A plea to science journalists

| 245 Comments

It looks like the Washington Post has just seen fit to publish a long, fairly uncritical profile piece on Phillip Johnson. The ID people are already crowing and the ID skeptics are already booing. It is true that the article contains inaccuracies (“[Johnson] agrees the world is billions of years old” – no, he doesn’t); some strangely-quoted, or clueless, comments from some of Phil Johnson’s critics; and little resembling scientifically-informed reporting. The reporter, Michael Powell, has done capable reporting on ID in the past, but perhaps the Discovery Institute’s systematic harassment of reporters and news organizations has finally had an impact.

On the other hand, the article is good in giving us a lot of detail about Phillip Johnson’s crisis of faith and conversion experience in the 1980’s, and showing rather clearly that Johnson is first and foremost a religious apologist on a crusade against evolution, and accurate science is way down his list of priorities. Unlike most IDists, he often doesn’t even try and hide his motives and goals.

For example, here is a quote to add to the quotes lists:

“I realized…that if the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution.”

Just keep talking, Phil! The more the better. Consider branching out to explaining how other modern sciences such as meteorology, medicine, and geology (all of them thoroughly relying on natural processes) are also making “Christian metaphysics and religious belief” a “fantasy.” If Johnson’s argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too – just think of all those atmospheric scientists relying on nasty naturalistic computer models and physical laws to predict the weather, instead of considering the effects of deities and prayer. [This concludes the sarcasm paragraph]

A Plea to science journalists

Once, just once, I would like to see one of this nation’s many fine science journalists do an investigative report on the major “scientific” claims of the ID movement. Intelligent Design has about the same level of intellectual credibility as homeopathy or HIV-AIDS denial (Hey, Michael Powell, why didn’t you ask Johnson about that?”). This is something that should be exposed, not treated with kid gloves by politics reporters who can’t assess the scientific questions.

So, science reporters: Go ask Jonathan Wells about peppered moths and Haeckel’s embryos, and then go interview actual peppered moth experts (like Bruce Grant and Michael Majerus) and actual embryology experts (like Michael Richardson). Go ask Phillip Johnson about transitional fossils, and then ask the paleontologists about transitional fossils. Go ask Stephen Meyer about how evolution can’t produce new information, and then ask Manyuan Long about how new genes evolve. Ask the Discovery Institute about the alleged incongruences in phylogenies, and the ask the paleontologists and the phylogeneticists about the statistical congruence of phylogenies derived from different sources. Ask Simon Conway Morris about what he really thinks about IDist claims about the Cambrian Explosion, and ask him if he, a theistic evolutionist, is closer to Stephen Jay Gould or Richard Dawkins on the question of the power of natural selection (my bet: he will say Dawkins). Then, go back and challenge the ID people with these answers, and watch them stammer.

Well, I can dream, can’t I?

245 Comments

I wrote to the WaPo ombudsman, letting him know that I thought that WaPo has been suckered. The best I hope for, and the least I expect of real news organizations, is that they assign people who cannot be led by a good argument that has nothing to do with science. Johnson is a good lawyer, we need to keep that in mind. He is not a scientist, nor is he very conversant in science, we need journalists to keep that in mind.

GWW’s obscene comment was deleted and his IP banned. Have a nice day.

I was going to add to the original post this excellent article that everyone should go read at TalkDesign.org:

Brian Spitzer (2002): The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth? Why Phillip Johnson’s Darwin on Trial and the “Intelligent Design” movement are neither science – nor Christian. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/johnson.html

Darwin on Trial, the book by Phillip Johnson which founded the neocreationist movement of “intelligent design”, was written in 1991. I first encountered it in 1996. At the time I knew nothing at all about creationism. A friend-like me, a serious Christian as well as a scientist—suggested that I take a look at it, and I was curious enough to do so. There are certainly things about the book which I applauded, at the time. I’ve always been irritated by pop-science works which try to make statements about God (or the lack thereof) as though these statements are supported by scientific fact, and I was glad to see someone taking on Richard Dawkins. But even without much training (I had only a B.A. in biology), while reading through Johnson’s book I began to notice some puzzling things. At first, they were quite small: a claim in one place which contradicted a different claim in another. A strange lapse of logic-perhaps excusable on account of the author’s inexpertise? Statements which didn’t fit with what I knew firsthand about science and scientists.

