IDEA clubs: now with extra sneakiness and ignorance!

| 139 Comments

You might recall that the IDEA clubs required that their leaders be Christian (linked to Google cache).

1) Having an interest in intelligent design and creation - evolution issues, and a willingness to learn more.

2) Agreeing with and being willing to uphold the IDEA Center's mission statement.

3) Having a desire and commitment to using these issues to educate and outreach to your fellow students, campus, or community.

4) We also require that club leaders be Christians as the IDEA Center Leadership believes, for religious reasons unrelated to intelligent design theory, that the identity of the designer is the God of the Bible. It is definitely not necessary to "be an expert" to start and run a successful a club. It is helpful to be familiar with the basics of intelligent design theory, but if you're not, that's where the IDEA Center hopes to step in and help educate you so you can in turn educate others. Where ever you feel like you might need help--whether its science, leadership skills, or practical tips for running the club--that's where the IDEA Center wants to step in an help you. We try to help give any club founder all the tools they might need to start and run a succesful club and help promote a better understanding of the creation - evolution issue at their schools.

No more! The rules have been changed.

1) Having an interest in intelligent design and creation - evolution issues, and a willingness to learn more.

2) Agreeing with and being willing to uphold the IDEA Center's mission statement.

3) Having a desire and commitment to using these issues to educate and outreach to your fellow students, campus, or community.

4) IDEA Club leaders must advocate the scientific theory of intelligent design in the fields of biology and physics/cosmology.

5) There are no requirements regarding the religious beliefs of IDEA Club leaders or founders.

So now, instead of requiring Christianity, they require a) that one be an advocate of the "scientific theory of intelligent design" and b) that one agree with the IDEA center's mission statement. That's interesting; there is no scientific theory of intelligent design. There is no science behind it, and it doesn't qualify as a theory—even calling it a hypothesis is over-generous, since we typically expect even hypotheses to have some foundation in evidence and observation. That's strike one. What about that mission statement?

We believe that in the investigation of intelligent design the identity of the designer is completely separate from the scientific theory of intelligent design, since a scientific theory cannot specify the identity of the designer based upon the empirical data or the scientific method alone, and is not dependent upon religious premises; nonetheless, we consider it reasonable to conclude that the designer may be identified as the God of the Bible, while recognizing that others may identify the designer in a different way.

How cunning! They cut out the blatant religious requirement and buried it more subtly in the mission statement—if you don't think it reasonable to identify the designer as the God of the Bible, you aren't the kind of person they want running their clubs. I guess the Raelians are going to be disappointed.

Intelligent Design creationists do seem fond of sneaking their beliefs in through the back door, don't they?

It's also interesting how much they emphasize that absolutely no expertise is required to be a leader in the IDEA clubs. That's their clientele: people who know absolutely nothing about science, but are willing and eager to repudiate it.

139 Comments

They are so clumsy. I would be embarassed to be an ID proponent, if only just because of the cluminess and incompetence of the leadership.

Fourth Bruce: No. Right, I just want to remind you of the faculty rules: Rule One! Everybruce: No Poofters! Fourth Bruce: Rule Two, no member of the faculty is to maltreat the Abos in any way at all – if there’s anybody watching. Rule Three? Everybruce: No Poofters!! Fourth Bruce: Rule Four, now this term, I don’t want to catch anybody not drinking. Rule Five, Everybruce: No Poofters! Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO … Rule Six. Rule Seven, Everybruce: No Poofters!! Fourth Bruce: Right, that concludes the readin’ of the rules, Bruce. First Bruce: This here’s the wattle, the emblem of our land. You can stick it in a bottle, you can hold it in your hand. Everybruce: Amen!

It’s also interesting how much they emphasize that absolutely no expertise is required to be a leader in the IDEA clubs. That’s their clientele: people who know absolutely nothing about science, but are willing and eager to repudiate it.

Yup. Check out the comments to this Cornell Daily Sun article, in particular comment 24 by Lee Penick on 10/26/2005. Penick self-identifies as “president of the IDEA Club, Tri-Cities WA”, and his/her evidence for Intelligent Design is that he/she has never heard of the RNA World Theory, or even of reverse transcriptase:

Perhaps you could ask him for me, as a Darwinist, how does he explain the origin of information in DNA?

