Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

FW: proper test of ID

Expand Messages
  • Popplestone, Ann
    Ouch! ... From: Andrew Petto [mailto:editor@ncseweb.org] Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:00 PM To: sciedu-l@ouvaxa.cats.ohiou.edu Subject: proper test of ID
    Message 1 of 3 , Nov 2, 2005
      Ouch!



      -----Original Message-----
      From: Andrew Petto [mailto:editor@...]
      Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:00 PM
      To: sciedu-l@...
      Subject: proper test of ID

      From another list.

      +++++++++

      The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

      Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution
      versus
      Intelligent Des---

      (Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

      Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

      (Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

      Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

      Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly,

      all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For
      example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I
      am
      holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a
      mere
      preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap
      was
      designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current
      situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic"
      explanation
      you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating
      pain
      that you are experiencing right now.

      Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

      Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the

      random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this
      particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this
      hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed

      that way!

      Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

      Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain?
      Frankly,
      I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you
      should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all:
      the
      breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and
      run
      it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it
      wouldn't
      prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even
      get
      into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into
      existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my

      alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

      Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me
      a
      doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how
      that
      plays in court!

      Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen,
      when
      push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually
      believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes
      to
      matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method,
      testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they
      strongly
      privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or
      metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of
      their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy,
      ridiculous
      arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind
      of
      felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so
      terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments
      backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue,
      then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid
      you
      adieu.



      +++++

      --
      Andrew J Petto, PhD
      Editor, National Center for Science Education
      editor@...
      c/o Department of Biological Sciences
      University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
      PO Box 413
      Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
      414.229.6784
      fax: 414.229.3926
      Those who can, teach; those who can't, shouldn't.
      ---Leon Lane
    • Dorothy Davis DDBRUNER
      FYI The current issue of Natural History Magazine is devoted to evolution. They did a terrific job and anyone who teaches the four fields should buy it.. I
      Message 2 of 3 , Nov 2, 2005
        FYI
        The current issue of Natural History Magazine is devoted to evolution.
        They did a terrific job and anyone who teaches the four fields should buy
        it.. I especially enjoyed reading the comments about the Stupid Design
        Theory.



        Dorothy Davis
        Anthropology Department
        UNCG
        Tel- 256-1099



        "Popplestone, Ann" <ann.popplestone@...>
        Sent by: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
        11/02/2005 01:34 PM
        Please respond to
        SACC-L@yahoogroups.com


        To
        <sacc-l@yahoogroups.com>
        cc

        Subject
        [SACC-L] FW: proper test of ID







        Ouch!



        -----Original Message-----
        From: Andrew Petto [mailto:editor@...]
        Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:00 PM
        To: sciedu-l@...
        Subject: proper test of ID

        From another list.

        +++++++++

        The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

        Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution
        versus
        Intelligent Des---

        (Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

        Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

        (Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

        Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

        Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly,

        all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For
        example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I
        am
        holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a
        mere
        preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap
        was
        designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current
        situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic"
        explanation
        you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating
        pain
        that you are experiencing right now.

        Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

        Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the

        random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this
        particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this
        hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed

        that way!

        Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

        Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain?
        Frankly,
        I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you
        should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all:
        the
        breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and
        run
        it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it
        wouldn't
        prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even
        get
        into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into
        existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my

        alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

        Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me
        a
        doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how
        that
        plays in court!

        Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen,
        when
        push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually
        believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes
        to
        matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method,
        testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they
        strongly
        privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or
        metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of
        their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy,
        ridiculous
        arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind
        of
        felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so
        terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments
        backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue,
        then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid
        you
        adieu.



        +++++

        --
        Andrew J Petto, PhD
        Editor, National Center for Science Education
        editor@...
        c/o Department of Biological Sciences
        University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
        PO Box 413
        Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
        414.229.6784
        fax: 414.229.3926
        Those who can, teach; those who can't, shouldn't.
        ---Leon Lane




        Be sure to check out the SACC web page at www.anthro.cc (NOTE THE NEW
        ADDRESS!!) for meeting materials, newsletters, etc.
        Yahoo! Groups Links









        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Pamela Ford
        Thanks for the heads up. Pamela Ford Chair, Department for World Studies Mt. San Jacinto College 1499 N. State Street San Jacinto, CA 92583 800.624-5561 x
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 2, 2005
          Thanks for the heads' up.

          Pamela Ford
          Chair, Department for World Studies
          Mt. San Jacinto College
          1499 N. State Street
          San Jacinto, CA 92583
          800.624-5561 x 1533
          909.487-6752 x 1533


          -----Original Message-----
          From: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com [mailto:SACC-L@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
          Dorothy Davis DDBRUNER
          Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:53 AM
          To: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
          Subject: Re: [SACC-L] FW: proper test of ID

          FYI
          The current issue of Natural History Magazine is devoted to evolution.
          They did a terrific job and anyone who teaches the four fields should buy
          it.. I especially enjoyed reading the comments about the Stupid Design
          Theory.



