NCSE: Proving ID = Creationism

| 46 Comments

expelled movie exposedNCSE’s staff worked behind the scenes in the archives to find the missing links tying “intelligent design” to its creationist ancestry.

An outstanding video explaining how through hard work, the NCSE staff uncovered the missing link “cdesign proponentist” (oops they already mutated from their native form “cdesign proponentsists”).

46 Comments

So this is the evolution of Creationism! LOL!!!

Isn’t that “cdesign proponentsists”?

Dale Husband said:

So this is the evolution of Creationism! LOL!!!

Not to split hairs, but wouldn’t it be the evolution of ID.

Also, it’s “cdesign proponentsists” instead of “cdesign proponentists”. I got corrected on this once before :)

The incompetence of the DI is still funny either way.

This is a very elegant, totally damning dismantlement of any pretense ID had of not being creationism, relabeled. Of course our friends here will deny this, but the link is so clearly demonstrated that the bar is set very high if not too high for ID to prove it is not religiously based.

dpr

So, OPAP (and what pap it is), says birds etc. appeared with all their features intact. Behe says he accepts common descent…how much and from what? The single pair of ur-birds that Noah took on the ark? The ones that had already diverged into crows and doves 40 days later?

Go Eugenie!

I’m not particularly enamored of this argument because all it proves is historical antecedent. By the same logic, astronomy = astrology. The easy answer is “we’ve moved beyond our early positions.” Also, we’ve only attached some ID proponents to biblical creationism. Here, ID benefits from having no memetic LUCA (pace Phillip Johnson), but a lot of horizontal crank transfer.

David vun Kannon, FCD said:

I’m not particularly enamored of this argument because all it proves is historical antecedent. By the same logic, astronomy = astrology. The easy answer is “we’ve moved beyond our early positions.” [snip]

In the case of astrology and astronomy, the content changed along with the name. The point of the video was that, with ID, precious little else changed beyond the name.

Nobody goes to a bar and asks for your astronomical sign (at least, not on purpose).

Simpsons episode tonight about teaching creationism in school!

David vun Kannon, FCD said: “Also, we’ve only attached some ID proponents to biblical creationism. Here, ID benefits from having no memetic LUCA (pace Phillip Johnson), but a lot of horizontal crank transfer.”

True that the apologists will take that tack, but with the other well-documented links between ID cheerleaders and Christian Fundamentalism, the data stack up pretty quick. Think of it as another nail in the coffin, or stake in the vampire’s heart.

It’s an incremental process. To my mind, we shouldn’t neglect any opportunity or tool to educate people about ID’s scientific vacuity.

Kudos to the NCSE for their hard work.

wright said:

David vun Kannon, FCD said: “Also, we’ve only attached some ID proponents to biblical creationism. Here, ID benefits from having no memetic LUCA (pace Phillip Johnson), but a lot of horizontal crank transfer.”

True that the apologists will take that tack, but with the other well-documented links between ID cheerleaders and Christian Fundamentalism, the data stack up pretty quick. Think of it as another nail in the coffin, or stake in the vampire’s heart.

It’s an incremental process. To my mind, we shouldn’t neglect any opportunity or tool to educate people about ID’s scientific vacuity.

Kudos to the NCSE for their hard work.

i think at this point there are MORE nails than coffin. how anyone could not connect religion and ID are beyond me.

still things like this help. many people are ignorant of the reality of evolution. my school didn’t even cover it, just skipped over it. you learned about it in the advanced classes, but even then it was only a chapter. most of what i learned i had to do my self.

if all i had was the high school data i could see how i could be taken in by the ID people. however i made a point to continue learning beyond what i learned in school. others just left it at that.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that ID has now presented revolutionary ideas in science. Even then, it is difficult to see, why those ideas should immediately take the major part in the textbooks in schools.

Perhaps ID truly overturns the current paradigms in science? Then, it might be justified to rewrite all the textbooks.

For a revolutionary theory, ID makes very few verifiable predictions based on the ID hypothesis. Supporters of the ID do make many predictions, some of which are possibly true (e.g. that we are likely to encounter phenomena that we do not understand). I have counted zero verifiable predictions based on the ID theory this far.

It might, indeed, be possible that “cdesign proponentsists” do have goals other than advancing science.

Eric Finn said:

It might, indeed, be possible that “cdesign proponentsists” do have goals other than advancing science.

