Skip to main content
No. of Recommendations: 4
COLUMBUS, Ohio, Feb. 13 — A majority of members on the Board of Education of Ohio, the first state to single out evolution for "critical analysis" in science classes more than three years ago, are expected on Tuesday to challenge a model biology lesson plan they consider an excuse to teach the tenets of the disputed theory of intelligent design.

A reversal in Ohio would be the most significant in a series of developments signaling a sea change across the country against intelligent design — which posits that life is too complex to be explained by evolution alone — since a federal judge's ruling in December that teaching the theory in the public schools of Dover, Pa., was unconstitutional.



About time ID is relegated to the realm of occultism where it belongs.

Gunnar

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
"About time ID is relegated to the realm of occultism where it belongs."

I think ID should be taught in public school as an alternative. I don't know in what class or in what capacity or in what way. I guess I really don't care either way.

But every time I read a response like the above, I sense fear in those who are so against ID. Not those who have a rational argument against ID, but those who feel that they have to resort to hyperbole.

In fact, it is ironic that naturalists have now become like the old creationists when it come to public schools. The creationists of old did everything they could to keep evolution out of schools out of fear of a new idea.
If ID is nonsense as you believe, it will ultimately fail. As always the superior idea will prevail. School is all about searching and expanding one's knowledge, not "hiding" other ideas.

So I ask, what do you fear?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 10
In fact, it is ironic that naturalists have now become like the old creationists when it come to public schools. The creationists of old did everything they could to keep evolution out of schools out of fear of a new idea.
If ID is nonsense as you believe, it will ultimately fail. As always the superior idea will prevail. School is all about searching and expanding one's knowledge, not "hiding" other ideas.


ID already has failed: in the ten year since Darwin's Black Box was published, there have been numerous papers in professional journals refuting it. Behe made a prediction, that irreducible complexity existed at the biochemical level, and this prediction was tested by his peers, and found to be incorrect. When Behe says that all the papers presented at the Dover trial about the evolution by natural selection of the immune system are "not good enough" he is just pouting.

So I ask, what do you fear?

What I fear is that US science literacy will fall even farther behind relative to other countries. I fear that this will erode whatever technological and economic advantages we still retain in the post-Cold-War world. I am particualarly concerned from a national security standpoint about our status relative to China in the coming decades.

The Discovery Institute has an explicit mission to rewrite the very definition of science to reflect its own religous point of view. The only real value remaining in ID is its ability to sound scientific enough to the general public (as opposed to professional scientists) to act as a Trojan Horse for this endeavor. If they are successful I don't see how any good could come from it, it would be the repudiation of the very dispassionate scientific method that our country's greatness is built upon.

I say all this as a committed Christian. Conversion should not be attempted through diversion. IMO the dishonesty and subterfuge of the ID movement's goals would cheapen if not desecrate whatever superficially spiritual results might come from it, quite aside from it being a lousy concept and goal from a secular viewpoint.

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Behe made a prediction, that irreducible complexity existed at the biochemical level, and this prediction was tested by his peers, and found to be incorrect.

I'm sorry, this wasn't correct. Behe said that natural selection cannot produce irreducible structures or mechanisms on the cellular scale, and his peers produced examples where it did. Behe made a global statement and a counter-example was found. The way I phrased it put the burden on Behe's peers to cover all the examples, when the way Behe set it up one counter example suffices.

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
ID already has failed: in the ten year since Darwin's Black Box was published, there have been numerous papers in professional journals refuting it. Behe made a prediction, that irreducible complexity existed at the biochemical level, and this prediction was tested by his peers, and found to be incorrect. When Behe says that all the papers presented at the Dover trial about the evolution by natural selection of the immune system are "not good enough" he is just pouting.


I read that there is a new edition of DBB coming out this year, and Behe has added an appendix looking at the research that has been done since 1996.

Doubt there will be anything new to add that we don't already know . . . there have been no detailed explanations of how any IC systems could have evolved, just comforting fairy tales.

What I fear is that US science literacy will fall even farther behind relative to other countries. I fear that this will erode whatever technological and economic advantages we still retain in the post-Cold-War world. I am particualarly concerned from a national security standpoint about our status relative to China in the coming decades.


