Freethought & Rationalism Archive

notto · 03-17-2002, 05:25 PM

<a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_020314.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_020314.htm</a>

"Why are the Darwinists so fearful?" is the question any intelligent reader will ask. Is their case so weak that it will collapse if any alternative is allowed to be heard? Yes, it is. And that is why Darwinism is doomed, regardless of how the Ohio vote goes this time. A "science" that needs to be protected from public scrutiny has a low life expectancy.

As opposed to a "science" that needs to be voted on or legislated into the science classroom. How can the public scrutinize ID if there is nothing concrete to scrutinize?

By the way, it looks like they took the ARN forum down.

[ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]</p>

DireStraits · 03-17-2002, 05:41 PM

"Why are the Darwinists so fearful?"

DS: TH3ey are only fearful that demagogues like you will take control of achool boards since you know that you have no influence over the scientific community.

is the question any intelligent reader will ask.

DS: No, it is only a question that a polemicist with a rhetorical turn of phrase will ask.

Is their case so weak that it will collapse if any alternative is allowed to be heard?

DS: No. Why do you insists that this "alternative" be heard in the state-run high schools? Why not scientific institutions, where is has been heard and laughed at?

Yes, it is.

DS: Bollocks.

And that is why Darwinism is doomed, regardless of how the Ohio vote goes this time.

DS Darwinisn started out as a competitor to crationism is 1859. Guess who won?

A "science" that needs to be protected from public scrutiny has a low life expectancy.

DS: And a "science" that has its only expression in legal methods isn't even a science.

lpetrich · 03-17-2002, 06:27 PM

Why not give equal time to alternatives that the creationists would find distasteful, like evolution that's a result of genetic engineering by extraterrestrial visitors?

Yes, Raelism, <a href="http://www.rael.org" target="_blank">http://www.rael.org</a>

Whose finite capabilities and fallibility could explain much.

Richiyaado · 03-17-2002, 07:24 PM

Hello All,

Phillip Johnson is nothing if not a master of rhetorical misdirection.

The irony here is that the scientific enterprise is about as 'public' as it gets. Anyone, regardless of any particular religious background, can participate. Further, as IDists like Johnson, Behe and Dembski appear loathe to acknowledge, their ideas have undergone tremendous scrutiny in this most public of arenas. And the fact is, all this scrutiny has revealed the complete lack of scientific relevance for their ideas.

So in reality, they are the ones who have no choice but to seek special protection from legislatures and courts in order to force their way into public schools.

Lizard · 03-18-2002, 09:45 AM

Hi, Richyaado,

I read PJ's "Wedge Update" with the usual mixture of puzzlement and disbelief. Although a stroke has slowed him down on the campaign trail, he is still writing and is now apparently involved in strategizing on how to get the Ohio Board of Education to include ID in the science curriculum.

The most recent strategy is "compromise." Stephen Meyer and J. Wells presented to the Ohio Board of Education last week (along with Ken Miller and Lawrence Krauss) their case for including "other theories" in the science standards. This was their "compromise" from demanding that ID be taught.

This "compromise" seems geared toward achieving their current goal: to protect teachers who elect to teach ID (or creationism) in science class.

We have seen "compromises" here in Kansas. First, one of the creationists on the Kansas Board of Education proposed a set of science standards that were essentially written by a group of Missouri YECs. The BOE decided it couldn't adopt those standards, so a set of "compromise" standards was developed. The "compromise" standards certainly compromised science, since they eliminated all mention of the age of the earth, the Big Bang, macroevolution, and the validity of theories as a means of explaining large bodies of facts. The BOE adopted the "compromise" standards, with the result that Kansas received an "F-" grade for the quality of its science standard from the reviewing organization, the conservative Fordham Foundation.

One thing you can say about Philip Johnson and the other ID promoters. They may be light on science, but they're strong on strategy.

The strategy is this: cause a big fat stink by demanding something huge and objectionable, like a change in the definition of science to allow the teaching of ID in school science classes; get lots of mention in the newspapers for it; make the opposition defend science publicly, then crow about how ID is now important enough to deserve the attention of evolutionists. Finally, be "reasonable" and propose a "compromise" that gives you what you wanted after all: carte blanche for any teacher to teach any kind of religious or crazy ideas s/he wishes under the rubric of "other theories."

I think the Ohio BOE needs to know exactly what "other theories" might be included, once teachers are freed from the constraints of teaching naturalistic science: Flat Earthism, Hollow Earth Theory, Raelianism, Vedic creation stories, pyramid power, crystal energy, etc., etc.

BTW, I will be interested to see what changes are made in the format of the ARN Forum to make the discourse more valuable. I'm not a member of this forum, but it seems to be the place to talk about this, for the time being. Hello to Myrmecos, Jesse and the other good guys from the ARN Forum.