Such as “destroying materialism” and reintroducing Jesus into everyone’s lives whether they want to or not?

It shows how ID is nothing more than creation replaced with intelligent design when the courts ruled against creationism

David vun Kannon, FCD said:

I’m not particularly enamored of this argument because all it proves is historical antecedent. By the same logic, astronomy = astrology. The easy answer is “we’ve moved beyond our early positions.” Also, we’ve only attached some ID proponents to biblical creationism. Here, ID benefits from having no memetic LUCA (pace Phillip Johnson), but a lot of horizontal crank transfer.

yes even the Discovery Institute has given up on hiding the creationist origins and foundations of ID. They announced a presentation about ID and theology

“Is Intelligent Design Bad Theology?” CSC Fellow Dr. Jack Collins

Thursday, May 22, 4:30 - 6:00 p.m. Discovery Institute

scott said:

wright said:

David vun Kannon, FCD said: “Also, we’ve only attached some ID proponents to biblical creationism. Here, ID benefits from having no memetic LUCA (pace Phillip Johnson), but a lot of horizontal crank transfer.”

True that the apologists will take that tack, but with the other well-documented links between ID cheerleaders and Christian Fundamentalism, the data stack up pretty quick. Think of it as another nail in the coffin, or stake in the vampire’s heart.

It’s an incremental process. To my mind, we shouldn’t neglect any opportunity or tool to educate people about ID’s scientific vacuity.

Kudos to the NCSE for their hard work.

i think at this point there are MORE nails than coffin. how anyone could not connect religion and ID are beyond me.

still things like this help. many people are ignorant of the reality of evolution. my school didn’t even cover it, just skipped over it. you learned about it in the advanced classes, but even then it was only a chapter. most of what i learned i had to do my self.

if all i had was the high school data i could see how i could be taken in by the ID people. however i made a point to continue learning beyond what i learned in school. others just left it at that.

Eric Finn said:

It might, indeed, be possible that “cdesign proponentsists” do have goals other than advancing science.

DUH!!!!

PvM said:

It shows how ID is nothing more than creation replaced with intelligent design when the courts ruled against creationism

David vun Kannon, FCD said:

I’m not particularly enamored of this argument because all it proves is historical antecedent. By the same logic, astronomy = astrology. The easy answer is “we’ve moved beyond our early positions.” Also, we’ve only attached some ID proponents to biblical creationism. Here, ID benefits from having no memetic LUCA (pace Phillip Johnson), but a lot of horizontal crank transfer.

No, it showed that OPAP is a creationist book. Latecomers to the ID game could claim (claim mind you) that they were unaware of ID’s prior association with anything more religious than UFO-ology, or they are standing in a different corner in the Big Tent of ID.

No, it showed that OPAP is a creationist book. Latecomers to the ID game could claim (claim mind you) that they were unaware of ID’s prior association with anything more religious than UFO-ology, or they are standing in a different corner in the Big Tent of ID.

Never mind that it was ‘sold’ as an intelligent design text book.

Stanton said: …reintroducing Jesus into everyone’s lives whether they want to or not?

Re: “reintroducing” - What about innocent non-Christians (Dante’s “righteous pagans”) and innocent children (all of whom are born with no religion) who have never been introduced for the first time? Do the Christian Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists have a right to tailor public school curricula to “reintroduce” Jesus?

Paul Burnett said:

Stanton said: …reintroducing Jesus into everyone’s lives whether they want to or not?

Re: “reintroducing” - What about innocent non-Christians (Dante’s “righteous pagans”) and innocent children (all of whom are born with no religion) who have never been introduced for the first time? Do the Christian Reconstructionists and Theocratic Dominionists have a right to tailor public school curricula to “reintroduce” Jesus?

Yes, they will be (re)introduced to Jesus, whether they want to or not, as according to Phillip E. Johnson. According to the Dominionists, like Ahmanson or Rushdoony, people would have the right to refuse Jesus, but, only at the price of waiving their right to live.

Eric Finn: (e.g. that we are likely to encounter phenomena that we do not understand)

As if that “prediction” would come as a surprise to anybody with sense. ;)

(Yet lists of unanswered (or that they think are unanswered) questions do seem to comprise a large fraction of their “arguments”… )

Henry

Oops.

David vun Kannon Wrote:

I’m not particularly enamored of this argument because all it proves is historical antecedent. By the same logic, astronomy = astrology. The easy answer is “we’ve moved beyond our early positions.” Also, we’ve only attached some ID proponents to biblical creationism.