I was naive. I assumed that a Christian writing to other Christians would provide a scrupulously fair and accurate account of the facts. But the deeper I got into Darwin on Trial, the less naive I became. And the clearer it became that the driving force behind Johnson’s book was neither fairness nor accuracy.

A few years passed with this troubling thought at the back of my mind. I entered graduate school and started doing real science myself. And, the more I learned, the less I trusted Darwin on Trial. I finally challenged myself to put my mistrust to the test. Perhaps Johnson was merely confused about some things. What I should do, I told myself, is look at the sources he actually used in writing Darwin on Trial, and see what they say. Perhaps part of what Johnson says is accurate; perhaps his sources misled him in places. So I went to the campus library and started checking his claims.

I was a lot less naive when I finished that task. I found that almost every scientific source cited by Johnson had been misused or distorted, in ways ranging from simple misinterpretations and innuendos to the construction of what appears to be outright fiction. The more closely I examined Darwin on Trial, the more inaccuracies I found, until it became almost impossible to catalogue all of the misleading statements in Johnson’s work. This book-upon which the “intelligent design” movement is trying to hang a program of social reform and public education-is perhaps the ugliest and most deceptive book I have ever seen.

It may seem irrelevant to critique a book over a decade since it was published. But Darwin on Trial was the work which founded the “intelligent design” movement, and Phillip Johnson is still regarded as the “godfather” of that entire school of thought. Later “intelligent design” creationists have adopted many of his exact arguments, as well as many of the questionable tactics and strategies used in Darwin on Trial. Perhaps most importantly, nobody in the “intelligent design” movement has, to my knowledge, ever criticized or disavowed any of the claims in Darwin on Trial. As I will show, this book is so full of questionable tactics that it would be hard for any informed reader not to notice any of the inaccuracy. All of the stars of the “intelligent design” movement, by their silent approval of these tactics, stand under a cloud of suspicion at the very least.

Many Christians have welcomed the “intelligent design” creationists in the belief that they are fighting for God and truth. But, as the televangelism scandals of the 1980’s should remind us, there are some more unsavory reasons for seeking celebrity in the Christian community: money, fame, applause, or power, especially political power. In short, there are a wealth of reasons why Christians need to be careful about trusting the stars of the “intelligent design” movement. And even well-intentioned debaters, if they let their desire to win the argument outstrip their respect for the facts, will turn out a product which is grossly misleading. Integrity is important. If—as I will show in this essay—the claims of “intelligent design” are more a product of debating tactics and tricks than they are a fair and honest presentation, Christians need to seriously consider whether they can support this movement in good faith.

(Brian Spitzer, TalkDesign.org)

Is there any way we could get more science journalists to check in here periodically?

I’m thinking back to a suggestion that Ed Darrel passed to me about getting free membership in scientific societies to teachers, and wondering if the same thing might be of value to journalists as well?

Journalists always like comps, and a free membership in a scientific society gives them “street cred” to write about science too.

OT:

is this the same Great White Wonder that has been posting since before I started? If so, yikes! that must have been some comment.

er, shorten “science journalists” to just, “journalists”

in brian’s article:

“But, as the televangelism scandals of the 1980’s should remind us…”

lol. indeed; how short our collective memory is.

Jim Bakker is back on TV with his own ministry again.

*sigh*

“If Johnson’s argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too.”

Yes, just so. Everyone should recognize this! Students of history should recognize that this sort of thing has happened before, repeatedly.

How does the Discovery Institute “systematically harass journalists?” I’m very interested in this statement; I’m not trying to attack you with the question, I just want to know. It sounds like something that should be backed up. The Bush Administration has systematically harassed and intimidated journalists and even replaced them with frauds, but such a statement is most powerful when supported by specific examples (they abound) and contrasted to the Clinton administration (not so sure of that second part). Please, if you can support this statement about the DI, do so!

Just keep talking, Phil! The more the better.

As I’ve always said, if you jsut elt the fundies talk long enough, they will shoot themselves in the head every single time.

