Re: [OriginsTalk] Design W/O a Designer?
- *_Anti-Designers are the ones who want to avoid asking the questions
that would be embarrassing to themselves. For example, I'm not
embarrassed at all to tell you who the Designer is, no problem, just
ask. It's trying to change the subject.
The ADAC's (Anti-Design and anti-creationists), by pretending to change
the subject to "Who", thereby attempt to (1)_leave the science out of
it, and (2)_change the argument to a theological one, and (3)_then
denounce it as an argument from religion.
That way, they can avoid facing the reality of the science, and avoid
having to actually face the embarrassing question of "Who" that they
pretend to be asking.
>>Phil S:See how the only examples of design ever given by ID theorists are human
artifacts & machines already known to be designed (just like Paley's
watch) and where we already know that humans (or some humanoid creature)
can design things? In the case of the computer, the designer is already
understood. In the case of organic systems, the "Designer" is hidden
from view to keep people from asking embarrassing questions about it.
**__"....Or some humanoid creature..." Eh? ROTFL! How would you know? If
SETI suddenly caught bleeps that occurred in series of prime numbers, as
in very ADAC Carl Sagan's fiction "Contact", you would not know one
stupid little thing about whether the "Designer" of this intelligently
constructed design was even "humanoid" or not! ROTFL!
Sagan cannot be accused of creationism or even ID advocacy, but he
certainly knows, as do all the participants in SETI who have any
intelligence at all, they all would be able to tell you exactly how they
intend to tell the difference, and after that, they'll even tell you
there might even be other ways they don't even know about!
This demand is ONLY made of creationists, and it's a circular argument.
Demand to get the subject off of science and change it to theology, so
they can claim that it's a discussion about theology.
Nice trick, doesn't work. Try to avoid the Designer by pretending to
demand discussing the Designer. ROTFL!
So who's hiding what? Somebody hiding behind the straw man, and it isn't
ID'ers, who actually dispute the Who while agreeing on the What, nor is
it (Biblical) creationists like myself, who (myself for example) have
introduced several hundred people to the Who Himself.
I invite you and any others to accept facing up to the facts of the
science so you too can then actually consider the very question you
pretend to ask but are so much afraid of.
Fearful IDists can't meet ethics challenge in Dallas
Advocates of intelligent design at the Discovery Institute have been
rattled by the strong showing of scientists at Southern Methodist
University who called their bluff, and questioned SMU for hosting an
ID conference this week. SMU's officials pointed out they were just
renting out facilities, and not hosting the conference at all.
The ID conference, with special religious group activities preceding
it, is scheduled for April 13 and 14 at SMU. It is a rerun of a
similar revival held in Knoxville, Tennessee, last month. The
conference features no new scientific research, no serious science
sessions with scientists looking at new research, or new findings
from old data.
In return, ID advocates "challenged" scientists to show up at a
creationist-stacked function Friday evening. To the best of my
knowledge, all working scientists declined the invitation, on the
understanding that in science, there is no debate.
This morning's Dallas Morning News features the expected desperation
move by Discovery Institute officials Bruce Chapman and John West.
They accuse the scientists of being "would-be censors."
This is highly ironic coming from the group that spent tens of
thousands of dollars trying to convince the Texas State Board of
Education to censor and bawdlerize Texas biology books in 2003.
But go read the stuff for yourself. Some of us have real work to do
today, and there is not time for the appropriate, godly Fisking this
piece deserves right now. (Readers? Friends?)
My dander is up, however, and I offer a counter challenge:
Discovery Institute, what is it you're afraid of? Let's meet, and
discuss the ethical challenges you've experienced in this discussion.
Specifically, let's discuss:
One, your misrepresentation of the science of Darwin, and your
repeated attempts to mislead school officials - remember the claim in
Ohio that federal law requires discussion of intelligent design? Was
that a hoax that fell flat, or an honest misunderstanding? In any
case, we still await your disowning of the falsehood, years later.
Two, your support of unethical screeds against science and
scientists. I'll mention one here: You need to disown the dishonest
and unethical work of Jonathan Wells. Look at his book, Icons of
Evolution, which is promoted at your website. I call your attention
to his chapter of misinformation against the work of Bernard
Kettlewell on peppered moths. Check out the citations in his chapter.
If one believes his footnotes, there are many scientists who support
his views on Kettlewell's pioneering and still valid work. You need
to acknowledge that the footnotes are ethically challenged; you need
to acknowledge in print that each of the scientists involved, and
others, have disowned Wells' work and said that his claims
misrepresent their work and the status of science. In polite,
scientific terms, these people have called Wells a prevaricator. You
still promote his screed as valid.
Three, your support of name-calling must stop. Especially, you need
to pull your support from books, conferences, and editorial pieces
that say evolution was a cause of the Holocaust. The attempts to
connect Darwin to Hitler are scurrilous, inaccurate, unethical and
Chapman, West, the Methodist Church does not endorse your views on
evolution, and if they understood your tactics I suspect they would
disown your tactics as well. You are guests on a campus that does
serious science work and also hosts people of faith. You need to
bring your organizations ethical standards up to a higher level.
You want a debate? The science journals are open - the federal courts
have repeatedly found that claims of bias against you are completely
unfounded (untrue, that is . . . well, you understand what I'm trying
to say politely, right?). The journals await your research reports.
All of science has been awaiting your research reports for years, for
decades. (Here's one famous case: "Three Years and Counting," at
Pharyngula (a science-related blog run by an evolutionary biologist).
You want to debate? Stop hurling epithets, and bring evidence.
As an attorney, parent, teacher, and reader of Texas biology
textbooks, I'd be pleased to debate your need to change your ways.
The debate needs to focus on your methods and ethics. Are you up to
Earlier posts of interest:
* "Duty to speak against intelligent design."
* "Have you spoken against intelligent design or other
dangerous superstition today?"
* A pig that won't fly.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]