare knowledge and acquaintance of key op-ed writers, journalists, and political leaders. This combination of scientific and scholarly expertise and media and political connections makes the Wedge unique, and also prevents it from being 'merely academic.' Other activities include production of a PBS documentary on intelligent design and its implications, and popular op-ed publishing. Alongside a focus on influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidence's that support the faith, as well as to "popularize" our ideas in the broader culture."

Phase III, "Cultural Confrontation and Renewal" begins sometime in 2003 and may take as long as twenty years to complete. It involves three things: (1) "Academic and Scientific Challenge Conferences"; (2) "Potential Legal Action for Teacher Training"; and (3) "Research Fellowship Program: shift to social sciences and humanities". The white paper describes Phase III as the renewal phase because it seeks to fill the void left behind by materialistic evolution (attacked in Phase II) with its own intelligent design model:

"Once our research and writing have had time to mature, and the public prepared for the reception of design theory, we will move toward direct confrontation with the advocates of materialist science through challenge conferences in significant academic settings. We will also pursue possible legal assistance in response to resistance to the integration of design theory into public school science curricula. The attention, publicity, and influence of design theory should draw scientific materialists into open debate with design theorists, and we will be ready. With an added emphasis to the social sciences and humanities, we will begin to address the specific social consequences of materialism and the Darwinist theory that supports it in the sciences."

The Wedge Project white paper ends with a detailed summary of progress-to-date, including goals for the future.

When asked if he worried that Phase II will seem like a heavy-handed spin and that no one will take the work accomplished in Phase I seriously, Richards said that the publicity will not drive the scholarship but that the scholarship will come first and foremost. "There are already too many programs that opt for the former over the latter," he said, "we don't wish to be one of them."

While the goal of putting scholarship ahead of public relations is a noble one, the paper's overall tone and rugged timetable seems to belie that point. The reintroduction of theism into public discourse in Phase III is set to begin sometime in 2003. But before Phase III can begin, Phase II must have already dethroned naturalism through a vigorous public relations and opinion-shaping campaign. This puts the cart before the horse. When will there be time to conduct careful research? Science is supposed to be a vehicle that provides the reason to believe that intelligent design is a better explanation than naturalism. To think that a scientist must reach his or her conclusions within a five-year span of time, running concurrent with a public relations campaign, is hardly good scientific practice. Not only will it put unnecessary pressure on the scientist to reach conclusions before the data warrants it, but it ignores the very nature of the scientific enterprise. Often it takes years before the findings in science are fully understood and many more before the results are applied to real-world problems.

Another problem with the CRSC's plan is that it seeks to replace evolutionary theory at a time when the theory enjoys nearly unanimous support in the scientific community. Thomas Kuhn, in his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, describes what has happened historically when one theory comes to replace another. He writes that the anomaly of an insufficient theory will have "lasted so long and penetrated so deep that one can appropriately describe the fields affected by it as in a state of growing crisis . . . the emergence of new theories is generally preceded by a period of pronounced professional insecurity." Kuhn's point is clear. Before a new theory in science is sought, there is usually a growing crisis coupled with mounting skepticism, doubt, and the elucidation of cogent reasons for thinking that the existing theory is inadequate. Where is the growing crisis that casts doubt on evolution and methodological naturalism, the tool that led to the theory of evolution? Aside from a few participants in well-publicized Templeton-funded conferences, scientists experience no insecurity with their current methods. Even if the theory of evolution were inadequate, why should we expect the scientific community to turn to theistic explanations?

Sometimes, scientific discovery is an accidental byproduct of other research. In 1895, Professor Wilhelm Conrad Ršntgen discovered the x-ray quite by accident, when he found that some kind of invisible ray was passing through his cardboard shield. Over the next several weeks he ate and slept in his lab to prepare his paper "On a New Kind of Rays” for the Proceedings of the Physical Medical Society, which was published that year. However, Professor Ršntgen was pursuing science to no particular dogmatic end. He didn't know where his discovery would lead, but rather he understood that the pure pursuit of knowledge was an end in itself. This anecdote is typical of all scientific research from Aristotle's initial forays into zoology, to Galileo's observational astronomy, and most dramatically in the twentieth-century, to the discovery and use of penicillin. The assumption of methodological naturalism and the use of the scientific method has led to an incredible advance in our understanding of the world around us.

The fruits of science can never be anticipated ahead of time nor can the scientific enterprise be placed on a regimented schedule. Science must be left to operate on its own, unencumbered by the perceived need for public relations, focus groups, talk-shows, and public opinion polls. This is not to say that science should not use modern media outlets to communicate its results. However, the CRSC seems to have placed the public relations work of Phase II ahead of the need for an actual scientific theory worth sharing with the world. When the medium becomes the message we are right to suspect that the message lacks substance. There is something strange going on, for instance, when the Templeton Foundation stages huge media events to present the illusion that science has found God. As University of Hawaii physicist Victor Stenger commented in the March issue of ii, only smoke and mirrors lay behind last summer's media circus over science and God. Scientists who do real science bracket God out of the enterprise altogether and for good reason: it works. Natural explanations are far more satisfying to us than supernatural conjectures.