1) without DNA there is no self replication 2) without self replication there is no natural selection 3) so one can’t use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) we are trying to explain

Without the information in DNA to turn amino acids into proteins in the proper manner, provide assembly instructions, and build micro-machines for the cell, we wouldn’t have self replication.

The information came first. The real question is where did the information come from for the first DNA, or what is the origin of the information found in DNA? Darwinian Theory and natural selection can’t explain it, Intelligent Design theory can. …

Be sure to read all of his/her comments to realize the level of expertise he/she brings to the table.

Wink, wink.

Nudge, nudge.

Say no more, say no more.

People who buy into this stuff are so easily deceived, I sometimes wonder why I’m wasting my time and energy arguing the other side.

Chicks, money, cars could all be mine! I swear I could clean up!

…we consider it reasonable to conclude that the designer may be identified as the God of the Bible, while recognizing that others may identify the designer in a different way.

Either this is saying “we think the designer is the God of the Bible, but others can disagree”, or it’s saying “we recognise that some people think the designer is the God of the Bible”. If the first is true, then it clashes with Rule 5, and hence it is impossible to be a member without breaking the rules. If the second is true, then the qualification is unnecessary and confusing.

As an athiest, and an evil neo-Darwinist, I agree with that, under the second interpretation. Actually, I suspect that with a bit of care it would be possible to argue that someone on the anti-ID side could join an IDEA club. As there is no scientific ID theory (‘coz Judge Jones sez so), rule 4 is moot. Most of the mission statement say “this is what an IDEA club is”, and anyone can agree and can uphold it by saying “this is what my IDEA club does. I think it’s nuts, but I’m not going to stop anyone else doing it”.

Oh, and the last point in the mission statement could have done with a bit of proof-reading.

Bob

I was going to suggest that a link to the Internet Archive (“Wayback Machine”) might be better than the Google one because the next time Google crawls the site, its cache will be updated. But it turns out that the site’s robots.txt file specifically bars the Internet Archive’s robot. Now, I wonder why that might be.

It’s also interesting how much they emphasize that absolutely no expertise is required to be a leader in the IDEA clubs. That’s their clientele: people who know absolutely nothing about science, but are willing and eager to repudiate it.

Larry, you out there? I think we’ve found your home!

All they need is affiliation with the NRA, just to be ready, eh?

Salvador Cordova of the GMU IDEA club wrote that non-Christians cannot serve as officers in IDEA clubs without that club being a “renegade”:

Salvador T. Cordova Wrote:

if non Christians are elected to become [IDEA club] officers, the club can continue under it’s constitution, but it can no longer be a recognized as sanctioned chapter by the IDEA center in San Diego, but rather would have to delcare itself a renegade ID chapter.

What scientific movement or organization demands in its charter that it be managed only by members from a particular religious sect?

George Mason University has an anti-discrimination policy that reads

The University’s non-discrimination policy prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, disability, sexual orientation, veteran status, sex, or age.

For more information, see:

www.gmu.edu/facstaff/policy/sexb.html www.gmu.edu/equity/discrimination_prohibiting.shtml www.gmu.edu/facstaff/handbook/aA/discrimination.html

Did they change the Mission Statement in order to sneak the “God of the Bible” stuff in there, or did it always read that way?

1) without DNA there is no self replication 2) without self replication there is no natural selection 3) so one can’t use natural selection to explain the origin of DNA without assuming the existence of the very thing (DNA) we are trying to explain

Hey, he/she got one out of three right. Why are you being so hard on him/her? Must be your Darwinist, or even NeoDarwinist bigotry showing through.

And you call yourself a scientist? Hah! I don’t want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper. I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

[/sarcasm]

I can’t think of any reason a club which is primarily scientific, and not religious, in nature would have such a requirement, and I’m sure a judge will feel the same way. So the rule is just more foot-shooting by the incompetents.

not on topic

To: Rev Dr Lenny Flank

I used your question on the Evangelical Atheist board. I hope you don’t mind. It does clear the air properly.