I’m quite tired of it too. Granted, it’s necessary, and still a relative secret among the general public, but for the love of God, why do they always stop there, when the best part follows?

ID not only “is” creationism in the sense that it shared a common goal of promoting unreasonable doubt about evolution, but ID, and the “don’t ask, don’t tell” creationism that evolved into it (via “cdesign proponentsists”) are also an admission that classic creationism (YEC and OEC) are complete scientific failures. Even before the courts made it strategically necessary to use replace “creation” language with “design” language, there was this matter of YEC and OEC “what and when” claims (all legal to be taught, AIUI) simply not fitting the evidence, and contradicting each other to boot.

So I caution all readers that anyone who sounds like he personally believes YEC or OEC, but belongs to an organization that peddles “don’t ask, don’t tell,” could be reasonably suspected of just telling his audience what he thinks they want to year. And baiting critics as a bonus.

Vince said:

Eric Finn said:

It might, indeed, be possible that “cdesign proponentsists” do have goals other than advancing science.

DUH!!!!

I had to resort to Google to interpret your message.

From urbandictionary dot com:

DUH

Originally an insult. It is the sound that a mentally handicapped person makes. In the beginning, the word was complete with a hand gesture of smacking your wrist across your chest. Means “obviously”.

Textbooks need to be updated to better reflect the current understanding, or the current technology to reproduce high-quality images.

It has been said that the theory of relativity revolutionised physics. Why do we still study classical mechanics? Why relativity is not introduced in the elementary schools? It is conceptually rather easy. True, the mathematics is a bit heavy.

It is very difficult for me to understand, why any scientific discovery should first be introduced in schoolbooks, even before presenting those ideas in scientific arenas, such as journals or conferences.

David vun Kannon, FCD said:

PvM said:

It shows how ID is nothing more than creation replaced with intelligent design when the courts ruled against creationism

David vun Kannon, FCD said:

I’m not particularly enamored of this argument because all it proves is historical antecedent. By the same logic, astronomy = astrology. The easy answer is “we’ve moved beyond our early positions.” Also, we’ve only attached some ID proponents to biblical creationism. Here, ID benefits from having no memetic LUCA (pace Phillip Johnson), but a lot of horizontal crank transfer.

No, it showed that OPAP is a creationist book. Latecomers to the ID game could claim (claim mind you) that they were unaware of ID’s prior association with anything more religious than UFO-ology, or they are standing in a different corner in the Big Tent of ID.

Initially I felt the same. However, the social dynamic is such that most ID gamers are religious and the movement act as a religious movement in following its socio-political goals. Lately few of the cranks claims to be non-religious, and virtually all seems to accept that they are bona fide creationists when described as such.

I don’t see the harm in taking the fumbled ball. Now it is up to them to prove that ID isn’t a religious movement.

Eric Finn said: It has been said that the theory of relativity revolutionised physics. Why do we still study classical mechanics? Why relativity is not introduced in the elementary schools? It is conceptually rather easy. True, the mathematics is a bit heavy.

FWIW I agree, but it is hard to find clear cut analogies. Classical mechanics is a basis for the rest, as for example AFAIU Hamiltonians are used in QFT. Relativity isn’t introduced because it isn’t needed to understand basic everyday mechanics. Albeit it would be nice to “teach the alternatives” it is probably confusing at that stage.

Haven’t we had a PT discussion on how to teach evolution? I assume you could cover the basics without going into details of all the mechanisms, roughly corresponding to leaving special relativity out.

Suppose creationism against all evidence and science would be found to magically happen in some places (as that is the alternative when evolution explains the overall pattern et cetera) it would resemble, I dunno, communist economies as opposed to market economies. Would that be taught early as an “alternative” outside of mentioning it, just because it happens, works by “outside” forces, and the result is crap by design?

Frank J said: … Even before the courts made it strategically necessary to use replace “creation” language with “design” language, there was this matter of YEC and OEC “what and when” claims (all legal to be taught, AIUI) simply not fitting the evidence, and contradicting each other to boot. …

Not quite, Frank. The teaching of YEC and OEC in state-funded schools was ruled unconstitutional (IIRC, it was Edwards vs Aguillard, 1986, but don’t quote me on that). This is because they promote one religion above all others, and the first amendment prohibits congress from favouring any particular religion above any other.