The CRSC's plan to bring down the scientific enterprise in favor of "intelligent design" seems motivated by the fear that human meaning is somehow diminished if science continues to flourish. However, human dignity and meaning can be diminished only by ignorance. Goethe's Mephistopheles realized this truth as well when, as translated by Steven Schafersman, he proclaims in Faust:

Despise reason and science,
humanity's greatest strengths,
indulge in illusions and magical practices
that reinforce your self-deception,
and you will be unconditionally lost!

Science need not contradict religious faith, although its findings have sometimes exposed superstitions such as the geocentric theory, a world-wide catastrophic flood, and Tillich's God "up there." The real irony in all of this is that the Discovery Institute's well-laid plans are doomed to failure from the outset. Even if they succeeded brilliantly in manufacturing the consent needed to replace science with theism, it would only be a matter of time before we began to question the world around us and to turn once again to science as a constructive means for finding answers to our questions. If all of our knowledge were wiped away tomorrow and replaced with theistic dogma, another Thales or an Aristotle would come along to begin the process anew. Mephistopheles thinks he holds us tight with religious illusion, but human beings are greater than the gods and devils who would keep us in ignorance. Science is our most reliable tool for understanding the universe in which we live. "And I by the power of thought," Pascal wrote, "may comprehend the universe."

Well, insofar as sexual continence goes they may have a point. I mean, have you checked out what goes on in the Monkey House?

For some reason I've always thought that claim belonged to the banana slug aka Ariolimax dolichophallus, named for the "long penis" that can grow to well beyond its own body length.

At least this is what my friends from Santa Cruz tell me. But since the record-holding specimen had a body length of 6 inches, with a phallus length of 32.5 inches, I'm inclined to believe.

But what monkeys and apes lack in size, they more than make up for with creativity. Ask the female orangutan who had an unnatural affecttion for mangoes. I mean, we all like mangoes, but...

Sometimes clouds look like cats.

Sometimes you can see a face in a tree.

My mom got a sopapilla once that was the exact same shape as Ethiopia(/Eritrea) -- kinda fun to imagine it was an intelligently-designed treat from the frier guy.

"If you’re an inveterate tube-o-phile, you may remember the episode of "Cheers" in which Cliff, the postman who’s stayed by neither snow, nor rain, nor gloom of night from his appointed rounds of beer, exclaims to Norm that he’s found a potato that looks like Richard Nixon’s head.

This could be an astonishing attempt by taters to express their political views, but Norm is unimpressed. Finding evidence of complexity (the Nixon physiognomy) in a natural setting (the spud), and inferring some deliberate, magical mechanism behind it all, would be a leap from the doubtful to the divine, and in this case, Norm feels, unwarranted.

Cliff, however, would have some sympathizers among the proponents of Intelligent Design (ID), whose efforts to influence school science curricula continue to swill large quantities of newspaper ink. As just about everyone is aware, these folks use similar logic to infer a "designer" behind such biological constructions as DNA or the human eye. The apparent complexity of the product is offered as proof of deliberate blueprinting by an unknown creator—conscious action, presumably from outside the universe itself."

http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_intelligentdesign_051201.html

an article that critique weasels who offer up SETI research in support of "intelligent design"

they absolutely must find a way to explain what is wrong with ID

This has been done, including several times in this thread. ID is neither testable nor falsifiable, therefore it is a non-argument, a worthless, superficial notion that has no place in any logical way of thinking. Nothing needs to be proved as ID is, in a very real sense, nothing. It's a non-theory.

xpost yup!!@

this is making the blog rounds. fuckin hilarious

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/expelled.php

well done

Yeah, read that the other day. Major roffles.

lolololol

http://freegrin.com/golden-rule.jpg

I don't understand that linked article... Why wasn't the guy let into the theatre? And what harm could Richard Dawkins do by seeing a pro-creationist film? Write a scathing review of it? I doubt that would change anyone's mind who already believes in that shit.

i know, it's like the creationists aren't acting rationally. so weird.

No, I didn't mean the creationists, but the guy who wrote that article. He seemed to feel like Richard Dawkins getting in to see the film was a major victory or something.

you don't see the irony of creationists trying to keep a skeptic out and letting in mr. all-time super-atheist #1 guy?

http://controversy.wearscience.com

'Big Science' is always suppressing The Truth with their blatant pro-evolution anti-wacko agenda: from the fact that UFOs built the pyramids to the reality of creationism and fact the universe is "Turtles All The Way Down". It is time to fight back and urge schools to Teach The Controversy with these intelligently designed t-shirts. All designs available in a variety of colors and styles, or feel free to create your own with our custom designer

lol

http://www.b12partners.net/mt/images/doonesbury_ID_060702.gif