From: Todd S. Greene
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009 8:43 AM
Subject: Demented creationist propaganda: "Imminent collapse of evolution"
Demented creationist propaganda: "Imminent collapse of evolution"
Yeah, those zany creationists have only been saying this for over a hundred years, which just goes to show how much these guys adore saying anything they feel like saying to try to prop up their false religious dogma no matter how far out of touch with reality it is.
The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism
by Glenn R. Morton
We ridicule and scoff at the sheer idiocy of the disingenuous
> "We're not pushing creationism"
antics of the Discovery Institute intelligent design creationists who are all the time pretending to not be creationists even when they're RIGHT IN THE ACT of pushing THE SAME OLD IGNORANTLY DELUSIONAL RHETORIC that creationists have been pushing for decades!
(Are these Discovery Institute guys really that stupid? Either stupid or deceitful, and they don't want us to think they're just out-and-out lying, so what does that leave?)
(Not to mention the fact that a number of the official Discovery Institute CSC Fellows are not just any creationists but are the worst kind in particular:
> Young earth creationists!
And ID creationists have been in cahoots with young earth creationists from the get-go. In the words of John Derbyshire writing in the National Review,
> "creationists have been morally
> corrupted by the constant effort
> of pretending not to be what they
> are. What they are, as is amply
> documented, is a pressure group
> for religious teaching in public schools"
> ["A Blood Libel on Our Civilization: Can
> I expell Expelled?", National Review,
Anyway, where's the beef?
Where is the professional science research from intelligent design creationists, proving that ID really is part of science today and thereby *demonstrating* that it should be included in public school science classes?
Oh, right, there isn't any.
There never was any.
And if there ever is any in the future it certainly won't come from these creationist charlatans.
ID creationists never had any real intention of ever even attempting to produce any actual science research in the first place because all of them - every last one of them down to the last man and woman - knows for a fact that what they're pushing has nothing to do with genuine professional science research and everything to do with them engaging in the typical creationist charade of merely pretending their religion-motivated ideas are "scientific" for the purpose of pushing their religious agenda.
- Todd Greene
Put your affairs in order, biologists. Your time is nigh!
by P. Z. Myers
Blog: Pharyngula, 6/22/2009
[link may be line-wrapped]
We only have a month or two left. I have been reminded of a prediction made in the July/August 2004 issue of Touchstone magazine. Brace yourselves
| Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?
| What new issues will it be exploring, and what new
| challenges will it be offering Darwinism?
| Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism -
| the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex
| molecular structures at the subcellular level - will be
| dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will
| experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary
| biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I
| therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism
| in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course
| profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however,
| will require talented new researchers able to move this
| research program forward, showing how intelligent design
| provides better insights into biological systems than the
| dying Darwinian paradigm.
Man, I'm glad I'll be on sabbatical. It'll give me a year to patch up the radical changes I'll have to make in all of my courses after the ID revolution comes. The rest of you are going to be coming back to rubble in September.
Although, I should also mention that the very next paragraph in that article is the one credible paragraph Paul Nelson ever wrote.
| Nelson: 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 right 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.
Almost five years on, still no theory.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]