Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design

| 86 Comments

Scott Rothschild reports that Nobel Laureates urge rejection of intelligent design

Thursday, September 15, 2005

TOPEKA — A group of 38 Nobel Laureates headed by Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Wiesel have asked the Kansas State Board of Education to reject science standards that criticize evolution.

In a letter to the board released today, the group from several countries said Darwinian evolution is the foundation of biology.

“ … its indispensable role has been further strengthened by the capacity to study DNA,” the group wrote. (See entire letter.)

86 Comments

What a ridiculously reasonable sounding letter they’ve written. The easier for the board to dismiss it as the rantings of crazies.

a modest experiment

Well! 38 Nobel winners, but not a Steve on the list.

BB wrote

Well! 38 Nobel winners, but not a Steve on the list.

Yeah, but the two eligble Nobel winners have signed on to Project Steve (Weinberg & Chu).

RBH

Was this letter a rush job? 38 Nobel prize winners seems like a rather small amount all things considered especially considering that a few of them are peace prize winners. After all the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard resulted in 72 Nobel prize winner rejected creationism where all of them where winners of one of the three science prizes with a more detailed statement. Some more recent petitions of Nobel winners have gotten signers as well. I am sure they can get a few dozen more signers by October if they tried.

They reject the idea of Darwinian evolution as dogma, yet reject the proposed state science standards outright, probably without actually reading the standards. Isn’t that what defines dogma?

They reject the idea of Darwinian evolution as dogma, yet reject the proposed state science standards outright, probably without actually reading the standards.

Well, let’s see how many of the ID witnesses in Kansas actually read the standards:

Q. Have you read the Majority Opinion, draft two of the standards?

A. The Majority, no, sir.

Q. You have been brought to Kansas to challenge the Majority Opinion and you have not taken the time to read it?

A. I read the part of the Minority Report that –

Q. I didn’t ask you about the Minority. Listen carefully to my question. Have you read the Majority Opinion and the answer was no?

A. Yes.

Q. And the follow-up question is, you have been brought to Kansas to tell us how educate– how we should educate our Kansas children and you have not bothered to take the time to read the Majority Opinion. Correct?

A. Again, yes– no, I have not read the Majority Opinion.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: No further questions. (Leonard testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

*************************************************

Q. Have you read in total the Majority Report?

A. No, I have not. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

*************************************************

Q. Have you read the majority report?

A. No, sir.

Q. Have you read the minority report in toto?

A. No, sir. I’ve read a summary of the proposed revisions. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

*************************************************

Q. Did you take the opportunity to read the majority report in toto?

A. No, I’ve only read the summary of proposed revisions. (Barham testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

Lots of ID supporters hold Elie Wiezel is the highest esteem. His leadership is getting this letter signed will drive them up the wall.

joel Wrote:

They reject the idea of Darwinian evolution as dogma, yet reject the proposed state science standards outright, probably without actually reading the standards. Isn’t that what defines dogma?

So, joel, on what basis do you conclude that the signers “probably” did not read the standards, or did you just make that part up?

Joel’s comment is remarkably ambiguous. It could be read as an indictment of the Kansas Board of Education and would, in that instance, be perfectly accurate, as a couple of the board members admitted not bothering to read the majority report. If Joel was referring to the Nobel laureates as “they”, it becomes harder to try to assign a useful meaning to the comment.

Wasn’t WD crowing on his blog about having a Very Important Private Meeting with a laureate (unnamed) about two months ago?

How they were convinced that “Darwinism” was going to topple like a house of cards?

How they were convinced that “Darwinism” was going to topple like a house of cards?

“Waterloo !!! Waterloo !!! Waterloo !!!”

We’ll see who topples in Dover, right? ;>

Steve Hawking is a Project Steve Steve, so that’s three, neh?

Hawking is indeed number 300 on the Steve list, but he has never won a Nobel prize.

Does Tradesports have a contract on the Dover case?