I suspect Salvador may turn up sooner rather than later. I predict he will mention one or all of the following:

1) Caroline Crocker 2) Elsberry and Shallit’s ‘misrepresentation’ of Dembski 3) How many undergraduates are interested in ID. 4) How many postgraduates are interested in ID. 5) IDEA clubs are burgeoning. 6) How he simply presents both sides of the argument to his IDEA club members and encourages them to think critically and make up their own minds. 7) How many cosmologists support fine tuning. 8) How agrees with Eugenie Scott over the teaching of ID.

Have I missed anything.

IDEA Club leaders must advocate the scientific theory of intelligent design in the fields of biology and physics/cosmology.

The oxymoron (scientific theory of intelligent design) is obvious, but I thought I’d also point to the “advocate” word used, instead of something like “apply” or “use”. Gee, I wonder why they don’t require (as long as they’re blatantly partisan and theological) that the leaders must show their competence to use ID to explain phenomena, instead of merely “advocating” ID? Do they never wonder why we lack advocacy groups (unless one counts those defending science from attacks) for evolution?

One more thing:

since a scientific theory cannot specify the identity of the designer based upon the empirical data or the scientific method alone

They know this? Has any scientific theory been known to be unable to specify “the designer” of anything beforehand? I have seen statements like the quote above, however. These statements were metaphysical claims about God, such as in Plotinus and in Maimonides.

While I do not doubt that some designs could be known as such without knowing anything but the physics and some of the conditions governing the designer of them, it is precisely the physics of designers which allow for us to both understand design and designers (these terms beg scientific questions, and I use them only as shorthand). IDists already know that the “designer” cannot be known through scientific means alone, thus the physics governing “design” has also vanished into thin air as a guide to recognizing “design”.

I sometimes think that too much stress is placed upon the fact that IDists believe in the God of the Bible. Indeed they (almost always) do, as their follow-up statement demonstrates. However this God of the Bible is seen through the prism of metaphysics. To some degree this is the philosopher’s God, who they invoke in order to circumvent the claims of science, all the while they are claiming to be doing science. The humanoid God of Genesis is arguably within the realm of investigation, and thus the God of Genesis is developed (evolved?) into one who is beyond the realm of science.

Glen D http://tinyurl.com/b8ykm

It’s a very sneaky way of changing the words without the effect. But I think something’s going overlooked. Rule #5 contradicts the mission statement. Despite feigning religious plurality, the mission statement requires its leaders to consider the “God of the Bible” as being “reasonable”. The fifth rule specifies that there are no religious requirements. A person of the religious belief that the Christian God is an unreasonable designer could be barred from being a leader, simply on the basis of that religious belief.

This does seem to broaden IDEACenters’ criteria from only believers in a Trinitarian “God of the Bible” to now permit Jews and Muslims as leaders. Dembski’s recent powwow with the Lubavitchers somehow comes to mind. Da Big Tent, suffering some shrinkage after being bentDover, is in need of a bit of stretching.

SteveF: You missed “We ar wining the PR warr!”

SteveF: Have I missed anything(?)

You missed the number of dates he gets for being on the “correct” side of the issue.

Casey Luskin seems to still be the main contact. Does that mean that the Discovery Institute is controling the IDEA show, now?

They offer ideas for fund raising and they tell the rubes that it is a good idea to invite an ID expert to speak at campus even if it will cost them around $1,000 and food, lodging and travel expenses. Considering that about the only ID experts are the guys that the Discovery Institute sponsors, this seems to be pretty bogus. They ought to donate their time for educational purposes, considering what value they had for the Dover case. What are they doing with their Discovery Institute stipends? How could you ask for $1,000 bucks after a performance like Dover? A $60,000 stipends should be good for at least 20 appearances for the IDEA crowds.

All they need is affiliation with the NRA, just to be ready, eh?

They’re better off with Gun Owners of America —— its head, Larry Pratt, is a Christian Reconstructionist like Howie Ahmanson.

To: Rev Dr Lenny Flank

I used your question on the Evangelical Atheist board. I hope you don’t mind. It does clear the air properly.

Which question? I have lots. :)

I suspect Salvador may turn up sooner rather than later.