ID strategy has a single fata flaw — it requires them to remain utterly silent, indefinitely, about the one topic they care about most in the world (their religious aims). As Johnson shows so eloquently, it is an impossible task for them.

I thought the article was very very good at establishing that IDers are, at root, exactly what they say they are NOT — religious nuts with an agenda.

Once the IDers find themselves in court (in Dover and/or Kansas), their incessant compulsion to preach at every opportunity, will bite them in the ass.

Phillip Johnson said:

“I realized … that if the pure Darwinist account was accurate and life is all about an undirected material process, then Christian metaphysics and religious belief are fantasy. Here was a chance to make a great contribution.”

and Nick Matzke commented :

Just keep talking, Phil!  The more the better.  Consider branching out to explaining how other modern sciences such as meteorology, medicine, and geology (all of them thoroughly relying on natural processes) are also making “Christian metaphysics and religious belief” a “fantasy.” 

Meteorology, medicine and geology do not undermine Christian metaphysics; they can be accomodated in a reading of the Bible. Even a theory of directed evolution can be compatible with Christianity. These would simply be mechanisms in which God chose to operate within the world. But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose. In this I think Phillip Johnson shows a greater understanding of Christianity than does Nick Matzke. To be compatible with Darwinism, Christianity will have to change to be similar to Greek paganism, or Asian “religions” which do not talk of a purpose to the universe; Christians will have to abandon teleology.

BTW, even evolutionists do not easily abandon teleology, which seems to be an ingrained feature of Christian/post-Christian culture. E.g. just read Lynn Margulis & Dorion Sagan in “Microcosmos - Four billion years of microbial evolution”, and the Microcosm is their replacement for God.

Does it make any more sense to challenge Darwin than to contest Newton’s theory of gravity? You haven’t seen Phillip Johnson floating into the stratosphere recently, have you?

I love it! It was recently discovered that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. There are two proposed explanations:

1) our understanding of gravity is flawed 2) there’s an unknown form of energy that counteracts and overcomes the force of gravity at great distances

Anti-gravity. Get used to it folks. I have.

Once you get used to anti-gravity perhaps the way will be paved for you to begin questioning the gospel of Saint Darwin.

Arun Gupta Wrote:

But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose.

No, it does not. It might undermine the idea that God has a Plan for Humans, or that we are some sort of special creation or the end result of a plan, but it does not say anything about God’s plan for the universe or any Purpose.

Speaking of journalism, Tom Tomorrow has something to say that might be of interest to Thumbsters. (Once again, I’m not sure whether you need a Salon subscription)

Phillip Johnson Wrote:

Evolution is the most plausible explanation for life if you’re using naturalistic terms, I’ll agree with that.

Yeah, he agrees with us. Can we all go home now?

Not Listening Wrote:

perhaps the way will be paved for you to begin questioning the gospel of Saint Darwin.

Not to worry, Not. Darwin’s theory has been questioned, tweaked, probed, and continuously checked against reality pretty much since it was proposed. That’s because there was a theory there to start with. I keep hearing rumblings about a new theory, something called “intelligent design”. But no one can tell me what it is! Hard to probe such an elusive “theory”.

is this the same Great White Wonder that has been posting since before I started? If so, yikes! that must have been some comment.

Happens every few weeks. I find those comments by him uninteresting, but I personally find JAD and CW much more objectionable. GWW is insulting, but poor Charlie’s stubbornly deranged, and I find that to be way harder to read.

If Johnson had been asked about HIV, the Washington Post’s readers could have easily understood the situation. And Powell could have made his article a lot shorter.

Powell: What do you think of evolutionary biology?

Johnson: Lies told by an evil cabal.

Powell: What about HIV/AIDS science?

Johnson: Lies told by an evil cabal.

Powell: Thanks Phil. We’re done here.

Big Phil’s position on the age of the earth is so jaw droppingly intellectually dishonest it never fails to amaze. As if the age of the earth, and tied up with this the nature of the fossil record, isn’t relevant to discussions of evolution!

The man is a fraud.

Meteorology, medicine and geology do not undermine Christian metaphysics; they can be accomodated in a reading of the Bible

So can evolution - ask the Pope.

