Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Solum · 03-13-2002, 03:57 AM

On March 12 on the National Public Radio "All Things Considered" program the ID movement in Ohio was discussed.

<a href="http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=03/12/20" target="_blank">http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=03/12/20</a>

Apparently this is just like the Scopes Trial in reverse (the theory of evolution is on trial now), with the proponents of ID acting as the skeptics and proponents of evolutionary theory being dogmatic (after all, evolution is just a theory).

John Solum · 03-13-2002, 04:26 AM

Here's the letter I sent them.

Dear All Things Considered,

While I was happy to hear the recent attempts to get intelligent design (ID) taught in Ohio classrooms discussed on your program, I feel that you have done an inadequate job of researching the modern ID movement. In its current form ID is a political movement, and not a scientific one. There is no consistent intelligent design hypothesis. For example, some proponents of ID accept common descent and confine the action of their "intelligent designer" to the original formation of life while others reject common descent, and claim the designer has continually "tinkered" with life. If the evidence of this designer is so obvious, then I fail to understand how the proponents of ID can hold such contradictory views much less demand that ID be taught in science classrooms. I am also concerned that ID is attempting to avoid scientific scrutiny by bypassing the peer-review process by attempting to have their point of view "legislated". Proponents of ID almost without exception do not attempt to publish their research in scientific journals. Until ID can withstand scientific examination, as the theory of evolution by natural selection has done, it cannot be called a scientific theory, and has no place in the science classroom.

regards,

John Solum
Ann Arbor, Michigan

tgamble · 03-13-2002, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by John Solum:
<strong>Proponents of ID almost without exception do not attempt to publish their research in scientific journals. </strong>

I think Behe tried once but when it was rejected he started whineing about bias and conspiracies.

John Solum · 03-13-2002, 04:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong>

I think Behe tried once but when it was rejected he started whineing about bias and conspiracies.</strong>

Are you thinking of the incident discussed in the first part of this thread (specifically the link provided by Morpho)?:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=00028" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=00028</a>

03-13-2002, 03:57 AM	#1
John Solum Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 139	ID in Ohio on NPR On March 12 on the National Public Radio "All Things Considered" program the ID movement in Ohio was discussed. <a href="http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=03/12/20" target="_blank">http://search.npr.org/cf/cmn/cmnpd01fm.cfm?PrgDate=03/12/20</a> Apparently this is just like the Scopes Trial in reverse (the theory of evolution is on trial now), with the proponents of ID acting as the skeptics and proponents of evolutionary theory being dogmatic (after all, evolution is just a theory).

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

03-13-2002, 04:26 AM	#2
John Solum Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 139	Here's the letter I sent them. Dear All Things Considered, While I was happy to hear the recent attempts to get intelligent design (ID) taught in Ohio classrooms discussed on your program, I feel that you have done an inadequate job of researching the modern ID movement. In its current form ID is a political movement, and not a scientific one. There is no consistent intelligent design hypothesis. For example, some proponents of ID accept common descent and confine the action of their "intelligent designer" to the original formation of life while others reject common descent, and claim the designer has continually "tinkered" with life. If the evidence of this designer is so obvious, then I fail to understand how the proponents of ID can hold such contradictory views much less demand that ID be taught in science classrooms. I am also concerned that ID is attempting to avoid scientific scrutiny by bypassing the peer-review process by attempting to have their point of view "legislated". Proponents of ID almost without exception do not attempt to publish their research in scientific journals. Until ID can withstand scientific examination, as the theory of evolution by natural selection has done, it cannot be called a scientific theory, and has no place in the science classroom. regards, John Solum Ann Arbor, Michigan

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.