          Dorothy Davis
          Anthropology Department
          UNCG
          Tel- 256-1099



          "Popplestone, Ann" <ann.popplestone@...>
          Sent by: SACC-L@yahoogroups.com
          11/02/2005 01:34 PM
          Please respond to
          SACC-L@yahoogroups.com


          To
          <sacc-l@yahoogroups.com>
          cc

          Subject
          [SACC-L] FW: proper test of ID







          Ouch!



          -----Original Message-----
          From: Andrew Petto [mailto:editor@...]
          Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 9:00 PM
          To: sciedu-l@...
          Subject: proper test of ID

          From another list.

          +++++++++

          The only debate on Intelligent Design that is worthy of its subject

          Moderator: We're here today to debate the hot new topic, evolution
          versus
          Intelligent Des---

          (Scientist pulls out baseball bat.)

          Moderator: Hey, what are you doing?

          (Scientist breaks Intelligent Design advocate's kneecap.)

          Intelligent Design advocate: YEAAARRRRGGGHHHH! YOU BROKE MY KNEECAP!

          Scientist: Perhaps it only appears that I broke your kneecap. Certainly,

          all the evidence points to the hypothesis I broke your kneecap. For
          example, your kneecap is broken; it appears to be a fresh wound; and I
          am
          holding a baseball bat, which is spattered with your blood. However, a
          mere
          preponderance of evidence doesn't mean anything. Perhaps your kneecap
          was
          designed that way. Certainly, there are some features of the current
          situation that are inexplicable according to the "naturalistic"
          explanation
          you have just advanced, such as the exact contours of the excruciating
          pain
          that you are experiencing right now.

          Intelligent Design advocate: AAAAH! THE PAIN!

          Scientist: Frankly, I personally find it completely implausible that the

          random actions of a scientist such as myself could cause pain of this
          particular kind. I have no precise explanation for why I find this
          hypothesis implausible --- it just is. Your knee must have been designed

          that way!

          Intelligent Design advocate: YOU BASTARD! YOU KNOW YOU DID IT!

          Scientist: I surely do not. How can we know anything for certain?
          Frankly,
          I think we should expose people to all points of view. Furthermore, you
          should really re-examine whether your hypothesis is scientific at all:
          the
          breaking of your kneecap happened in the past, so we can't rewind and
          run
          it over again, like a laboratory experiment. Even if we could, it
          wouldn't
          prove that I broke your kneecap the previous time. Plus, let's not even
          get
          into the fact that the entire universe might have just popped into
          existence right before I said this sentence, with all the evidence of my

          alleged kneecap-breaking already pre-formed.

          Intelligent Design advocate: That's a load of bullshit sophistry! Get me
          a
          doctor and a lawyer, not necessarily in that order, and we'll see how
          that
          plays in court!

          Scientist (turning to audience): And so we see, ladies and gentlemen,
          when
          push comes to shove, advocates of Intelligent Design do not actually
          believe any of the arguments that they profess to believe. When it comes
          to
          matters that hit home, they prefer evidence, the scientific method,
          testable hypotheses, and naturalistic explanations. In fact, they
          strongly
          privilege naturalistic explanations over supernatural hocus-pocus or
          metaphysical wankery. It is only within the reality-distortion field of
          their ideological crusade that they give credence to the flimsy,
          ridiculous
          arguments which we so commonly see on display. I must confess, it kind
          of
          felt good, for once, to be the one spouting free-form bullshit; it's so
          terribly easy and relaxing, compared to marshaling rigorous arguments
          backed up by empirical evidence. But I fear that if I were to continue,
          then it would be habit-forming, and bad for my soul. Therefore, I bid
          you
          adieu.



          +++++

          --
          Andrew J Petto, PhD
          Editor, National Center for Science Education
          editor@...
          c/o Department of Biological Sciences
          University of Wisconsin - Milwaukee
          PO Box 413
          Milwaukee WI 53201-0413
          414.229.6784
          fax: 414.229.3926
          Those who can, teach; those who can't, shouldn't.
          ---Leon Lane




          Be sure to check out the SACC web page at www.anthro.cc (NOTE THE NEW
          ADDRESS!!) for meeting materials, newsletters, etc.
          Yahoo! Groups Links









          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




          Be sure to check out the SACC web page at www.anthro.cc (NOTE THE NEW
          ADDRESS!!) for meeting materials, newsletters, etc.
          Yahoo! Groups Links
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.