03-17-2002, 05:25 PM	#1
notto Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Minneapolis, MN US Posts: 133	Laughing At Phillip E. Johnson <a href="http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_020314.htm" target="_blank">http://www.arn.org/docs/pjweekly/pj_weekly_020314.htm</a> "Why are the Darwinists so fearful?" is the question any intelligent reader will ask. Is their case so weak that it will collapse if any alternative is allowed to be heard? Yes, it is. And that is why Darwinism is doomed, regardless of how the Ohio vote goes this time. A "science" that needs to be protected from public scrutiny has a low life expectancy. As opposed to a "science" that needs to be voted on or legislated into the science classroom. How can the public scrutinize ID if there is nothing concrete to scrutinize? By the way, it looks like they took the ARN forum down. [ March 17, 2002: Message edited by: notto ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-17-2002, 05:41 PM	#2
DireStraits Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 81	"Why are the Darwinists so fearful?" DS: TH3ey are only fearful that demagogues like you will take control of achool boards since you know that you have no influence over the scientific community. is the question any intelligent reader will ask. DS: No, it is only a question that a polemicist with a rhetorical turn of phrase will ask. Is their case so weak that it will collapse if any alternative is allowed to be heard? DS: No. Why do you insists that this "alternative" be heard in the state-run high schools? Why not scientific institutions, where is has been heard and laughed at? Yes, it is. DS: Bollocks. And that is why Darwinism is doomed, regardless of how the Ohio vote goes this time. DS Darwinisn started out as a competitor to crationism is 1859. Guess who won? A "science" that needs to be protected from public scrutiny has a low life expectancy. DS: And a "science" that has its only expression in legal methods isn't even a science.

03-17-2002, 06:27 PM	#3
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Why not give equal time to alternatives that the creationists would find distasteful, like evolution that's a result of genetic engineering by extraterrestrial visitors? Yes, Raelism, <a href="http://www.rael.org" target="_blank">http://www.rael.org</a> Whose finite capabilities and fallibility could explain much.

03-17-2002, 07:24 PM	#4
Richiyaado Regular Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: New Orleans Posts: 172	Hello All, Phillip Johnson is nothing if not a master of rhetorical misdirection. The irony here is that the scientific enterprise is about as 'public' as it gets. Anyone, regardless of any particular religious background, can participate. Further, as IDists like Johnson, Behe and Dembski appear loathe to acknowledge, their ideas have undergone tremendous scrutiny in this most public of arenas. And the fact is, all this scrutiny has revealed the complete lack of scientific relevance for their ideas. So in reality, they are the ones who have no choice but to seek special protection from legislatures and courts in order to force their way into public schools.

03-18-2002, 09:45 AM	#5
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	Hi, Richyaado, I read PJ's "Wedge Update" with the usual mixture of puzzlement and disbelief. Although a stroke has slowed him down on the campaign trail, he is still writing and is now apparently involved in strategizing on how to get the Ohio Board of Education to include ID in the science curriculum. The most recent strategy is "compromise." Stephen Meyer and J. Wells presented to the Ohio Board of Education last week (along with Ken Miller and Lawrence Krauss) their case for including "other theories" in the science standards. This was their "compromise" from demanding that ID be taught. This "compromise" seems geared toward achieving their current goal: to protect teachers who elect to teach ID (or creationism) in science class. We have seen "compromises" here in Kansas. First, one of the creationists on the Kansas Board of Education proposed a set of science standards that were essentially written by a group of Missouri YECs. The BOE decided it couldn't adopt those standards, so a set of "compromise" standards was developed. The "compromise" standards certainly compromised science, since they eliminated all mention of the age of the earth, the Big Bang, macroevolution, and the validity of theories as a means of explaining large bodies of facts. The BOE adopted the "compromise" standards, with the result that Kansas received an "F-" grade for the quality of its science standard from the reviewing organization, the conservative Fordham Foundation. One thing you can say about Philip Johnson and the other ID promoters. They may be light on science, but they're strong on strategy. The strategy is this: cause a big fat stink by demanding something huge and objectionable, like a change in the definition of science to allow the teaching of ID in school science classes; get lots of mention in the newspapers for it; make the opposition defend science publicly, then crow about how ID is now important enough to deserve the attention of evolutionists. Finally, be "reasonable" and propose a "compromise" that gives you what you wanted after all: carte blanche for any teacher to teach any kind of religious or crazy ideas s/he wishes under the rubric of "other theories." I think the Ohio BOE needs to know exactly what "other theories" might be included, once teachers are freed from the constraints of teaching naturalistic science: Flat Earthism, Hollow Earth Theory, Raelianism, Vedic creation stories, pyramid power, crystal energy, etc., etc. BTW, I will be interested to see what changes are made in the format of the ARN Forum to make the discourse more valuable. I'm not a member of this forum, but it seems to be the place to talk about this, for the time being. Hello to Myrmecos, Jesse and the other good guys from the ARN Forum.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.