I hope so. I have a list of 36 questions waiting, that he (or at least the person CLAIMING to be him) ran away from the last time he was here.

to rev dr lenny flank

The question in question is “why should your opinion be more valuable than mine or the guy who delivers my pizza”

not to scale

On an almost-entirely-offtopic-but-not-quite note, does anyone know of any good online resources regards genetic algorithms? Have just offered to script one out for Salvador, to test whether RMNS evolution can generate CSI (no response yet cos I only just asked, but I’m fairly hopeful). I’d like to do a good convincing job but sadly have zero experience with the buggers.

Email exchange with the president of the Cornell IDEA club: I now learn that the IDEA center has required that its affiliate leaders be Christian, and recently covered up that fact by altering the requirements and moving christian references to the mission statement section. My question now is, were you aware of this when you became the leader of the Cornell IDEA club?

“Formerly (before this last week) the IDEA Center had the policy you mentioned. Our club at Cornell is definitely not religious – our members come from all points of view, and our treasurer, for instance, is a Muslim. At that time we had the following stance:

“As a club we feel that it is important to have a forum for discussion where we can freely discuss ID & evolution, in a reasoned and scientific way, regardless of possible personal philosophical or religious views. We’re voluntarily affiliated with the IDEA Center, but in any case where we would feel that we were discriminating against a qualified person from leadership, we would dissociate from them, according to our philosophy.”

The Center changed their policy this past week to remove their requirement. This is not, as Pharyngula suggested, an attempt to hide the requirement; but an actual change in policy; or perhaps rather a change in the rule book to reflect an attitude already present – the people I’ve spoken to there were very clear that they did not consider ID theory ‘Christian-owned’, though they have a policy about being careful to reveal any personal biases. I think any serious ID’er would probably have been able to get an exception fairly easily.

The mission statement referred to has not been changed; the phrase on “the God of the Bible” reflects only the personal beliefs of the IDEA Center staff. They have expressly told us there is now no religious requirement for chapters.

Sincerely,

Hannah Maxson IDEA Cornell”

Ummm, what can I say but how can someone get involved in such a club and not understand the christian origin of (and it seems, still the christian nuances within) ID?

My take on this: Tally up the attempts to further dissociate ID from religion, particularly christianity, following the KvD trial outcome. And other things that stick out, like Dembski quitting weblogging. Karl

Now that I think of it, hasn’t this change occured between Sallies bloviating on the topic before with the “non-Christians can’t lead an IDEA chapter without being it renegade” (Paraphrased) thing and in between that time the rules have changed? Quite odd that one. It’s still utterly hypocritical and demonstrates that it’s a religious movement and nothing scientific behind it. The only people who could still pheasibly lead an IDEA chapter are still Christians so the new language accomplishes little.

Requiring one to “advocate” a specific explanation for a phenomenon is enough to demonstrate that it’s a religious movement – and certainly not scientific. Even political non-religious organizations advocate policies, not factual claims. In any case, this requirement is the opposite of “discussion where we can freely discuss ID & evolution, in a reasoned and scientific way”.

Well, after a very careful reading of both the new rules and mission statement, I think some of you guys (at the risk of being shunned like LaLaLarry) are *pause for effect* wrong.

The IDEA rules are pretty specific about there not being any religious requirements for office, so let’s look at that pesky rule 2 - supporting the missing statement.

The quote that PZ highlighted was this one:

Something PZ Myers quoted Wrote:

We believe that in the investigation of intelligent design the identity of the designer is completely separate from the scientific theory of intelligent design, since a scientific theory cannot specify the identity of the designer based upon the empirical data or the scientific method alone, and is not dependent upon religious premises; nonetheless, we consider it reasonable to conclude that the designer may be identified as the God of the Bible[emphasis not mine], while recognizing that others may identify the designer in a different way.

I’d like to point out that the next clause in that sentence completely changes the meaning of what everyone here is trying to make it sound like they’re saying. They’re actually allowing for folks to define the designer in a way that isn’t the Christian God of the Bible, and the statement clearly indicates that it is only the writers of the mission statement (presumably the staff of the IDEA Center) that use that definition. Let’s not become guilty of one of the prinicipal crimes of the opposition - quote mining out of context.