On the other hand, the whole point of creationism is that there can be no adjustment of an existing interpretation of the Bible to accommodate any scientific finding or theory. That’s why creationists reject evolution. The rest - ID etc - is just rationalizing.

If Johnson’s argument is that evolution promotes atheism just because it relies on natural processes, then he must also believe that meteorology promotes atheism too.

No, that doesn’t follow, your “must also” is indefensible from the standpoint of logic. I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

Heddle gets himself into a bind:

but it[‘s] obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic.

Please explain scientifically why the common ancestry of living beings promotes atheism, while the fact that a tornado touched down 100 ft from my children’s school does not. And quote-mining Dawkins doesn’t count unless you give Teilhard equal time.

In both cases we see things that appear to be designed (and one can posit God taking off the roof of a house where no one is home vs. the roof of a school with 700 kids inside as an act of Divine Will) but you regard one as being “agnostic” but the other as promoting atheism? Give us a break, David. Admit it; you take the Bible as your authority and your faith isn’t strong enough to admit the possibility that stories told to a tribe of sheepherders don’t encompass biological reality. (Actually, they don’t do too well with meteorological reality either; remember the 7 fat years and 7 lean years?)

You fear that the Universe is really purposeless, and until your faith either grows or disappears altogether, you will keep mouthing creationist talking points. Pitiful.

Frank,

Can you follow an argument? Your fatuous comment, where you ask me to demonstrate something that I did not assert, suggests that you cannot. My point had nothing to do with the correctness of the assertion that evolution promotes atheism, it had only to do with Nick’s incorrect argument that it “must follow..”

If you had asked: please explain how one could, self-consistently, claim that the common ancestry of living beings promotes atheism, while the fact that a tornado touched down 100 ft from my children’s school does not–Then it would have demonstrated that you actually read my comment, and I would have been happy to respond.

it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator…

Not at all correct.

Evolution is silent on the subject of how life started and therefore on the question of the existence of a creator. On the other hand, our observations of how life has changed over time on our planet does put restrictions on the actions of a creator, if one exists.

The quote is confusing two different actions, creating life and guiding life. One could have a creator who does not guide life.

Mr. Heddle said:

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic. So someone could, self-consistently, believe that evolution promotes atheism and meteorology does not.

How is that, David? Can you tell us what philosophical difference there is in the science of meteorology and the science of biology? What methodological differences occur due to that difference in philosophy?

And, since meteorology shows young Earth advocates to be prevaricators on the facts (helium in the atmosphere, e.g.), should you not take it out of the category of “agnostic?” Or, better, should you not include biology in that category and get out of the textbook wars?

Arun Gupta said:

But undirected evolution, which only by chance led to humans, seriously undermines the idea that God has a Plan for the universe, that the universe was created for a Purpose.

I think that’s a simple and common theological error.

There is nothing in scripture that insists God had to make humans in current human form. God’s plan for the universe involves souls and spirits, and is divorced from the morphology of the mortal coil, to most thinking Christians (which is to say, those who have ever bothered to think about it). “In God’s image” does not mean four limbs, blue/brown eyes, a navel, and twenty digits, to pick a few examples. Evolution produced those. How would God’s plan be upset if we had 16 digits, or 24 digits? How would God’s plan be upset if we had eight eyes?

It wouldn’t. The purpose of the universe, in Christian terms, is not dependent on the particular design of human bodies.

David Heddle Wrote:

I have no idea what Johnson believes, but it obvious that one could believe that evolution, via its implications regarding the (lack of a) need for a creator, promotes atheism, while at the same time viewing meteorology as agnostic.

A couple of minutes with BibleGateway shows that there are several references in the bible to God being a maker and controller of weather. Looking for “storm” and “wind”, I found the following references:

Exodus 10:13 So Moses stretched out his staff over Egypt, and the LORD made an east wind blow across the land all that day and all that night. By morning the wind had brought the locusts;

Numbers 11:31 Now a wind went out from the LORD and drove quail in from the sea. It brought them [ Or They flew ] down all around the camp to about three feet [ Hebrew two cubits (about 1 meter) ] above the ground, as far as a day’s walk in any direction.