Cause and effect, Joe. What is the connection between critically examining darwinism and our national security? Public education, with it's federally-mandated position on science, teaches kids to "shut up and believe what we tell you". Not a recipe for teaching them to creatively solve problems that they will face in the future.

Maybe this is why our science education if falling behind, kids are not allowed to question, teachers are not allowed to challenge them to develop critical thinking skills.

Here is an interesting article that contrasts the two approaches:

My daughter is a 7th grader at a local Christian grade school. A few evenings ago I took her out for her favorite dinner of Alaskan king crab & key lime pie. Just for grins I asked her to “tell me what you know about evolution”.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/806

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
School is all about searching and expanding one's knowledge, not "hiding" other ideas.

Some of the supporters behind ID don't agree with you. Their goals are not to offer ID as an alternative, but to have ID replace Evolution in schools. They have long term goals for other areas of Science as well.

How do I stop these people from ruining science in our schools, while allowing alternative viewpoints from more reasonable theists?


===============================
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Governing Goals

- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
===============================
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Cause and effect, Joe. What is the connection between critically examining darwinism and our national security?

While I am admittedly invoking a slippery slope, "critically examining darwinism" is an ID smoke-and-mirrors buzzword that I really dislike.

I think we can agree that darwinism enjoys a reputation as a theory among the professional scientific community similar to general relativity even if we disagree that it merits it. Just this week I read about a proposed modification to it that might remove the need to invoke exotic dark matter to explain galaxy and galaxy cluster lensing and rotation rates. (I didn't save the link because it had too few details, it was just a press release.) The difference between this kind of critical examination of GR and the "critical examination" of darwinism that you are suggesting is that this puts forth testable predictions that might better explain the mechanisms behind natural phenomena, while ID is merely a negative response to darwinism and doesn't replace it with a more useful explanation for biodiversity. These Chinese guys are indeed critically examining GR, but ID is only criticizing darwinism and not at all constructively.

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
So I ask, what do you fear?

School curriculums determined by political action groups.

The vast majority of scientists have concluded that ID is not a credible scientific theory. So why should one include ID in a school curriculum, let alone a science course?

It seems reasonable to me that the experts in the field should determine what should be taught in that field, whether it be math, history, english, and yes, even science.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Some of the supporters behind ID don't agree with you. Their goals are not to offer ID as an alternative, but to have ID replace Evolution in schools.

This is not supported in the document you link. In fact, it would be hard for ID to replace evolution in schools, since ID includes everything from evolution with a solid foundation.

Take this quote, from the document:

6. Ten states begin to rectify ideological imbalance in their science curricula & include design theory

"Including design theory" does not sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.

I know this will fall on deaf conspiracy-theory ears.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
The difference between this kind of critical examination of GR and the "critical examination" of darwinism that you are suggesting is that this puts forth testable predictions that might better explain the mechanisms behind natural phenomena, while ID is merely a negative response to darwinism and doesn't replace it with a more useful explanation for biodiversity. These Chinese guys are indeed critically examining GR, but ID is only criticizing darwinism and not at all constructively.


Even if I grant your characterization of the situation, saying "Look, it doesn't work" without an alternative is better than pretending everything is just fine.

You can set up any number of comparisons between ID and darwinism that make your position look good . . . it still won't make darwinism correct.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
"Including design theory" does not sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.

I know this will fall on deaf conspiracy-theory ears.


"Governing Goals:
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
-- The Wedge Strategy

"If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy."
-- William Dembski

Gee, that DOES sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.

Conspiracy theories don't sound so crazy when there is a deliberately stated conspiracy.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Conspiracy theories don't sound so crazy when there is a deliberately stated conspiracy.

Bingo.

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
Public education, with it's federally-mandated position on science, teaches kids to "shut up and believe what we tell you".

I think you are going off the deep end on this one. The decisions that ID doesn't pass scientific muster and that supernatural causation is not part of science only means that science has standards, not that it has suddenly become tyrannical. There are many genuine scientific questions that can be used to develop critical reasoning skills without having to talk about religion.