The letter will not mean a thing.

First, god trumps Nobel prizes. Second, science is devoid of bible, therefore needs bible added to it, and as soon as possible.

So much for intelligent life in Kansas.

Well, I was just having a conversation with a certain ID supporter I know. He was quick to remind me that the Kansas Science Education standards do NOT include the teaching of intelligent design. If anyone can address this statement directly, please let me know, but I’m afraid in this provincial point he’s correct, and the laureates’ letter is wrong in its last statement. The standards include a lot of clauses about teaching scientific evidence against evolution, which is code-word for ID or other creationist notions. But, can anyone point me to where these standards explicitly suggest the teaching of intelligent design?

He was quick to remind me that the Kansas Science Education standards do NOT include the teaching of intelligent design.

Neither did the Cobb County stickers.

That didn’t prevent the courts from laughing at them and tossing them out, anyway.

First, god trumps Nobel prizes. Second, science is devoid of bible, therefore needs bible added to it, and as soon as possible.

I see. So ID is all about “getting Bible added to science”, and when IDers tell us otherwise, they are just lying to us.

That’s what I thought, but thanks for clearing that up.

Are you willing to testify to that under oath in Dover next week?

can anyone point me to where these standards explicitly suggest the teaching of intelligent design?

They do not use the term, it’s true. But, given that ID is, admittedly, “devoid of content”, what would it even mean to “teach ID”?

The simple fact is that ID is nothing more than a rubric encompassing warmed over YEC apologetics and new-fangled sounding terminology like “specification” and “irreducibility.” Enough of this sort of verbiage found its way into the proposed revisions for me to conclude they’re as close as it’s possible to get to advocating “teaching ID.”

I’ll agree with the point, though, that using “ID” as shorthand in this instance (the letter under discussion) is a little sloppy.

I see. So ID is all about “getting Bible added to science”, and when IDers tell us otherwise, they are just lying to us.

Testify as to this being my assessment? Sure. However I did not mention ID, nor does Kansas if memory serves. They DO mention supernatural (nonempirical) crapola to be added to a definition of science, and in Kansas, that means just what?

Come on, you can say it. What does that modification of science in the Kansas standards actually mean in effect and in the Great State of Kansas?

Hee hee - this is really funny! Of all the living Nobel prize winners, only 38 chose to sign the declaration. Does that mean that only a minoriy of Noble prize winners support this statement, and that a majority do not?

Also, I find it odd that none of the signers are biologists!

I respect their insight, and this is significant, but quite frankly, these folks are not authorities on the topic at hand.

The notion that majority of Nobel laureates support teaching ID or generally disagree with the declaration of 39 Nobel laureates (as suggested in comment 48724 by dave) is laughable. Perhaps these 39 laureates are members of some circle of people close to Wiesel. Generally, I agree that collecting signatures is not the best way to prove anything (remember the habit of Discovery Institute crowd of collecting signatures against “Darwinism”). However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the overwhelming majority of Nobel laureates, including those working in biology and related fields, share the attitude of these 39 to the attempts to subvert proper education of Kansas kids.

Comment #48724

Posted by Dave on September 18, 2005 06:42 PM (e) (s)

Hee hee - this is really funny! Of all the living Nobel prize winners, only 38 chose to sign the declaration. Does that mean that only a minoriy of Noble prize winners support this statement, and that a majority do not?

Hmmm… Maybe they’re just part of a circle of prize winners with a close-enough connection that the primary motivator of the letter felt comfortable in asking.

Also, I find it odd that none of the signers are biologists!

Are you ignorant? There is no prize in biology. The closest is medicine, which tends to reward medical breakthroughs so it is typically dominated by doctors making medical break-throughs. Linda Bush has a PhD in immunology, Axel is an MD, Blobel is an oncologist, and I can’t tell what Neher is… There are others, I was too lazy to look up.

