Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gonzo · 06-10-2002, 11:30 AM

Hi, long time listener, first time caller.

The Discovery Institute wrote a special editorial in the Seattle Times today. <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134471180_chapmanop10.html" target="_blank">link</a>

It's in response to an editorial by one of the Times staff last week, which is linked to in this article. The DI piece is mostly an appeal to teaching "balanced views".

I had held off writing in to correct some of the other letters submitted last week (search the op/ed archive for those gems), but I'm going to have to take the time to send in a letter for this. Ugh.

Gonzo

tgamble · 06-10-2002, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Yet, last fall, 100 scientists, including professors from institutions such as MIT, Yale and Rice, published a statement questioning the creative power of natural selection. Many of these scientists see evidence that points to an intelligent design of life.

Now would that be the same list of scientists (including at least two "guitar strumming hillbilles" who questioned darwinism and some of whom stated that they had no problem with common descent?

Quote:

It says, "[A] quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist."

The lie continues.
<a href="http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/santorum.html" target="_blank">http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/santorum.html</a>

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: tgamble ]</p>

hezekiah jones · 06-10-2002, 11:39 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
Now would that be the same list of scientists (including at least two "guitar strumming hillbilles" who questioned darwinism and some of whom stated that they had no problem with common descent?

Yes, and this letter was written by the Poobahs of the Discovery Institute and the DI's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, respectively.

Quote:

Ironically, Darwin himself probably would have supported this approach. As he stated in the "Origin of Species," "A fair result can only be obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question."

Even more ironically it's Darwin's explanation for "apparent design" (plus 140 years of subsequent observations) that these chumps are railing against.

RufusAtticus · 06-10-2002, 12:32 PM

From the article:

Quote:

"A. Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it."

"B. Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it."

Only 15 percent of adults nationally, according to a 2001 Zogby poll, agree with "A," while 71 percent agree with "B." (Not sure: 14 percent.)

I'm sure that if the Discovery Institute could actually produce scientific evidence against evolution it would be considered. However, the popular writings and smear campaigns of Behe, Dembinski, and others doesn't count.

What the Discovery Institute fails to mention is that they don't actually have any scientific evidence against evolution. Yet they use this poll to imply that there is.

~~RvFvS~~

RufusAtticus · 06-10-2002, 12:36 PM

Quote:

As a host of distinguished biologists have explained in recent technical papers, small-scale "micro-evolutionary" change (as in the finches) cannot be extrapolated to explain large scale "macro-evolutionary" innovation.

Would those be the same technical papers presented out of context to the Ohio School board?

~~RvFvS~~

Daydreamer · 06-10-2002, 12:38 PM

Quote:

"A. Biology teachers should teach only Darwin's theory of evolution and the scientific evidence that supports it."

"B. Biology teachers should teach Darwin's theory of evolution, but also the scientific evidence against it."

Only 15 percent of adults nationally, according to a 2001 Zogby poll, agree with "A," while 71 percent agree with "B." (Not sure: 14 percent.)

Fucking brilliant - why ask people who might actually, ya know, have a degree in the appropriate field? Just go for the band-wagon approach and cut out all that tedious 'science'.

scigirl · 06-10-2002, 12:56 PM

Hello Gonzo, thanks for the link, oh and welcome to infidels!

scigirl

hezekiah jones · 06-10-2002, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Daydreamer:
Fucking brilliant - why ask people who might actually, ya know, have a degree in the appropriate field? Just go for the band-wagon approach and cut out all that tedious 'science'.

From the 'Wedge Document':

Quote:

Phase I [Research, Writing and Publication] is the essential component of everything that comes afterward. Without solid scholarship, research and argument, the project would be just another attempt to indoctrinate instead of persuade. A lesson we have learned from the history of science is that it is unnecessary to outnumber the opposing establishment. Scientific revolutions are usually staged by an initially small and relatively young group of scientists who are not blinded by the prevailing prejudices and who are able to do creative work at the pressure points, that is, on those critical issues upon which whole systems of thought hinge. So, in Phase I we are supporting vital writing and research at the sites most likely to crack the materialist edifice.

[emphasis added]

Note the clever Kuhnian reference to "scientific revolution", as if "intelligent design" is to evolution what Copernicus was to Ptolemy. Then again, William Dembski is "the Isaac Newton of information theory."

Phase I to date has been an outstanding failure, hence the ID "theorists" have abandoned their own self-admonition and soldiered on with Phases II and III, "Publicity and Opinion-making," and "Cultural Confrontation and Renewal."

As Rufus points out they have taken to offering their own special interpretations of articles culled from the literature, despite the fact that the authors of those articles disagree vehemently with the Discovery Institute's interpretations.

These days it appears they will not let the fact that they have yet to marshal any evidence of their own against evolution get in the way of their political and "cultural" agenda. Each new missive from the Discovery Institute repeats the same tired and baseless claims.

Valentine Pontifex · 06-10-2002, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
<strong>
Now would that be the same list of scientists (including at least two "guitar strumming hillbilles" who questioned darwinism and some of whom stated that they had no problem with common descent?</strong>

I believe that we got the number to at least 4 of the "guitar strumming hillbillies."

Thing to notice. Notice how the ID writers played a bait and stitch. Saying that 100 scientists doubt evolution and use that 100 scientists had doubts about natural selection and mutation being everything as "proof."

And the way that statement was worded, I best that Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr, and most every evolutionary biologist alive could have signed it in good faith and in complete agreement if they were somehow completely blind to the fact that this statement is meant to promote creationisms and evolution-denial. I can't emphasize this enough. That statement attacked a strawman of evolutionary biology and not the real thing.

06-10-2002, 11:30 AM	#1
Gonzo Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 13	DI at it again Hi, long time listener, first time caller. The Discovery Institute wrote a special editorial in the Seattle Times today. <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/134471180_chapmanop10.html" target="_blank">link</a> It's in response to an editorial by one of the Times staff last week, which is linked to in this article. The DI piece is mostly an appeal to teaching "balanced views". I had held off writing in to correct some of the other letters submitted last week (search the op/ed archive for those gems), but I'm going to have to take the time to send in a letter for this. Ugh. Gonzo

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

06-10-2002, 12:56 PM	#7
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Hello Gonzo, thanks for the link, oh and welcome to infidels! scigirl

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.