Isaiah 11:15 The LORD will dry up the gulf of the Egyptian sea; with a scorching wind he will sweep his hand over the Euphrates River. [ Hebrew the River ] He will break it up into seven streams so that men can cross over in sandals.

Jeremiah 4:12 a wind too strong for that comes from me. [ Or comes at my command ] Now I pronounce my judgments against them.”

Jeremiah 10:13 When he thunders, the waters in the heavens roar; he makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth. He sends lightning with the rain and brings out the wind from his storehouses.

Ezekiel 13:13 “ ‘Therefore this is what the Sovereign LORD says: In my wrath I will unleash a violent wind, and in my anger hailstones and torrents of rain will fall with destructive fury.

Hosea 13:15 even though he thrives among his brothers. An east wind from the LORD will come, blowing in from the desert; his spring will fail and his well dry up. His storehouse will be plundered of all its treasures.

Amos 4:13 He who forms the mountains, creates the wind, and reveals his thoughts to man, he who turns dawn to darkness, and treads the high places of the earth— the LORD God Almighty is his name.

Jonah 1:4 Then the LORD sent a great wind on the sea, and such a violent storm arose that the ship threatened to break up.

Jonah 4:8 When the sun rose, God provided a scorching east wind, and the sun blazed on Jonah’s head so that he grew faint. He wanted to die, and said, “It would be better for me to die than to live.”

Nahum 1:3 The LORD is slow to anger and great in power; the LORD will not leave the guilty unpunished. His way is in the whirlwind and the storm, and clouds are the dust of his feet.

Zechariah 10:1 [ The LORD Will Care for Judah ] Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. He gives showers of rain to men, and plants of the field to everyone.

Mark 4:39 He got up, rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Quiet! Be still!” Then the wind died down and it was completely calm.

Luke 8:25 He got up and rebuked the wind and the raging waters; the storm subsided, and all was calm. “Where is your faith?” he asked his disciples. In fear and amazement they asked one another, “Who is this? He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him.”

The only consistency I see is the usual antievolutionist tendency to overlook passages that are momentarily inconvenient to some argument.

GCT wrote -

“It might undermine the idea that God has a Plan for Humans, or that we are some sort of special creation or the end result of a plan, but it does not say anything about God’s plan for the universe or any Purpose.” (Referring to the theory of evolution.)

Actually, the theory of evolution does not in any way, shape, or form undermine that idea that God has a special plan for humans, either, nor that God intended the creation of humans, nor that humans are in God’s image. It is utterly unrelated to this question. So is every other scientific theory.

Those who wish to believe in God, but cannot find true faith, demand miracles or “proof” of God’s existence. They feel threatened by scientific explanations of anything, but especially of the cosmos or the evolution of the human physical body. This is because once science explains something, it is harder for them to use that particular physical phenomenon as a crutch to “prove” the existence of God to themselves. Because their own insecurities are irrationally exacerbated by science, they falsely claim that science is related to “secular humanism”, various dictatorial political systems (note that this a direct contradiction of saying that it is related to humanism), “materialism”, “atheism”, “cultural decline”, or whatever else they can come up with to express their own tormenting doubts and insecurities with regard to their own relationship to God. All of this is nonsense. Science is compatible with secular humanism, but equally so with Lutheranism, Mormonism, Hinduism, etc, etc, etc.

Another motivation of the anti-science crowd is simply the sadistic desire to “force” other people to claim to “believe” something that they don’t believe, as was done in the inquistion, and yet another is the silly urge to prove to themselves that they are “even smarter than scientists” (a lot of that is seen on this board, and it, too, reflects insecurity). However, it’s the doubt and torment that sell the books.

We are in a phase of American history in which open admission of spiritual seeking or questioning is severely criticized, and hypocritical religious show (coupled to a secret life of sexual misbehavior, substance abuse, and financial dishonesty, in many if not most cases) is the norm.

Phillip Johnson’s MO wherein he systematically distorts the views of his opponents, misquotes, makes false statements, etc, has thoroughly been documented at http://www.talkreason.org/articles/honesty.cfm by a writer who himself is a devout Christian.