I respect their insight, and this is significant, but quite frankly, these folks are not authorities on the topic at hand.

Actually, they are. You see, they’re scientists operating in medicine and physics. So they are well-informed to what SCIENCE is, and they’re saying this isn’t science. And remember, ID claims to be science. And if you must be a BIOLOGIST to comment on the worthiness of the science aspect of ID, then Dembski and the pretty much the rest of you need to shut up.

Correction: I meant to say (vis the Nobel prize winners) “Most of them…” But Moss caught a 65 yard bomb and lost track of what I was doing…

Well, Dave here again, fresh from his beating at the hands of the fundamentalists!

Look I never said that there was a Nobel prize in Biology, I just said that none of the signatories were biologists. But, yes, I think its fine for these folks to comment on science, its just not a very scientific survey, IMHO.

Its like accepting positive evidence for evolutionary theory, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

And yes, its still significant, like I said that 38 Nobelists made this statement, but over on Telic thoughts, there are some very good observations that suggest these Nobelists don’t appreciate what they are saying.

Comment #48746

Posted by Dave on September 18, 2005 10:09 PM (e) (s)

Well, Dave here again, fresh from his beating at the hands of the fundamentalists!

Look I never said that there was a Nobel prize in Biology, I just said that none of the signatories were biologists. But, yes, I think its fine for these folks to comment on science, its just not a very scientific survey, IMHO.

Yes, because there is no prize in biology the population of available Nobel prize winners would, natuarally, not be rich in biologists. As for being a survey, it’s NOT A SURVEY. Duh. It’s a bunch of concerned scientists and other luminaries speaking out against an intellectually bankrupt fraud being perpetuated by some religious extremists.

Its like accepting positive evidence for evolutionary theory, while ignoring evidence to the contrary.

Random non-sequitorial creationist bash at evolution? This brings nothing useful to the discussion.

And yes, its still significant, like I said that 38 Nobelists made this statement, but over on Telic thoughts, there are some very good observations that suggest these Nobelists don’t appreciate what they are saying.

Did you ask them if they understood what they were signing? If not, do you think all these highly educated monster brains are stupid to be decieved by this letter? Or is it just someone on your side grasping at straws because you have nothing?

Relax! Why are you so agitated?

Anyway, you ask a good question, so here is Nobel laureate Charles Townes on the topic of intelligent design and evolution.

http://wittingshire.blogspot.com/20[…]sign-as.html

I’m not sharing this to blow anyone away, or to embarrass someone, or to refute the 38 signers. I’m just trying to point out that there are some pretty knowledgeable folks on both sides of the discussion, and quite frankly, its pretty remarkable that anyone comes out in defense of ID (not that ID is inherently anti-evolution) given the atmosphere that folks like you create.

I’m still beside myself trying to figure out why the NCSE (E. Scott) would slander and intimidate a high-school senior who tried to invite Michael Behe to speak at Emmaus High in PA. Heck, even Princeton lets Behe speak.

What are you folks so worried about, because it sure isn’t science.

Hello Dave the Troll! I’m not worried about anything. It’s cool.

And, you’re absolutely right about “intelligent design”, it sure isn’t science.

You said it, Bud, and I’m with you on that one.

Dave wrote: “Look I never said that there was a Nobel prize in Biology, I just said that none of the signatories were biologists.”

Let’s see: Richard Axel and Linda Buck discovered odorant receptor genes and are studying mechanism of smelling. Guenter Blobel studied how proteins, once synthesized, are transported to the right locations in the cells. Aaron Ciechanover, Avram Hershko and Irwin Rose studied ubiquitin system, which is involved in destruction of proteins. Leland Hartwell and Paul Nurse are geneticists who discovered genes that regulate cell divisions. H. Robert Horvitz is a geneticist who studied development of C. elegans and discovered among other things genes involved in programed cell death. Erwin Neher is a neurobiologist who studied ion channels. Ferid Murad studied nitric oxide as a signaling molecule in our body. Harold Varmus discovered a gene that cause cancer. John Walker determined a structure of an enzyme that synthesize ATP, which is a source of energy in our cells.

