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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 3 , Nov 2, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      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.