This was the selection pressure that altered “creationist” into “cdesignproponentsist” into “IDiot”.

The current ID proponents (like Behe) are no more “creationists,” especially YECs and/or those that don’t acknowledge common descent, than humans are chimps. As we all know, everything evolves, and what we have today is an evolved ID that has a healthy skepticism regarding what RM+NS can reasonably be expected to have accomplished in the less than 10^40 cells in Earth’s 4 billion year history. Got that everyone? The only issue is what RM+NS can reasonably be expected to have accomplished in the evolution of life.

Hell, even a hardcore neo-Darwinian like Kenneth Miller believes in design, since, after all, he is a Catholic/theist of sorts; it’s just that he probably sees design (or fine tuning) apparently only as far as the BB and the laws of nature/physics, whereas ID proponents see design a bit further down. So really it’s just a matter of degree.

Of course I realize that many here are, more accurately, atheist neo-Darwinians, and that in the atheist’s accidental and/or infinite multiverse world, RM+NS is all there is or ever could be, and suggesting that RM+NS might be limited is often viewed as being a sacrilege of sorts.

David vun Kannon, FCD said:

I’m not particularly enamored of this argument because all it proves is historical antecedent. By the same logic, astronomy = astrology. The easy answer is “we’ve moved beyond our early positions.”

But it is obvious that they have not done this. They use the same bogus arguments, the same faulty math, the same endless whining about nonexistent persecution. You can still find pretty much every pitiful excuse for an ID argument in the Index of Creationist Claims. They still get most if not all of their support from religious extremists. They haven’t improved the content, it’s just a bait-and-swich scam. They’ll lie and say it’s not creationism, but any meaningful comparison will expose the lie.

bigbang said:

The current ID proponents (like Behe) are no more “creationists,” especially YECs and/or those that don’t acknowledge common descent, than humans are chimps. As we all know, everything evolves, and what we have today is an evolved ID that has a healthy skepticism regarding what RM+NS can reasonably be expected to have accomplished in the less than 10^40 cells in Earth’s 4 billion year history. Got that everyone? The only issue is what RM+NS can reasonably be expected to have accomplished in the evolution of life.

Translation: No, no, no, design is not religion!

Hell, even a hardcore neo-Darwinian like Kenneth Miller believes in design, since, after all, he is a Catholic/theist of sorts; it’s just that he probably sees design (or fine tuning) apparently only as far as the BB and the laws of nature/physics, whereas ID proponents see design a bit further down. So really it’s just a matter of degree.

Translation: Yes, yes, yes, design is religon!

You can’t even keep your story straight within a single post!

bigbang said:

The current ID proponents (like Behe) are no more “creationists,” especially YECs and/or those that don’t acknowledge common descent, than humans are chimps. As we all know, everything evolves, and what we have today is an evolved ID that has a healthy skepticism regarding what RM+NS can reasonably be expected to have accomplished in the less than 10^40 cells in Earth’s 4 billion year history. Got that everyone? The only issue is what RM+NS can reasonably be expected to have accomplished in the evolution of life.

No, actually that isn’t ID’s issue. There is already quite vigorous debate within the field of evolutionary biology over how much of an impact natural selection actually has in evolution and the relative importance of other mechanisms like neutral selection and whatnot. I’m not a biologist and my only real exposure to this since high school biology has been reading stuff on the web, and even I get that.

ID’s issue is the claim that there is scientific evidence of purposeful design in the history of life, which is being suppressed by an all powerful “Darwinist” cabal. This conveniently ignores the fact that ID proponents have their own forums outside the control of the nefarious “Darwinists” where they can put up whatever data their hearts desire, yet so far all they do is make bogus negative arguments against evolution.

Hell, even a hardcore neo-Darwinian like Kenneth Miller believes in design, since, after all, he is a Catholic/theist of sorts; it’s just that he probably sees design (or fine tuning) apparently only as far as the BB and the laws of nature/physics, whereas ID proponents see design a bit further down. So really it’s just a matter of degree.

There’s a big difference between claiming that God created the universe and claiming that you have successfully dusted for His fingerprints.

Nigel D Wrote:

Not quite, Frank. The teaching of YEC and OEC in state-funded schools was ruled unconstitutional (IIRC, it was Edwards vs Aguillard, 1986, but don’t quote me on that). This is because they promote one religion above all others, and the first amendment prohibits congress from favouring any particular religion above any other.