Are you saying that all these people are not biologists?

Dave wrote: “Anyway, you ask a good question, so here is Nobel laureate Charles Townes on the topic of intelligent design and evolution.”

Reading what Charles Townes actually said, I don’t get an impression that Charles Townes opposes evolution. And he is certainly against creationists and anti-evolution movement. What he is believing, it seems, is that the God created universe and the laws of nature in such a way that made life and evolution possible. What he is talking is about cosmological fine-tuning. He did use the words Intelligent Design, but I doubt he meant the way IDists mean and don’t think he is on the ID side. He is just religious and that’s fine with me. He is a physicist and is very old. As great as he is, I have a suspicion that he is not up to date with what ID movement is all about.

“the laureates’ letter is wrong in its last statement”

Well, it’s certainly not grammatical. Which, while trivial, is more substantial than any of the criticisms offered by the creationist trolls.

Y’know, unlike WD and outright creeps like Sal, I don’t mind so much that people like the “Dave” above invest a great deal of effort in lying to themselves, or in swapping their “pledge o’ faith” trading cards or whatever they do in theit secret tree-house headquarters. However, I myself have finally had my patience frayed to ribbons by their insistance in lying, and repeating the same ad nauseum the same lies, not only to those unaware of their intentions but to people who KNOW they are lying, and have repeatedly proven in public that they are lying, and who really have better things to do than continue attempting to cushion the blow that must come when struggling to excuse the fact that people like the “Dave” above are insincere, fingers-in-the-ears, evil-minded liars.

Dave, your sort of “faith” is writ on water, built upon sand. Putting a “Jesus Loves You” smiley face sticker upon your lies and fears doesn’t transmute these base metals of your character into the gold of knowledge, much less wisdom. Time to put aside these childish things, perhaps: there certainly is room for Christian ideas in this big world.

Scientists that are friendly to ID abound - they are the 400 or so folks that signed the Discovery Institute statement regarding the limitations of RMNS.

Minus the ones that have asked to be removed from the list because they no longer support DI’s political agenda.

How many of those 400 can give us a scientific theory of ID that can be tested using the scientific method?

Why not?

Scientists that are doing lab work is AFAIK a very small list. Michael Behe at Lehigh University comes to mind, and I’m pretty sure he would say that he has few counterparts. Another that I can think of would be Dean Kenyon.

Um, junior, neither of these guys does ANY lab work supporting ID. Not a shred.

Many evolutionists are atheists,

Um, junior, I’m not an atheist.

Dembski has published mathematical tests for detecting intelligent causes - essentially a litmus test you apply to a dataset. I’m sure the SETI folks use similar methods for analysing the signals they are collecting.

Umm, junior, SETI doesn’t do ANY analysis of the contents of the signals they are collecting. It’s not what SETI is based on.

Design is a possibility, certainly no less possible than spontaneous generation. I can’t really comment on the two papers that were cited, but I am aware of many papers in those areas, and in general, they are highly speculative and preliminary.

How the hell would YOU know, junior? What are you, some sort of expert or something?

Some writers criticize ID for the lack of papers that have been published in comparison to other scientific fields. But, won’t that be the case for any new field?

Um, junior, ID isn’t “new” — it’s been around for a lot longer than evolutionary biology has been.

Now, if you’re done wavijg your arms and whining again, would you mind answering my questions? What is the scientific theory of ID? What, according to this scientific theory of ID, did the designer do, specifically? What mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it did? Where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do, well, anything?

Dave, here’s another question for you (which you also won’t answer):

If you know anything at all about the ID “controversy”, then you must KNOW that your heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then your crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.

So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are you and the other creationists in here really THAT stupid? Really and truly?

Any IDer or creationist in here, how about answering that question for me. Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?

Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????

I really truly want to know.

Dave Wrote:

I think interested scientists may be able to show naturulistic orgins, but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day, so if we are honest, we have to say that given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

Hello? Dave? It seems you came and went and did not address my question. On what grounds do you claim that “its looking less and less likely every day”?

I find it very bizarre that you accuse people here of censorship when I am actually trying to get you to say something. You made a statement. Back it up.

Meanwhile, I’ll be re-reading articles like these:

Revolutionary New Theory For Origins Of Life On Earth

Date: 2002-12-04 A totally new and highly controversial theory on the origin of life on earth, is set to cause a storm in the science world and has implications for the existence of life on other planets. Research* by Professor William Martin of the University of Dusseldorf and Dr Michael Russell of the Scottish Environmental Research Centre in Glasgow, claims that living systems originated from inorganic incubators - small compartments in iron sulphide rocks. The new theory radically departs from existing perceptions of how life developed and it will be published in Philosophical Transactions B, a learned journal produced by the Royal Society. …

NYU Chemist Supports New Theory For Origin Of Life

Date: 1999-05-13 New York University chemistry professor Robert Shapiro has published a new book and paper that challenge existing assumptions about life on Earth and elsewhere in the Universe. In Planetary Dreams, Shapiro raises the issue of whether that laws of nature might favor the generation of life throughout the Universe. Furthermore, Shapiro suggests that the hypothesis that life is unique to Earth could prove to be just as implausible as theories of Divine Creation.

hese arguments are presented in Shapiro’s article, “Prebiotic cytosine synthesis: A critical analysis and implications for the origin of life,”which appeared in the April 13th Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (Vol. 96, Issue 8, 4396-4401). Shapiro also lays out his argument in a new book entitled PLANETARY DREAMS, which was published by John Wiley & Sons in April. …

New Form Of Pure Carbon Found In Mexican Meteorite – Possible Player In Origin Of Life

Date: 1999-07-15 A University of Hawai’i researcher and her colleagues from the NASA Space Science Division have confirmed that a new form of carbon previously made in the laboratory also exists in nature. The finding indicates that the pure carbon molecules known as fullerenes could have been a factor in the early history of Earth and might even have played a role in the origin of life.

University of Hawai’i at Manoa organic geochemist Luann Becker and NASA colleagues Theodore E. Bunch and Louis J. Allamandola discovered the presence of fullerene carbon molecules in the 4.6-billion-year-old Allende meteorite, which has been of interest to scientists since it landed in Mexico three decades ago. …

It is looking less and less likely every day that Dave will back up his statements.

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant: It is looking less and less likely every day that Dave will back up his statements.

And, for PT’s audience of lurkers, fence-sitters, and genuinely-confused or curious lay folk, that’s precisely the point: the creationists, ID apologists, and sundry other trolls just can’t put their money where their mouth is, no matter how many times Lenny and others here offer them the opportunity.

[Cue Dragnet theme]: Dun-dun-DUN-dun. [Cue Jack Webb voice-over]: “Just the facts, Ma’am.” Lesson over; case closed.

“Scientists that are friendly to ID abound - they are the 400 or so folks that signed the Discovery Institute statement regarding the limitations of RMNS.”

But how many of them are called Steve?

“The best example of recrimination that I am aware of would be that of Richard Sternberg, who is not an ID _scientist_, [my emphasis]”

You can say that again.

“As far as religious motives go on the part of the ID community, […] I would say that the ID folks are catching up with the evolutionists in many regards.”

???

I understand all the words, and the syntax looks like English. But I just can’t decipher the meaning of that sentence. Are you making a point, or just making unsubstantiated and unfriendly insinuations?

[Notice, BTW that I quote _properly_, something certain - ah - unnamed creationists have repeatedly failed to do]

“Many evolutionists are atheists,”

???

You just go _right_ on believing that. And when you can actually present a poll that backs that statement, I _might_ begin to take it seriously.