I also suspect that if you look at the list of countries that do a better job teaching science, very few have ID as part of their curriculum.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Bryan: "Including design theory" does not sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.

Kazim:
"Governing Goals:
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
-- The Wedge Strategy

"If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy."
-- William Dembski

Gee, that DOES sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.


Now you must have noticed that "evolution" does not appear anywhere in the material you quoted.

Are you now conflating evolution with Darwinism? The fact that change happens is not the same thing as explaning how that change occured. Darwinism is just one explanation. That explanation can be tossed, and replaced with something better, but you will still be dealing with the same facts of the fossil record and DNA.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I also suspect that if you look at the list of countries that do a better job teaching science, very few have ID as part of their curriculum.

You can't blame ID for poor results in teaching science. Remember, it's not in schools yet. You have an unproven, hysterical theory that teaching ID alongside Darwinism will widen the gap further. How do you know that?

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I think you are going off the deep end on this one. The decisions that ID doesn't pass scientific muster and that supernatural causation is not part of science only means that science has standards, not that it has suddenly become tyrannical.

We also don't screen Roadrunner cartoon in physics class and teach our kids that life really works like that. It's The Man, I tell ya. He grinds us down.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Are you now conflating evolution with Darwinism?

You're splitting hairs. It's creationists and IDists who do that. To them, Darwinism is a derogatory word for evolution. In the sense that any scientist would use the word, "Darwinism" is not taught in schools anyway.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
You can't blame ID for poor results in teaching science. Remember, it's not in schools yet. You have an unproven, hysterical theory that teaching ID alongside Darwinism will widen the gap further. How do you know that?

Because... that's exactly what the very people attempting to get it into the curriculum say they want to do?

I know, I know, I'm just a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
You can't blame ID for poor results in teaching science. Remember, it's not in schools yet. You have an unproven, hysterical theory that teaching ID alongside Darwinism will widen the gap further. How do you know that?

It's not my theory and not what I said.

I'm just pointing out that other countries seem to be able to teach science well without including ID.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

School curriculums determined by political action groups.

The vast majority of scientists have concluded that ID is not a credible scientific theory. So why should one include ID in a school curriculum, let alone a science course?

It seems reasonable to me that the experts in the field should determine what should be taught in that field, whether it be math, history, english, and yes, even science.


democracy in action .... in a democracy, if "the folkers" pay for the schools, they get to decide what's taught.

if they want a theocracy, they get to decide that.


=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
democracy in action .... in a democracy, if "the folkers" pay for the schools, they get to decide what's taught. if they want a theocracy, they get to decide that.

Not in a constitutional democracy where the constitution guarantees freedom of religion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Are you now conflating evolution with Darwinism?

You're splitting hairs. It's creationists and IDists who do that. To them, Darwinism is a derogatory word for evolution. In the sense that any scientist would use the word, "Darwinism" is not taught in schools anyway.


Ok, but Dembski is an IDist and a creationist (according to you), so the important thing is how HE uses the word, and apparently you acknowledge that he makes a distinction. So you've effectively argued my point for me, that Dembski doesn't mean "evolution" when he says "darwinism". If you disagree, then tell me, how does Dembski define "Darwinism"? You implied that Dembski's statement about defeating Darwinism was the same as throwing out evolution. Can you back that up with details about what Dembski means?

Next, tell me please what Darwinism means "in the sense that any scientist would use the word", and what points in Darwinism are "not taught in schools".

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You have an unproven, hysterical theory that teaching ID alongside Darwinism will widen the [science education] gap further.

I would suggest that you also campaign for astrology to be taught in sociology and psychology classes. Astrology definitely has something to say about why people behave the way they do that is adds a different perspective to what the professional community in these disciplines accepts, so introducing astrology into these classes would defintely accomplish critical examination of the gullibly swallowed mainstream theories. Behe said in Dover that the changes in science curricula standards that ID movement suggests also would allow astrology into the science classroom, so why not try the opposite tack, get astrology into the classroom and ID can follow on its coattails. Astrology doesn't have all the political baggage of the natural selection/design controversy and would be an easier foot in the door I would think. It seems like the ID movement is missing out on a wonderful opportunity here.

- Joe
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0

democracy in action .... in a democracy, if "the folkers" pay for the schools, they get to decide what's taught. if they want a theocracy, they get to decide that.

..........
Not in a constitutional democracy where the constitution guarantees freedom of religion.


Constitutions can be Amended.
Constitutions can be ignored.

so far, lower Courts are beating back ID, sooner or later the issue will get to the Supremes and we shall see.


=
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
This is not supported in the document you link.

I quoted the relevant part. Interpret it how you wish.


To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

===============================
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.html
Governing Goals

- To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
- To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
===============================


"hurnan beings"?



i liked this line........

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.


-
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok, but Dembski is an IDist and a creationist (according to you), so the important thing is how HE uses the word, and apparently you acknowledge that he makes a distinction.

I don't know how you even GOT that from my post. I don't see how I could have gotten much clearer than "To them, Darwinism is a derogatory word for evolution."

If you're going to argue cute semantic points, I'm already bored.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1

i liked this line........

Design theory promises to reverse the stifling dominance of the materialist worldview, and to replace it with a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.

Yup, that's a great one.
Science limiting itself to laws of nature is bad. The supernatural must be allowed.
But, oh yes, let's limit the supernatural to Christian and theistic convictions.

T.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
so far, lower Courts are beating back ID, sooner or later the issue will get to the Supremes and we shall see.

Fair enough. Ultimately though I think this issue will be settled for economic reasons. As we continue to shift away from manufacturing, jobs in this country will shift to either low-pay service or high pay technology.

Scientists and science companies are not going to be attracted to areas that are seen as antagonistic to science. A university in a state that mandates some form of creationist education will have problems attracting quality faculty. A school district that must entertain supernatural causation in its science curriculum will not be the first choice of science teachers.

In a competitive, free market society, stepping backwards often incurs a large cost.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I would suggest that you also campaign for astrology to be taught in sociology and psychology classes.

Thanks, Joe, I'll add that to my list of lost causes to waste time on.

Just as soon as astrologers publish their research in scientific peer-reviewed venues, and have actual scientists with actual, relevant degrees.

Then maybe I'd pay attention.

Behe said in Dover that the changes in science curricula standards that ID movement suggests also would allow astrology into the science classroom,. . .

What are you talking about?

Bryan

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I quoted the relevant part. Interpret it how you wish.

I'm a modernist, not a postmodernist. I don't interpret people's words to suit my fancy, I make an honest effort to try to figure out what they meant.

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
I'm a modernist, not a postmodernist. I don't interpret people's words to suit my fancy, I make an honest effort to try to figure out what they meant.

Why not give us your understanding of what the phrase means:

To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

What is the "materialistic explanations" referred to?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Here is the portion of the cross-examination of Michael Behe (A) by the attorney Rothmiller (Q) that discusses astrology. I've tried to include enough testimony to give an accurate context.


Q I'll be happy to read the question and answer to you. I asked you whether intelligent design -- I asked actually on the top of 133, I asked you whether intelligent design qualifies as a scientific theory using the National Academy of Sciences definition.

A What line is that, I'm sorry?

Q That's 133, line 18.

A Is that going -- question beginning, "Going back to the National Academy of Science?"

Q Yes. And you first said, "I m going to say that I would argue that in fact it is." And that's 134, line ten.

A Yes.

Q Okay. And I said, "Intelligent design does meet that?" And you said, "It's well substantiated, yes." And I said, "Let's be clear here, I'm asking -- looking at the definition of a scientific theory in its entirety, is it your position that intelligent design is a scientific theory?" And you said, going down to line 23, "I think one can argue these a variety of ways. For purposes of an answer to the -- relatively brief answer to the question, I will say that I don't think it falls under this." And I asked you, "What about this definition; what is it in this definition that ID can't satisfy to be called a scientific theory under these terms?" And you answer, "Well, implicit in this definition it seems to me that there would be an agreed upon way to decide something was well substantiated. And although I do think that intelligent design is well substantiated, I think there's not -- I can't point to external -- an external community that would agree that it was well substantiated."

A Yes.

Q So for those reasons you said it's not -- doesn't meet the National Academy of Sciences definition.

A I think this text makes clear what I just said a minute or two ago, that I'm of several minds on this question. I started off saying one thing and changing my mind and then I explicitly said, "I think one can argue these things a variety of ways. For purposes of a relatively brief answer to the question, I'll say this." But I think if I were going to give a more complete answer, I would go into a lot more issues about this.

So I disagree that that's what I said -- or that's what I intended to say.

Q In any event, in your expert report, and in your testimony over the last two days, you used a looser definition of "theory," correct?

A I think I used a broader definition, which is more reflective of how the word is actually used in the scientific community.

Q But the way you define scientific theory, you said it's just based on your own experience; it's not a dictionary definition, it's not one issued by a scientific organization.

A It is based on my experience of how the word is used in the scientific community.

Q And as you said, your definition is a lot broader than the NAS definition?

A That's right, intentionally broader to encompass the way that the word is used in the scientific community.

Q Sweeps in a lot more propositions.

A It recognizes that the word is used a lot more broadly than the National Academy of Sciences defined it.

Q In fact, your definition of scientific theory is synonymous with hypothesis, correct?

A Partly -- it can be synonymous with hypothesis, it can also include the National Academy's definition. But in fact, the scientific community uses the word "theory" in many times as synonymous with the word "hypothesis," other times it uses the word as a synonym for the definition reached by the National Academy, and at other times it uses it in other ways.

Q But the way you are using it is synonymous with the definition of hypothesis?

A No, I would disagree. It can be used to cover hypotheses, but it can also include ideas that are in fact well substantiated and so on. So while it does include ideas that are synonymous or in fact are hypotheses, it also includes stronger senses of that term.

Q And using your definition, intelligent design is a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes.

Q Under that same definition astrology is a scientific theory under your definition, correct?

A Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless would fit that -- which would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and many other -- many other theories as well.

Q The ether theory of light has been discarded, correct?

A That is correct.

Q But you are clear, under your definition, the definition that sweeps in intelligent design, astrology is also a scientific theory, correct?

A Yes, that's correct. And let me explain under my definition of the word "theory," it is -- a sense of the word "theory" does not include the theory being true, it means a proposition based on physical evidence to explain some facts by logical inferences. There have been many theories throughout the history of science which looked good at the time which further progress has shown to be incorrect. Nonetheless, we can't go back and say that because they were incorrect they were not theories. So many many things that we now realized to be incorrect, incorrect theories, are nonetheless theories.

Q Has there ever been a time when astrology has been accepted as a correct or valid scientific theory, Professor Behe?

A Well, I am not a historian of science. And certainly nobody -- well, not nobody, but certainly the educated community has not accepted astrology as a science for a long long time. But if you go back, you know, Middle Ages and before that, when people were struggling to describe the natural world, some people might indeed think that it is not a priori -- a priori ruled out that what we -- that motions in the earth could affect things on the earth, or motions in the sky could affect things on the earth.

Q And just to be clear, why don't we pull up the definition of astrology from Merriam-Webster.

MR. ROTHSCHILD: If you would highlight that.

BY MR. ROTHSCHILD:

Q And archaically it was astronomy; right, that's what it says there?

A Yes.

Q And now the term is used, "The divination of the supposed influences of the stars and planets on human affairs and terrestrial events by their positions and aspects."

That's the scientific theory of astrology?

A That's what it says right there, but let me direct your attention to the archaic definition, because the archaic definition is the one which was in effect when astrology was actually thought to perhaps describe real events, at least by the educated community.

Astrology -- I think astronomy began in, and things like astrology, and the history of science is replete with ideas that we now think to be wrong headed, nonetheless giving way to better ways or more accurate ways of describing the world.

And simply because an idea is old, and simply because in our time we see it to be foolish, does not mean when it was being discussed as a live possibility, that it was not actually a real scientific theory.

Q I didn't take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A I'm sorry?

Q I did not take your deposition in the 1500s, correct?

A It seems like that.

Q Okay. It seems like that since we started yesterday. But could you turn to page 132 of your deposition?

A Yes.

Q And if you could turn to the bottom of the page 132, to line 23.

A I'm sorry, could you repeat that?

Q Page 132, line 23.

A Yes.

Q And I asked you, "Is astrology a theory under that definition?" And you answered, "Is astrology? It could be, yes." Right?

A That's correct.

Q Not, it used to be, right?

A Well, that's what I was thinking. I was thinking of astrology when it was first proposed. I'm not thinking of tarot cards and little mind readers and so on that you might see along the highway. I was thinking of it in its historical sense.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Ok, but Dembski is an IDist and a creationist (according to you), so the important thing is how HE uses the word, and apparently you acknowledge that he makes a distinction.

I don't know how you even GOT that from my post. I don't see how I could have gotten much clearer than "To them, Darwinism is a derogatory word for evolution."

If you're going to argue cute semantic points, I'm already bored.


Its a cute LOGICAL point. I take that as a challege. I accept. Let's review the discussion so far.

I started by claiming:

"Including design theory" does not sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.

to which you responded:

"Governing Goals:
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God."
-- The Wedge Strategy

"If fully successful, Intelligent Design will unseat not just Darwinism but also Darwinism's cultural legacy."
-- William Dembski

Gee, that DOES sound like "throw evolution out on it's ear" to me.


I pointed out, in response:

Now you must have noticed that "evolution" does not appear anywhere in the material you quoted.

Are you now conflating evolution with Darwinism? The fact that change happens is not the same thing as explaning how that change occured. Darwinism is just one explanation. That explanation can be tossed, and replaced with something better, but you will still be dealing with the same facts of the fossil record and DNA.


My point is obvious. Dembski, and the wedge document, use the terms "Darwinism" and "materialism", as you quote. It is my contention that these terms are distinct from "evolution".

You picked up on one part in your response:

Are you now conflating evolution with Darwinism?

You're splitting hairs. It's creationists and IDists who do that. To them, Darwinism is a derogatory word for evolution. In the sense that any scientist would use the word, "Darwinism" is not taught in schools anyway.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html


Thus you claim that in making a distinction between "evolution" and "darwinism", I am splitting hairs. Further, you claim that creationists and IDists do that (ie split hairs, make distinctions between those words).

So when I point out to you that Dembski is one of the people you claim make such a distinction, ie a creationist/IDist, logically (if what you say is true), he must make such a distinction between evolution and Darwinism. If a distinction, then "evolution" is not equal to "Darwinism" in Dembski's vocabulary.

But you're absolutely right. It's boring to argue such things.

More importantly, I say that he has a different definition of "Darwinism" than what you attribute to him, and I ask you to please offer evidence that Dembski uses the term as you claim, as a derogatory word for evolution. I'll ask again: what evidence do you offer that Dembski means "evolution" when he says "Darwinism" or "Materialism"?

This is a very important point. You and others have claimed that ID proponents like Dembski and Behe in effect want to ruin science as we know it by removing all mention of evolution from public school science curriculum and teaching. This is utterly and obviously false to anyone who cares to read the record and not distort what is being said.

You are making such a distortion when you claim that Dembski means "evolution" when he says "Darwinism".

Please back up your assertion. I'd also like an answer to the other questions I asked you (if you haven't yet):

Next, tell me please what Darwinism means "in the sense that any scientist would use the word", and what points in Darwinism are "not taught in schools".

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
What is the "materialistic explanations" referred to?

Explanations that only appeal to matter, and physical laws operating on that matter. Or, as my dictionary defines materialism (in the sense meant here):

a) the philosophic doctrine that matter is the only reality and that everything in the world, including thought, will, and feeling, can be explained in terms of matter alone

Does that help?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here is the portion of the cross-examination of Michael Behe (A) by the attorney Rothmiller (Q) that discusses astrology. I've tried to include enough testimony to give an accurate context.

Yes, I believe you did. Thanks

Bryan
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Explanations that only appeal to matter, and physical laws operating on that matter. Or, as my dictionary defines materialism (in the sense meant here):

I was looking for the specific "materialistic explanations" that were to be replaced.


http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/insightprofile1099.htm
Phillip Johnson:
Evolution is a creation story and as a creation story, it's the main prop of the materialist explanation for our existence.
Print the post Back To Top