This was the selection pressure that altered “creationist” into “cdesignproponentsist” into “IDiot”.

But the pre-Edwards OPAP drafts still show a clear “evolution” from YEC or OEC to “don’t ask, don’t tell.” AIUI, even the “features intact” language does not specifically commit to independent abiogenesis of “kinds,” either at the same time in natural history, as YEC and some OEC forms contend, or progressively, as “progressive OEC” contends.

If even one of those positions had some evidence to back it up, it would be legal to teach it - on its own merits of course, not based on cherry-picked and/or fabricated “weaknesses” of evolution, or of course, on scripture. But none did, and worse, the disagreements between YECs and OEC was not going away. Nor were the “inconvenient” false-dichotomy busting positions of Goldschmidt, and Schwabe and Senapathy (note: the last 2 were published later, but must have been anticipated by more astute creationists).

Clearly, with or without legal obstacles, a new obfuscation scheme was needed.

bigbang said: The current ID proponents (like Behe) are no more “creationists,” especially YECs and/or those that don’t acknowledge common descent, than humans are chimps.

YEC’s are explicitly creationist. (And IDiots implicitly so.) I guess that explains why humans and chimps share 99.9 % of of genes, not evolution.

You can’t even keep your story straight within a single sentence!

bigbang said: As we all know, everything evolves, and what we have today is an evolved ID that has a healthy skepticism regarding what RM+NS can reasonably be expected to have accomplished in the less than 10^40 cells in Earth’s 4 billion year history. Got that everyone?

Tell that to your fellow creationists. You know, those who can’t keep their stories straight.

Just for kicks, on quantifying the genome undergoing evolution, I get from ~ 10^9 bacterias/liter and ~ 10^10 viruses/liter sea water (as lateral transfer of protein genes from viruses is an important mechanism) that we have ~ 1.1*10^10*1.3*10^21 or ~ 10^31 individual genomes at any given time, discounting the vast biomass in rocks and on ground.

A conservative estimate is that bacterias and viruses multiply every 48 hours, giving us at least 10^31*150*4*10^9 or roughly 10^43 replications during the biosphere history. Not counting in between variation, sexuality, a lot of lateral transfers and some endosymbiosis.

Seems you forgot some evolutionary events there. And that has still nothing to say on the rate of evolution, which AFAIU when measured conveniently fits the predictions from population genetics models.

bigbang said: The only issue is what RM+NS can reasonably be expected to have accomplished in the evolution of life.

No, that isn’t an ID issue. That falls entirely within evolutionary theory, which predicts no such issue.

As Boo notes, the current ID issue, which never is positive testable claims from research, seems to be a blood libel on science by way of argumentum ad Nazium. Or haven’t you kept up with your creationism?

bigbang said:

Of course I realize that many here are, more accurately, atheist neo-Darwinians, and that in the atheist’s accidental and/or infinite multiverse world, RM+NS is all there is or ever could be, and suggesting that RM+NS might be limited is often viewed as being a sacrilege of sorts.

Not ‘sacrilege’, just WRONG.

Vic said:

bigbang said:

Of course I realize that many here are, more accurately, atheist neo-Darwinians, and that in the atheist’s accidental and/or infinite multiverse world, RM+NS is all there is or ever could be, and suggesting that RM+NS might be limited is often viewed as being a sacrilege of sorts.

Not ‘sacrilege’, just WRONG.

I agree with big-bang. Why is it so ‘wrong’ to SUGGEST that RM+NS might be wrong? Why is it sealed off from examination?

bobby said:

Vic said:

bigbang said:

Of course I realize that many here are, more accurately, atheist neo-Darwinians, and that in the atheist’s accidental and/or infinite multiverse world, RM+NS is all there is or ever could be, and suggesting that RM+NS might be limited is often viewed as being a sacrilege of sorts.

Not ‘sacrilege’, just WRONG.

I agree with big-bang. Why is it so ‘wrong’ to SUGGEST that RM+NS might be wrong? Why is it sealed off from examination?

Very simple answer: it’s not. Examine away.

bobby said:

Why is it so ‘wrong’ to SUGGEST that RM+NS might be wrong? Why is it sealed off from examination?