That being said, it’s still not enough to slough off the religious overtones of the organization. They’re just allowing for wiggle-room in case Zues shows up at a meeting and says “Hey! Mine!”. It think the telling part is that the organization is using the personal beliefs of the staff to flesh out the mission statement. I mean let’s take a look at a different mission statement:

Ocean Bank of Florida Wrote:

Ocean Bank aspires to be one of the most financially sound, profitable banks in the Southern Florida market. The bank will grow by meeting the broad financial needs of local businesses, families, and other select customer groups in a most personal and professional manner.

(from http://www.oceanbank.com/89423.html)

Hmm…nothing in there about the personal beliefs of the staff or leaders of the organization. Let’s try again…how about one from a blatantly religious organization.

Reconciling Ministries Network Wrote:

Reconciling Ministries Network is a national grassroots organization that exists to enable full participation of people of all sexual orientations and gender identities in the life of the United Methodist Church, both in policy and practice.

(from http://www.rmnetwork.org/)

Wow - STILL nothing about what the members believe.

Just general statements about the what the organization is dedicated to.

Oh…wait. I just made the connection.

Greg H - Oh good, it’s not just me who can see that reading of the mission statement!

I’m not sure it’s quite so clear though. Who should the “we” in the mission statement refer to? Clearly it does refer to the original writers, but one could read rule 2 (Agreeing with and being willing to uphold the IDEA Center’s mission statement) as meaning that the “we” should also refer to a member too.

To be honest, I’m not sure which interpretation is correct: I think we’d need a grammarian or lawyer to sort this all out.

[sarcasm]It’s a good job IDEA members are science students, and not studying subjects like arts and humanities, where they would have to learn how to write properly.[/sarcasm]

Bob

savory…mmmmm.…as in the empanadas we used to eat when I was a kid…

The level of condescension here is typical, but perhaps I am guilty of the same.

Let me start again. 1. Someone said ID makes no predictions 2. I said that it does 3. I added a link to an ID site that listed some generic predictions, as well as links to Creationist sites that had more detailed predictions.

QED: Their models DO make testable predictions. (I included both because many people (erroneously) conflate ID and creationism. I probably fed into those misconceptions. My bad.)

Now, if you are convinced that some or all of these predictions have been disproved, you surely can claim that they are not true. But you can NOT claim that they make no predictions. That was the sum total of my submissions.

Other claims about evolutionist dogma, its impact on or relationship to religion, philosophy, or political science, were just free bonuses, as were my insults about dogmatism, patronizing attitudes, bias, and arrogance (if the shoe fits…).

And to the dude that called me “junior”, I’m probably older (41) than you, better looking, and not intimidated by your superior attitude - I’ve got one of my own, equally resilient against intellectual bullies ;).

And Arden, I’m sorry that I used the word “savory” in a way that you are unfamiliar with. http://www.answers.com/topic/unsavory (Morally offensive)

generic predictions

NO! you said these are TESTABLE predictions, more than once, in fact.

the links provided do NOT link to scientifically testable predictions.

but then, your gross misunderstanding of science itself led you down the primrose path you now follow, so i guess that shouldn’t surprise me.

You CAN fix this, if you are true to your handle, seeker.

go take another look at those predictions, then check out any presentation of the scientific method presented on this site, talk origins, ncse, AAAS, etc.

now having both in hand, compare and contrast.

are those “predictions” scientific in nature or not?

if not, are they then “testable” or not in this sense?

I’ll make it easy on you.

go grab your favorite, most important, ID “prediction” and I’ll be happy to attempt to apply the scientific method to it for you.

again, as someone asked earlier, unless you think there is some grand conspiracy extant amongst the entire scientific community to “hold down” *new* (read old, rehashed) ideas like, er, ID, you have to ask yourself the question:

why are there no results of testing the “predictions” you reference anywhere in the literature?

you don’t REALLY believe there to be some sort of grand conspiracy, do you?

hmm.

perhaps I’ll let your pal WD Dembski answer the question about the current state of research in ID for you:

(pardon’s to Wes for stealing this:)

In 1997, at the 1997 “Naturalism, Theism, and the Scientific Enterprise” conference ID advocates said that they didn’t have a scientific hypothesis of ID and a means of testing it, but that they were working on it.