“Keep in mind that the NCSE is essentially a lobbying organization for Darwinistic fundamentalism”

Oh, _please_, not the old ‘eveel atheist conspiracy’ crap. It’s worse than ludicrous for so many reasons…

… a lobbying organization for Darwinistic fundamentalism

When do they get their tax exemption?

Still no response from Dave. He must be busy in his laboratory doing research on Intelligent Design ‘science’.

The specific case where the details are public in which Eugenie Scott targeted a high-school student was that of Danny Phillips of Colorodo.

There are cases where the NCSE does perform a useful service. This was not one of them. The PBS shows on evolution are, as Danny Phililps noted, little more than propaganda tools.

This is what poor little Danny said:

“Now scientists don’t like my request because it challenges the dogma that is fundamental to their philosophical viewpoints about nature, and I don’t like evolution because it challenges my own philosophical views.”

and this is what mean ol’ Darwinist Eugenie Scott said about him:

“If Danny Phillips doesn’t want to learn evolution, well, he’s going to be less educated than if he does. He should learn evolution. If he doesn’t want to accept it, that’s his own business. But his views should not prevail for 80,000 students who need to learn evolution to be educated.”

Dave, Dave, Dave… you should apologize to Dr. Scott. If this is what people like you consider “authoritarian/totalitarian”, you’d better buy a new vocabulary.

Hi Dave, welcome back.

Now answer my questions.

What is the scientific theory of ID? What, according to this scientific theory of ID, did the designer do, specifically? What mechanisms did the designer use to do whatever the heck you think it did? Where can we see the designer using these mechanisms today to do, well, anything?

Comment #49061

Posted by ‘Rev Dr’ Lenny Flank on September 21, 2005 07:07 AM (e) (s)

Dave, here’s another question for you (which you also won’t answer):

If you know anything at all about the ID “controversy”, then you must KNOW that your heroes are in court right now trying to argue that creationism/ID is SCIENCE and has NO RELIGIOUS PURPOSE OR AIM. You KNOW that if the courts rule that creationism/ID is NOT science and IS nothing but religious doctrine, then your crap will never see the inside of a science classroom. So you must KNOW that every time you blither to us that creationism/ID is all about God and faith and the Bible and all that, you are UNDERMINING YOUR OWN HEROES by demonstrating, right here in public, that your heroes are lying under oath when they claim that creationism/ID has NO religious purpose or aims.

So why the heck do you do it ANYWAY? Why the heck are you in here yammering about religion when your own leaders are trying so desperately to argue that ID/creationism is NOT about religion? Are you and the other creationists in here really THAT stupid? Really and truly?

Any IDer or creationist in here, how about answering that question for me. Why are you in here arguing that ID/creationism is all about God and the Bible, while Discovery Institute and other creationists are currently in Kansas and Dover arguing that ID/creationism is NOT all about God and the Bible?

Why are you **undercutting your own side**????????

I really truly want to know.

This is what poor little Danny said:

“Now scientists don’t like my request because it challenges the dogma that is fundamental to their philosophical viewpoints about nature, and I don’t like evolution because it challenges my own philosophical views.”

How old is this person? He certainly SOUNDS like a teenager who’s very full of himself. Heaven forfend that his ‘views’ should be challenged

Funny: what Danny believes are ‘philosophical views’. However, evolutionary theory is ‘dogma’.

Someone sure brainwashed this kid good. Ah, home schooling.…

Dave said:

Dembski has published mathematical tests for detecting intelligent causes - essentially a litmus test you apply to a dataset. I’m sure the SETI folks use similar methods for analysing the signals they are collecting.

The fact that they don’t might help you understand Dembski is full of crap.

We’ve heard several creationists say things to the effect that SETI must do something like Dembski, so ID is science. Of course, they don’t do anything like Dembski, and what they do is illuminating about why ID can’t work without some info about the Designer. Has anybody at Panda’s Thumb written an article about this?