If you actually knew how to read, rather than just trolling here, you would have already realized that any scientist is free to challenge any scientific theory he/she/it thinks is wrong. But the catch is that the scientist must provide evidence that the theory is wrong, and must be able to adequately explain that evidence. If you do not provide any evidence, other scientists have absolutely no reason to listen to you. If you can not explain your evidence adequately or correctly, you will be laughed off stage, as was the case when Sir Fred Hoyle tried to promote his space virus hypothesis by claiming Archaeopteryx was a fraud.

Furthermore, the theory of Random Mutation and Natural Selection is not sacrosanct: it just happens to be the primary influence of evolution. And if you actually knew how to read, you would have also known about the effects Genetic Drift has on evolution.

bigbang said:

The current ID proponents (like Behe) are no more “creationists,” especially YECs

Aren’t these the same people who shamelessly pander to YECs for money and support?

Bobby foolishly asks

I agree with big-bang. Why is it so ‘wrong’ to SUGGEST that RM+NS might be wrong? Why is it sealed off from examination?

It is not sealed off from examination but ID is motivated religiously to suggest that RM+NS must be wrong since we could not possibly be the outcome of a random (and purposeless) process.

Have you noticed that ID is not interested in evolutionary theory but just the Darwinian part of it.

There is nothing wrong with suggesting that RM+NS may be wrong but a mere suggestion is the best ID has to offer.

Stanton Wrote:

Aren’t these the same people who shamelessly pander to YECs for money and support?

Yes, and the same ones who let them pay the legal fees when they lose court cases.

So, John McCain has decided to reject the endorsement of fundamentalist Pastor John Hagee.

The Huffington Post has published a recording of Hagee saying that Adolf Hitler had been fulfilling God’s will by hastening the desire of Jews to return to Israel in accordance with biblical prophecy.

How odd. I recall Expelled saying that Hitler et al was all the fault of those damned atheist Darwinists. Now at least some fundamentalists see it as all part of God’s own master plan! Some not singing from the same hymn sheet, it appears?

Nonsense. Got anything real?

What do you think the relevance of this article is?

How scary! Religion is being taught in our public schools! Something must be done. Creationism = ID, and creationism is a religion, therefore ID must be kept out of schools. Logical, to be sure.

But what about evolution? It, of course, is simply pure science, right? Wrong. Just like creationism stems from the theological belief of theism, evolution stems from the theological belief in atheism. It’s simply a battle of Theos (God) vs. a (no) Theos (God). Evolution is a religion as much as creationism is. However, in an attempt to get it taught in our schools, the NCSE and others attempt to fudge that fact. Clearly, under the video’s own arguments and firm belief in separation of church and state, evolution should not be taught in our schools. But then, creationism should not either. So what to do? Schools exist to educate children, not propagate them. So if we wish to school the next generation properly, Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium, cosmic evolution, creationism, and ID (along with any other theories about the origin of life) should all be taught alongside each other in an unbiased manner. It is either that or science should not be taught in school, if it cannot be done properly.

Of course, the easiest solution would be to abolish our public schools, but that is a discussion for another day.

HowScary, you are an idiot if you assume that either Evolution or Atheism are religions, and you are a really big idiot to suggest that we abolish public schools to satisfy the separation of church and state. There is nothing theological about either. One is the inherited changes seen in generations of organisms, or the branch of Biology devoted to studying such changes, and the other is the assumption that there is no God or other supernatural entities due to a lack of evidence.

Or, would you prefer that we also abolish Agriculture, Animal Husbandry, and Medicine to satisfy separation of church and state, too?

Seriously, go crawl back under the rock you came from.

HowScary said:

But what about evolution? It, of course, is simply pure science, right? Wrong. Just like creationism stems from the theological belief of theism, evolution stems from the theological belief in atheism.

Evolution is a religion as much as creationism is.

Yawn.

No.

Once again, slowly. Science is not religion because it never uses the phrase “believe this”. Everything science claims is either empirically verifiable through actual measurement or clearly labeled as extrapolation from verifiable measurement.

It may compete, in your mind, with your religion. It certainly outperforms religion when asked to actually accomplish anything. But that does not imply equality.

You may not choose to accept the fact that empirical evidence exists, and that it may be methodically examined, and when it is examined it invariably comes down on the side of Darwinian evolution and against “poof”, but it does.

And that’s why your petulant whining about “science is just another religion” has never been taken seriously by any court that has ever examined the claim.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by PvM published on May 21, 2008 12:45 PM.

Expelled gone missing… was the previous entry in this blog.

From RNA to Humans: A symposium on evolution 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