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 6, column 167, byte 590 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Hey Dave Heddle, what’s your Second Denial1? ID Creationists usually have a Second Denial2. What’s yours?


1 Second Denial: Belief that along with biologists, another group of scientists or experts are similarly wrong about a topic fundamental to their expertise, and are covering it up. 2 for instance, Phil Johnson–HIV Jay Richards–Relativity Charlie Wagner–Cardiology Marshall Hall–Heliocentrism …

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 1, column 64, byte 64 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

Sal:

Sorry for the lousy formatting on my last post, but I’m sure you can figure it out.

BTW, I should add this little note:

Even if it were true that QM (or some interpretation thereof) implies a “God” (which it doesn’t), that hardly implies “ID”, does it? It could just as well imply “UID”, “ND”, “DBC”, “DBA”, “AD”, or even that “Evilution”. Or it could imply nothing at all WRT the origin of species and life forms (which is my take on this afactual hypothetical). Your apparent thinking that exisence of a “God” imples that this “God” actually did something specific is a logical error (and perhaps a bit of blasphemy, if you are of the opinion that such a “God” actually exists). Care to jusitfy your illogical “leap of faith” here?

Which brings up another point:

If you “ID” aficionados are so hot on demanding that proponents of evolutionary theory show that evolution is capable (at least in theory) of producing allthe evidence, the structures, the diversity we see – and saying that without this, evolution is seriously flawed (not true simply from a logical standpoint) – you need to ante up in this poker game: You need to demonstrate how your alternative hypothesis can account for the evidence. In short, prove that a “intelligent designer” can indeed account for the facts. (When you’re done with that, you then have to show that this “intelligent designer” did indeed account for the facts; something that evolutionary biology has done over and over again for many different problems in evolutionary biology.)

Get cracking.

Cheers,

Sal:

Sorry for the lousy formatting on my last post, but I’m sure you can figure it out.

BTW, I should add this little note:

Even if it were true that QM (or some interpretation thereof) implies a “God” (which it doesn’t), that hardly implies “ID”, does it? It could just as well imply “UID”, “ND”, “DBC”, “DBA”, “AD”, or even that “Evilution”. Or it could imply nothing at all WRT the origin of species and life forms (which is my take on this afactual hypothetical). Your apparent thinking that exisence of a “God” imples that this “God” actually did something specific is a logical error (and perhaps a bit of blasphemy, if you are of the opinion that such a “God” actually exists). Care to jusitfy your illogical “leap of faith” here?

Which brings up another point:

If you “ID” aficionados are so hot on demanding that proponents of evolutionary theory show that evolution is capable (at least in theory) of producing allthe evidence, the structures, the diversity we see – and saying that without this, evolution is seriously flawed (not true simply from a logical standpoint) – you need to ante up in this poker game: You need to demonstrate how your alternative hypothesis can account for the evidence. In short, prove that a “intelligent designer” can indeed account for the facts. (When you’re done with that, you then have to show that this “intelligent designer” did indeed account for the facts; something that evolutionary biology has done over and over again for many different problems in evolutionary biology.)

Get cracking.

Cheers,

If you “ID” aficionados are so hot on demanding that proponents of evolutionary theory show that evolution is capable (at least in theory) of producing allthe evidence, the structures, the diversity we see — and saying that without this, evolution is seriously flawed (not true simply from a logical standpoint) — you need to ante up in this poker game: You need to demonstrate how your alternative hypothesis can account for the evidence. In short, prove that a “intelligent designer” can indeed account for the facts. (When you’re done with that, you then have to show that this “intelligent designer” did indeed account for the facts; something that evolutionary biology has done over and over again for many different problems in evolutionary biology.)

Or, to put it a bit more simply, “what is the scientific theory of ID, and how can we test it using the scientific method?”

It’s the one question that IDers fall all over themselves to not answer.

I wonder why THAT would be . ….

Syntax Error: not well-formed (invalid token) at line 3, column 16, byte 78 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.12.3/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on May 15, 2005 10:36 PM.

For gorsake, stop laughing, this is serious was the previous entry in this blog.

Tangled Bank at a Madhouse is the next entry in this blog.

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

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.361

Site Meter