Certain Americans seem to be a pox on the whole world at the moment. They are now trying to interfere with Astronomy as a fudge to deal with their unintelligent design of GPS. They want to redefine reality to be something simpler for them because of their personal inability to deal with the real world. Seem familiar at all ..?

Dave Wrote:

I think interested scientists may be able to show naturulistic orgins, but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day, so if we are honest, we have to say that given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

I see ‘Dave’ was here and gone again, and still has no clarification or backing evidence for his statements.

Dave, you are a bad person.

I’m suggesting that design is a possibility, and that any scientist that chooses to float that hypothesis is entitled to without recrimination or threat.

We as scientists should not define science in such a way to exclude that possibility.

I think that the cases of Samuel Chen and Danny Phillips are illuminating. They show that organizations such as NCSE and ABAT have political and philosophical motivations, no different than the Discovery Institute.

I stand by my comments regarding Eugenie Scott - she uses authoritarian and totalitarian methods.

Dave hilariously ad-libbed:

“We as scientists […]”

Are you a Christian Scientist, Dave? ‘cause no other definition of “scientist” seems to fit your public persona…

Also, when poor little Danny said something that is only barely exscusable in an indoctrinated 16-year-old who’s been spoon-fed ID talking points, Dr. Scott basically replied, “If you want to remain ignorant, that’s your privilege; but it is wrong to keep everybody else ignorant just because you don’t like what science tells us.”

This has nothing authoritarian, nothing totalitarian about it; it’s the plain fact of the matter. Dr. Scott is right, and Danny Phillips is wrong. Twist the thing as you want, this won’t change.

Now, since you are an incorregible troll, I’ll stop pointing out your misrepresentations. The truth is out there: it took me one minute to find out what Danny Phillips had said and what Genie Scott had responded. “Scientist”, ideed!

I’m suggesting that design is a possibility

A fleet of invisible pink unicorns flying in orbit around Jupiter is also “a possibility”. (shrug)

SHOW us this “possibility”, and what it possibly is.

What, possibly, did the designer possibly do, specifically.

What possible mechanisms did it possibly use to do whatever the heck you think it did, possibly.

Where can we possibly see the deisgner using these possible mechanisms to do … well . . anything.

What seems to be the problem with your answering those simple questions, Dave?

Or, possibly, is “POOF!! God – er, I mean, The Unknown Intelligent Designer – dunnit!!!!” the extent of your, uh, possible scientific theory? And are IDers (like you) jsut lying to us when they claim otherwise?

We as scientists should not define science in such a way to exclude that possibility.

I’ve already asked you to show us how to use the scientific method to test your “possibility”.

What seems to be the problem?

We as scientists

“We”?

“WE” ????????

Dude, I’ve met scientists. I’ve worked with scientists.

You are no scientist.

Dave, as an actual scientist who does actual research (albeit not in evolutionary biology) I am offended that you classify yourself as a scientist. Please desist.

Wingardium leviosa.

I’m suggesting that design is a possibility, and that any scientist that chooses to float that hypothesis is entitled to without recrimination or threat.

Is that what you’re doing today? Because the other day you were stating that:

I think interested scientists may be able to show naturulistic orgins, but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day, so if we are honest, we have to say that given the evidence we have, design is a plausible explanation for certain aspects of nature.

You still have not been able to clarify or back up that statement; given that, you should be retracting it. You have consistently failed to do so despite repeated stops in this thread. “If you were honest”, you would retract your statement, since you cannot back it up. Therefore I conclude that you are not honest.

We as scientists

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! NO, Dave, I don’t believe that. Real scientists provide evidence for their statements.

It appears Dave is gone for good now, without explaining this cryptic comment:

but lets face it, its looking less and less likely every day

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on September 17, 2005 3:57 PM.

The Unintentional Irony of William Dembski was the previous entry in this blog.

Science in the Pub 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