Wesley Elsberry recently at the American Museum of Natural History Debate asked Dembski what progress ID had made in the intervening years. And here is Dembski’s response, verbatim:

WD: Well, let me answer you in two parts. One, if you throw enough money at researchers, you’ll be getting research, right. So I think, uh, I think the, you know, the, the research you’re citing, I don’t mean to dismiss it, I think there’s a lot of good stuff being done, but it’s certainly, the moneys, the research funds are the evolutionary side, we don’t have very much funding, we’re not getting funding from NSF and NIH, so it’s a mainly, mainly private at this point. And I would say yes, we have our work cut out for us. In 1997 we met at a conference, but there was a conference later that year that which was a private gathering, titled “A Consultation on Intelligent Design”, Where the idea was to try to jump start this as a research program. We weren’t there at the time. So, you know, I, I agree, we’ve got our work cut out for us, but, uh, we’re making some slow, slow progress. You know I think uh, we’re still at the point, I mean, I think that my, my work in No Free Lunch and um, Design Inference was trying to lay some theoretical foundations. And, Uh, you know. But I, I do see, there’s, there’s some good work being done, and, I can, I can list some for you. We are getting some stuff into the peer reviewed literature, it’s not, it’s not a whole lot, you know. So yeah, we’ve got our work cut out.

Yeah, lots of testable predictions ready to go to press!

ID is laughable, and I implore you to take a closer look before you continue any further down that road.

And Arden, I’m sorry that I used the word “savory” in a way that you are unfamiliar with. http://www.answers.com/topic/unsavory (Morally offensive)

Believe me, I was quite aware that that was how you meant the word.

If you thought I don’t know what that word means, your problems with understanding other people are worse than I thought.

actually, AC, i think you are onto something there with the savory thing.

ALL creationists are entirely subjective in their denouncement of ET.

to them it just “tastes bad”, i.e., it’s not “intuitive”.

seems to work on both levels, AFAICT.

empanadas… that reminds me, I’m hungry.

Re “but [evolution] has significant world view impact”

Yeah, evidence based descriptions of reality will do that, won’t they?

Henry

QED: Their models DO make testable predictions.

They’re all crap. And none of them are based on any “models”.

If you disagree, perhaps you’d be so kind as to tell me what, exactly, is this scientific theory of ID or creationism. … .

You’d be the first, in almost 25 years of asking. Care to give it a go?

And to the dude that called me “junior”, I’m probably older (41) than you

Wrong.

, better looking

Wrong again.

, and not intimidated by your superior attitude - I’ve got one of my own, equally resilient against intellectual bullies ;).

Alas for you, though, I have the advantages of (1) knowing what I’m talking about, and (2) being right. (shrug)

many people (erroneously) conflate ID and creationism

Would you mind explaining the difference, please?

I posit that every discipline of knowledge eventually dovetails with others, since all reality is actually a connected whole, not disparate in the way that we like to analyze things. The fact that evolution’s social, religious, ethical, and philosophic analogs, intended or not, are unsavory, leads me to conclude that evolution itself may be equally untrue or unsavory.”

Check this out, junior:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/nazis.htm

Seeker .…coffee break over …heads down.

Reality does taste very unsavory when every supporting structure of Fundamentalism is being called into question as “seeker” accurately points out. Fundamentalists have reduced their world view to a moral argument against reality of any sort by simplifying logic to a comparison between how they feel and distrust of their own intellectual reasoning.…making life very very difficult for themselves and the rest of the world.… creating a less than amusing desperation.

perhaps I’ll let your pal WD Dembski answer the question about the current state of research in ID for you:

Then we have:

“Intelligent design itself does not have any content.” – George Gilder, Discovery Institute

Easily the biggest challenge facing the ID community is to develop a full-fledged theory of biological design. We don’t have such a theory now, and that’s a real problem. Without a theory it’s very hard to know where to direct your research focus. Right now we’ve got a bag of powerful intuitions, and a handful of notions such as “irreducible complexity” and “specified complexity” - but as yet no general theory of biological design. – Paul Nelson, Discovery Institute Fellow

But wait, several of the people who testified for ID in front of the Kansas Kooks were also asked what their, uh, scientific theory of ID was:

Q. What’s your alternative explanation how the human species came into existence if it is not through common descent?

A. Design.

Q. And design would imply a designer?

A. Implies a designer, but we don’t go there. …

Q. Isn’t design a philosophical assumption?

A. No.

Q. How do we falsify the designer?

A. We don’t go there. We’re not going to talk about the designer. …

Q. So philosophically discuss it, but it’s not a good idea to interpose the supernatural in what should be a scientific process. Correct?

