White House Science Advisor: “Intelligent Design” not Scientific

| 5 Comments | 1 TrackBack

From our friends at the NCSE

Chris Mooney reports in The American Prospect that John H. Marburger III, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, denounced “intelligent design” as unscientific. Mooney writes:

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about “Intelligent Design” (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin’s theory of descent with modification. The White House’s chief scientist stated point blank, “Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.” And that’s not all – as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, “I don’t regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic.”

In March 2004, when asked about the Bush administration’s scientific credibility in light of the president’s reported skepticism about evolution, Marburger similarly got it right: “Evolution is a cornerstone of modern biology.”

1 TrackBack

John H. Marburger III, director of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, stated point blank “Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.” He got that right. [ via Panda's Thumb ]... Read More


This is very good news. We can only hope that the President listens.

All I can say is GREAT!!!

There is hope for USA science education afterall.

I actually just gained some respect for the administration.

Given the Bush administration’s tendency to pander shamelessly to the religious right, together with its dismal record of abusing/distorting/discarding science to advance its agenda on a number of fronts, my guess is that Marburger’s days as science advisor may now be numbered.

Pim, your link has an insert in it which causes a 404. Fix it when you can.

To PvM:

Thanks for that link to Dembski’s “pathetic comment.” No better evidence of Dembski’s scientific failure is his insistence that only Darwinists have to document their claims, while IDists don’t have to.

It gets even better. In the very same thread, Dembski says, “Your filling in of details is like a man attempting to count to infinity – the challenge ahead of you far exceeds any progress you’ve made to date or even any progress you give any indication of being able to make.” In other words, Dembski is insisting that Darwinists need an infinite amount of evidence. (In contrast, ID theory requires an infinite amount of wishful thinking; of course, unlike evidence, there is no upper limit on wishful thinking.)

And then to cap it off, he complains about the number of references his opponents have posted to the thread, calling it “literature bombing.” And this to a post that contains a total of eight references! Dembski even considers the need to find a way of preventing such “literature bombing” on the ISCID website. So what he’s saying is, let’s *prevent* people from listing references to back up their arguments. Now that’s a real scientist speaking there. That’s “teaching the controversy” for you.

regards, Chris

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on February 23, 2005 11:45 AM.

Beyond Suboptimality: Logical Fallacy of Behe’s “IC means ID” Notion was the previous entry in this blog.

Holt on Behe in New York Times Magazine is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.



Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter