Daily Campus

Originally posted by

B-Rad

Hoisted them on their own petard! Good for you guys (and I see gals). These DI guys piss me off because the lie so easily and often, while at the same time espousing "Christian ideals". Total hypocrites.

The good news is that I think I'm seeing a rising tide of professionals in science and education standing up to fight back against these liars. I think everyone is recognizing that we must fight back. Publicizing every key piece of evolution-supporting evidence that is discovered is expanding. We have seen more of that in the last year. That's how we'll win this fight--with real evidence. I think the media is helping too. And keeping up awareness of the D.I.'s own wedge document's contents is the best way to make sure that D.I. is given all the credibility it deserves.

In the meantime, congratulations for standing up to these con-artists. Wish I could have been there to see that. I'd have been proud to buy you all a couple beers. It was interesting to note from you report how little they really had to say on the purported topic.

You may continue the "fight" but in the end you lose! What if you are wrong (and you are)? Ask yourself, if you dare, this question: What if I am wrong and this God who has the power to create a universe calls me to accountability? What will you do then? Be fair in this question and see what your answer will be! In your stand against Christianity (I'm not talking about religion but the Creator himself) you really are trying to disprove the existence of God which you cannot do because you do not see that your bogus science cannot disprove him!

Originally posted by

B-Rad

Hoisted them on their own petard! Good for you guys (and I see gals). These DI guys piss me off because the lie so easily and often, while at the same time espousing "Christian ideals". Total hypocrites.

The good news is that I think I'm seeing a rising tide of professionals in science and education standing up to fight back against these liars. I think everyone is recognizing that we must fight back. Publicizing every key piece of evolution-supporting evidence that is discovered is expanding. We have seen more of that in the last year. That's how we'll win this fight--with real evidence. I think the media is helping too. And keeping up awareness of the D.I.'s own wedge document's contents is the best way to make sure that D.I. is given all the credibility it deserves.

In the meantime, congratulations for standing up to these con-artists. Wish I could have been there to see that. I'd have been proud to buy you all a couple beers. It was interesting to note from you report how little they really had to say on the purported topic.

It really isn't the DI guys that "pisses you off". It is the idea that someone (anyone) stands for and promotes the belief in the existence of God. And if you believe that they are teaching "Christian ideals", whether perfect or flawed, then you must know (and wish there wasn't) such a concept as Christianity exists. If Christianity exixts-and it does-then there must be a God of the Bible, Christianity and of the Jews. All the same God! Your problem, as with others who wish to have things their own way, is that if you admit to Intelligent Design then you will realize that you are accountable for your own life. If you are truly objective about Darwinism you would know that it is all a hoax. Practice the theory of evolution in balancing your checkbook; who knows maybe more money will appear in your account of it's own accord; if you don't change the oil in your car maybe the engine will never wear out; or, if you become a couch potato maybe your health will flourish and you will look like Arnold Schwarzenegger in a few years. Wake up and stop trying to disprove the existence of God! Your denial of his existence doesn't change reality. And the whole idea if Darwinism is nothing more than a denial of his existence and our ultimate accountability to him! Think for your self! Darwinism has been around for 150 plus years and evolution of species remains a theory!

Originally posted by

Dr. Gary Hurd

Well done!

You see now how the Discovery Institute and religious fanatics will deal with dissent if they are ever alowed to take over our campuses or our nation.

I see you too have bitten into the Darwinistic lie. Evolution has never been proven and still only exists in the classroom or in the minds of those who allowed themselves to be brainwashed in these classrooms-past and present. The complexities of everything in existence defy the very idea of of evolution. Not one thing ever came into existence of it's own accord and in fact, anything left to it's own becomes more and more disorganized. Try the theory of evolution in your checkbook and the area of your finances and see if the bogus science you say promotes evolution works. You would have to declare bankruptcy! True science will support creationism and intelligent design. Maybe the classrooms should be run by realists who have realized the fact that man is incapable of managing a world absent a creator! That's why there is so much confusion in the world! Absolutes have been done away with and relativism has been embraced all in an attempt to escape the inevitable accountability that we are called upon to give and shall be called upon to give! This isn't religious fanaticism to believe in something bigger than self! You have become your own god and therefore promote a religion more religious than the existence of a creator! I'm sorry and do not mean to be offensive-it's just that I am sick and tired of the attacks on "religion" and the God that did nothing but love us and died for so we may escape all the foolishness we do to avoid him-eternally!

Originally posted by

Court

remind me again of the significance of the Miller-Urey experiments? Was there a trap designed to sequester the amino acids away from the destructive force of the electricity? It was a nicely designed experiment. They were quite intelligent scientists.

I'm afraid that you are addressing the issue of abiogenesis, not the issue of the theory of evolution, hence the conference name 'Darwin vs Design.'

Originally posted by

Forthekids

Not much of a review, IMHO. It merely sounds like some rebel rousers looking for a fight.

And, evidently, the M in SMU should be replaced with another letter.

. . . and here's another zealot who thinks no True Christian(TM) can accept evolution as God's plan.

pssst . . . hey, forthekids, didn't you get the memo - ID isn't religious!

Originally posted by

Forthekids

Not much of a review, IMHO. It merely sounds like some rebel rousers looking for a fight.

And, evidently, the M in SMU should be replaced with another letter.

Wow, Forthekids gets around! (For those who don't know, he/she is a longtime creationist commenter at such places as ScienceBlogs.com and The Panda's Thumb. Also, tangentially, English really needs some good non-gendered pronouns you can use for humans.) FTK, how about responding to some of these "kids'" substantive points, instead of sniffing in vague fashion that they should just sit down and shut up.

Oh, and speaking of English, it's "rabble" rousers.

Finally, although I know everyone hates to spoil a joke by explaining it, could you unpack that last sentence for those of us who aren't quite sure we get it? I have a hypothesis, but I'm kind of hoping I'm wrong. Thanks.

Originally posted by

davmos

Much has been made that no one representing Darwin was on the panel. Ignored was the fact that an invitation to opposing voices was made, but was ignored. Instead there was an attempt to ban the meeting. Intelligent Design can stand up to Darwin, as long as the debate sticks to science. Darwinists usually try to ignore the science and debate religion.

No science has been discovered behind the slogan. Why did the DisCo Fellows keep it secret at Dover?

(for those discussing classic rock: the DI is also known as Disco. Whether this is a reflection of the Designer's taste in music or just coincidence is not known.)

Originally posted by

davmos

Much has been made that no one representing Darwin was on the panel. Ignored was the fact that an invitation to opposing voices was made, but was ignored. Instead there was an attempt to ban the meeting. Intelligent Design can stand up to Darwin, as long as the debate sticks to science. Darwinists usually try to ignore the science and debate religion.

Typical creationist "la la la, I can't hear you!" tactics. The writers plainly describe a Christian revival meeting kind of setting that's very scant on scientific substance. Tell us what parts of their description you believe to be false, and what evidence you have for that claim. And do you believe that the Wedge Document they quote from was forged by evolution supporters? If so, what evidence do you have for that claim? Even the Discovery Institute admits it's real, when forced to talk about it.

It's ID creationists themselves who keep bringing up religion. They're between a rock and a hard place, of course, since their primary - almost only - constituency is religious folk of a particular stripe, but their sociopolitical strategy requires pretending they're not about religion!

As for the absence of evolution supporters from the stage: Why should serious pro-science people provide themselves as living props for the DI's dog and pony show, thus giving it unearned credibility? And scientists did show up for the public "debate" that really counted, in a courtroom in Dover, Pennsylvania, in 2005. You may recall how that faceoff ended up.

Originally posted by

davmos

Much has been made that no one representing Darwin was on the panel. Ignored was the fact that an invitation to opposing voices was made, but was ignored. Instead there was an attempt to ban the meeting. Intelligent Design can stand up to Darwin, as long as the debate sticks to science. Darwinists usually try to ignore the science and debate religion.

Didn't you read the article? The opposing voices got thrown out by the police!

Originally posted by

davmos

Much has been made that no one representing Darwin was on the panel. Ignored was the fact that an invitation to opposing voices was made, but was ignored. Instead there was an attempt to ban the meeting. Intelligent Design can stand up to Darwin, as long as the debate sticks to science. Darwinists usually try to ignore the science and debate religion.

Well said!

[QUOTE id="6918ff69-a342-4812-ad8e-e958a32c229c"]Thanks for the great article. I have taught biological sciences at all levels from high school to Jr. College to state university--and all in the Bible belt.

I would be very proud to be able to count some of my students among these protesters.[/QUOT

Personally, I think it's a sorry spectacle when students protest a conference
of scholars and scientists simply because they disagree with them. I was struck by a number of statements made in the students' essay...

1) "Five of my brave friends and I decided to take an informed and conscious stand against the Discovery Institute on Friday."

I don't doubt that the students were taking a conscious stand against the Discovery Institute, but they make it abundantly clear in their essay that they are quite uninformed on ID theory. (By the way, is there such a thing as an unconscious stand against something? Perhaps the students meant to write that they were taking a conscientious stand.)

2) "...they failed to have anyone representing the Darwinian viewpoint..."

Actually, Darwinist professors at SMU were invited to participate, but they declined.

3) "They are not teaching science, but instead are preaching religion as science."

Actually, those who are informed on ID theory know that it says not a word about God or religion. As is so typical of ID critics, the students fail to distinguish between ID theory, the implications of ID theory, and the motivations of ID proponents. In all likelihood they fail to make those distinctions because they quite literally don't know what they're talking about.

4) "...none of us has any problems with...Intelligent Design, so long as it is understood that it is personal belief and not science."

Actually, ID theory - like Darwinism - appeals to empirical evidence, not personal belief, although the empirical evidence for Darwinism is so flimsy that it's propped up primarily by philosophical materialism, which is a matter of personal belief.

5) "...do not teach (ID) in science class, because science is the study of the natural world and thus cannot prove or disprove the existence of God..."

Were the students as well informed as they pretend to be, they'd know that ID theory makes no attempt to prove the existence of God and that ID proponents repeatedly point out that the science of intelligent design - like any science - is incompetent to make statements about the supernatural.

6) "(Lee Stroebel) also decided to preach about how he believed the world's creator and designer was the 'God of the Bible,' as he said. That's interesting, seeing as how he said nothing of the God of the Jews..."

Apparently these students are as ill-informed about the Bible as they are about ID theory. Otherwise they might know that the God of the Jews is the God of the Bible.

7) "At this point, we were fed up with the sheer lack of science being discussed. (Remember, ID theorists claim to support a science, not a religion.) So we held up our signs. They bore questions such as, 'Why do we have wisdom teeth if they do not fit our jaws?' and 'Why did it take 20 species of elephant to go extinct to get two species that survived?' and 'Why do the ribosomes (protein synthesizing machinery) in our mitochondria match those of bacteria?' to name a few."

By holding up these signs, the students were putting their abject ignorance of ID theory on public display. Their first question, for example, demonstrates their erroneous belief that intelligent design refers to design accomplished in a masterful or optimal way. In point of fact, intelligent design simply refers to design produced by an intelligent agent (or cause), irrespective of the designer's skill.

8) "(Behe's) answer was that ID theory does not allow for explanations regarding interspecies commonalities such as those implied in the question. In short, his answer was that he couldn't explain it with ID theory."

Again, the students are flaunting their abject ignorance of ID theory. Were they actually informed (as they claimed to be), they'd know that ID theory - unlike Darwinism - does not purport to explain every feature of living organisms.

9) "The night was wrapped up when, somehow, one of our flyers made it to the front of the stage, where the journalist asked the other men on stage about the quote regarding the institute's true purpose...being that it wants to replace modern science with 'a science consonant with Christian and theistic convictions.' To my shock, one of the men on stage said, 'Yes that's true, and I don't see anything scandalous about that.' Nothing scandalous about trying to replace science with Christianity?"

Here the students display that their preconceived notions about ID render them incapable of understanding clear English prose. Absent their bias, they might have understood that establishing a science that is consonant with Christian and theistic convictions (that is to say, reinvigorating the kind of science practiced by the likes of Isaac Newton, Copernicus, Boyle, Descartes, Bacon, etc.) is not at all the same as "trying to replace science with Christianity." This statement of the students is sufficient by itself to show that they are utterly uninformed and unreliable critics of ID. Their essay is chock full of heat, but sheds no light. Indeed, at no point do they actually make any substantive criticisms of ID theory.

10) "My friends, if you care anything at all about this matter, then I would urge you to research it yourselves, as we did, and see who is giving you the information."

That's a good idea. Certainly the students aren't "giving you the information."

11) "Be warned, George Orwell, be warned."

Another good idea. People should be alarmed that the intellectual laziness and/or dishonesty these students put on display is so prominent on college campuses.

Originally posted by

Kevin Miller

You folks are dreaming if you think this report represents the full story of that conference. The academic leadership at SMU were given the opportunity to present the Darwinist POV, but they declined to get involved and then actively tried to shut down the conference.

That's because ID is complete b/s and they did not want to give it the dignity of a "debate". It's absolutely stunning to me that people actually believe this junk.

Originally posted by

Jim

Seth Dallob:
Bet you a dollar to a donut that Seth has never read so much as a single essay by an ID theorist. It's intellectual laziness to characterize a theory as "junk;" it takes knowledge to take substantive issue with a theory.

It takes intellectual dishonesty to refer to "intelligent design" as a theory. It has posed no testable hypotheses (there is no such thing as an untestable hypothesis), testable (and more importantly, tested) hypotheses are the signature features of every theory. But of course, the Discovery Institute and other proponents of intelligent design have attempted to redefine science away from testable hypotheses to include the supernatural as a legitimate feature of science. For an example, see the now defunct Kansas guidelines for teaching science that they forced through under a creationist school board.

Originally posted by

Jim

"there is no such thing as an untestable hypothesis"

That's quite odd. I still have yet to hear or see an experiment that tests the hypothesis that design can only come from a designer.