A. We’re not doing that.

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

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

Q. What is the alternative explanation for how the human species came into existence if you do not accept common descent?

A. Design.

Q. When did that design occur?

A. I don’t know.

Q. Who was the designer?

A. Science cannot answer that. When I’m teaching my class I do not answer that. (DeHart testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

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

Q. What is the alternative explanation that you propose then for human species?

A. Again, I’m a chemist, not a biologist.

Q. I didn’t ask you that. I asked you what is your explanation if you do not believe in common descent from prehominid ancestors?

A. I do not think the scientific evidence is sufficient to give an answer to that question.

Q. You have no personal view about that?

A. I have a personal view, but the question is what does science say.

Q. What is your personal view about that?

A. I– again, I do not believe that the scientific evidence is sufficient to rule out –

Q. I didn’t ask you scientifically. I’m asking you what is your personal opinion about that issue?

A. Again, I– at this point I do not believe in a natural explanation for the origin of humanity. (Millam testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

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

Q. What is your alternative explanation for how the human species came into being if not from a common descent from prehominids?

A. From science, I have no alternative explanation.

Q. In your personal opinion?

A. In my personal opinion, I believe there was an intelligent designer.

Q. And when did that intelligent designer create the human species?

A. I’m not sure.

Q. Now, that opinion that you have about intelligent design, that’s not based on science, correct?

A. Correct.

Q. That’s based upon your theistic views?

A. Correct. (Bryson testimony, Kansas Hearing transcript)

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

Q. Based upon your understanding, do you have an alternative explanation for the human species if not common descent from prehominid ancestors?

A. That is not my area of expertise. I work at the other end of the history of life, namely the origin of the first life in the Cambrian phylum.

Q. Do you have a personal opinion as to the question I have just proposed to you, which is if you do not believe that human beings have a common descent with prehominid ancestors, what is your personal alternative explanation for how human beings came into existence?

A. I am skeptical about the evidence for universal common descent and I’m skeptical about some of the evidence that has been marshaled for the idea that humans and prehominids are connected. But as I said, it wouldn’t bother me (unintelligible) stronger than I presently think.

Q. What is your personal opinion at this time?

A. That I’m skeptical about the Darwinian accounts of such things, but that it wouldn’t bother me if it turned out to be different. I think my– I also would tell you that humans and the rest of the non human living world, that humans have qualitatively different features that I think are very mysterious and hard to explain on any materialistic account of the origin of human life. …

Q. You think it’s wise for science without a supernatural model to attempt to answer those questions that we still don’t understand?

A. You know, I don’t really work in that area, so I’m not going to venture any more opinions about the topic.(Meyer testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

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

A. Intelligent design provides empirical scientific criteria for detecting design in nature. Detecting design but not detecting the designer. It’s quite true that science doesn’t have to be in the business of saying who the designer is. …

Q. What is the alternative explanation?

A. Well, there are a number of alternative explanations. Right now, as this book shows, there are views looking at self-organization, which don’t necessarily agree with that viewpoint. They may or they may not. But there is also the idea of design.

Q. And your opinion as to when that design occurred?

A. I don’t know. (Menuge testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

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

Q. It is true, is it not, that there is no such thing as an ID theory?

A. I wouldn’t say that. …

Q. It is true, is it not, that there is no theory?

A. I just said, no, I don’t believe that.

Q. You believe that there is a definable theory of Intelligent Design?

A. Yes, I do. It’s certainly in progress. I would not advocate putting it in the curriculum for reasons other people have given here. It’s a young theory. It hasn’t proved itself, it doesn’t deserve a place in the curriculum as a requirement. It’s an exciting theory and I think a robust one. …

Q. And would you agree that Intelligent Design must, in the end, conclude that a designer was involved?

A. A mind, yes. A designing mind. If something is actually designed, then a designing mind had to do it.

Q. But you’re not suggesting it was the design of man?

A. Designed by man?

Q. Yes.

A. Well, certainly before humans appear on the scene, no it couldn’t be.

Q. So the answer, which ID attempts to provide, is a supernatural one, is it not?

A. I won’t go there. (Wells testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

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

5 Q. What is your alternative explanation as to how human species came into existence?

A. During my power point presentation I discussed nothing about offering an alternative, I just simply stated that here’s the supporting and here is the information challenging –

Q. My question is, sir, if you do not accept, if you don’t– do not accept that there is a common descent to human existence, what is your alternative? I’m not asking you about your power point. I’m asking you what is your hypothesis for how we came to be?

A. Again, as I stated, that professionally– that’s something that– that is a different question I guess in terms of my professional, in terms of my personal opinion, that’s different. Again, I was asked to come out here and give my professional assessment, sir.

Q. Do you teach your students your personal opinion or do you attempt to teach your students what is the best of science?

A. As I said, I teach my students the four point– four –

Q. That’s not my question. Listen carefully.

A. All right.

Q. Do you teach your students your personal opinion or do you teach them what you believe is the best science?

A. I teach them actually what I believe is the best science, hence the scientific interpretation both supporting and scientific interpretation both challenging macroevolution. And that information has been generated by scientists, some of these scientists are here today. (Leonard testimony, Kansas Hearings transcript)

OK, Seeker, any time you’re ready to tell us what this “scientific model of ID” might be, you just go right ahead. OK? Maybe YOU can be the one to finally do what no other IDer in history has been able to do.

(sound of crickets chirping)

Yep, that’s what I thought.

seeker just out of interest In your own words how do you make a decision between a ‘lie’ and a ‘truth’?

This thread is another example of a basic problem. The scientists are playing one game–trying to figure out how nature works–while the creationists and I.D. people are playing another–apolegetics. It’s as if one side is playing chess, the other checkers so it’s no wonder if the biologists hereabouts are surprised when a guy like Seeker triumpantly yells out, “King me!” (Catholic anti-evolutionists probably shout “Bingo!”)

(Catholic anti-evolutionists probably shout “Bingo!”)

ba-dump-bump.

This thread is another example of a basic problem. The scientists are playing one game—trying to figure out how nature works—while the creationists and I.D. people are playing another—apolegetics. It’s as if one side is playing chess, the other checkers so it’s no wonder if the biologists hereabouts are surprised when a guy like Seeker triumpantly yells out, “King me!” (Catholic anti-evolutionists probably shout “Bingo!”)

True – but the difference is, scientists aren’t claiming to do religious apologetics.

Regarding evolution being a religion, it is not directly a religion, but it has significant world view impact and assumptions that must be generally accepted as part of the package - these can not be ignored.

Isn’t this also true of the heliocentric solar system? And every other scientific field and theory?

Posted by Bayesian Bouffant, FCD on January 13, 2006 11:47 AM (e) (s) … Isn’t this also true of the (1)heliocentric solar system? And every other scientific field and (2)theory?

Now that is just plain unfair. Fancy using:

1. A long word and 2. A scientific word seeker probably does not understand.

Stephen Elliot Wrote:

Do you seriously believe that every biologist in the world is in some sort of conspiracy?

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank Wrote:

Wait, wait —- let me guess. The judges are all a part of the vast international centuries-old conspiracy of evolutionist dogmatists intent on keeping their religion, er, assumptions, as pre-eminent in science, and shutting down any real criticism.

Hush guys, you might give it away. Then I’d have to call for your expulsion from ‘The Club’.

Then I’d have to call for your expulsion from ‘The Club’.

Note that MY name is prominently mentioned here, in this classic episode from “The Simpsons” (the most subversive show on TV, ever):

All: Who controls the British crown? Who keeps the metric system down? We do! We do! Karl: Who leaves Atlantis off the maps? Lenny: Who keeps the Martians under wraps? Alien: We do! We do! All: Who holds back the electric car? Who makes Steve Gutenberg a star? We do! We do! Skinner: Who robs cavefish of their sight? Homer: Who rigs every Oscar night? All: We do! We do!

;)

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PZ Myers published on January 8, 2006 1:50 PM.

Happy Birthday Jacob Bronowski was the previous entry in this blog.

Intelligent Design offers biblical alternative to Darwinian evolution, Dembski says 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