Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker

The New York Times ^ | December 4, 2005 | LAURIE GOODSTEIN

[Right Wing Professor]

TO read the headlines, intelligent design as a challenge to evolution seems to be building momentum.

...

Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's credibility.

On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

[Gumlegs]

This is a ridicules assumption.

But is it series? If so, it could be hugh.

[ml1954]

Guess where her politics lie?

I was going to say 'Are these female academics Amish aborigines?', but it seemed redundant and I liked the alliteration as it was.

[Cicero]

I don't think many schools would spend a whole semester only on Relativity. It would only make sense to teach Newton's laws as well, for example, and probably make some reference to quantum mechanics, and other significant developments in physics. It's no skin off Einstein's nose that there are other theoretical ideas also worthy to be taught. There are even continuing debates as to whether Einstein is correct in all situations, and there is no great harm in mentioning such that questions have been asked.

By Darwinism, of course I refer to the General Theory of Evolution, which remains virtually unchanged since the days he propounded it.

I'm afraid you really don't confront my contention that The New York Times and similar Darwinist outposts simply will not permit anything to be taught that puts Darwin into question, not even in courses that are 95% Darwin and 5% ID. Not even permitting a teacher to mention that there is a book about ID in the school library, if kids care to look it up in their own time--which seems to have been the origin of one of these flareups of rigid intolerance on the part of the Darwinists.

[Jeff Gordon]

But "professors" are notorious for lacking common sense.

I see that you favor Column B.

[peyton randolph]

Yes, the lack of any detectable sense of humor is the hallmark of the Creationist troll.

And sadly, those who are moderators. I'm out of here. Best of luck.

[Timmy]

1. Life from non-life is a major hurdle for evolution, and it has not even begun to be overcome. In fact, you guys have pretty much quit on this issue and tend to ignore it as though it's not relevant.

[Goatherder]: Nothing to do with evolution. Next!

My point made, exactly.

[RightWingAtheist]

Male and female. Stupidity knows no gender.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I always love this one. Evolutionists have no explanation for the origin of the first living cell, yet they think it has no relevance to evolution."

I always love this; creationists can't grap that evolution makes no claims as to the origins of life.

"When mathematicians prove that the first living cell couldn't have fallen together by random chance, the evolutionists distort that to mean simply that "we don't yet know how it happened.""

Mathematicians have proved no such thing. For one thing, the theory that deals with the origins of life, abiogenesis, does not work with *random chance*. But more to the point, evolution deals with the change among organisms that are imperfectly self replicating. Until such organisms exist, evolution has nothing to say. Like every other scientific theory, it has a delimited field of inquiry. The origins of life are outside that field.

"The point is that we know virtually for sure how it *didn't* happen: without intelligent design. "

Only if ID is defined as anything and everything.

[Liberty Wins]

Yes, professors ARE notorious for lacking common sense:

Claire Rind and Peter Simmons of Newcastle University, in the U.K., published a study in which they electrically monitored the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie "Star Wars."

REFERENCE: "Orthopteran DCMD Neuron: A Reevaluation of Responses to Moving Objects. I. Selective Responses to Approaching Objects," F.C. Rind and P.J. Simmons, Journal of Neurophysiology, vol. 68, no. 5, November 1992, pp. 1654-66.

[Sun]

"I'm cranking up the ping machine ..."

Good idea. This weak NYSlimes story needs HELP!!!!

[Cicero]

Why do you state that ID is not a science, period, end of controversy? Intelligent design posits the theory that the universe as we see it looks more like the product of intelligence than of blind chance. Why is that not a question suitable for scientific inquiry? Or do we simply rule the possibility out without inquiring into it?

Archaeologists ask that question all the time. Is this object I dug up an artifact, or is it a random product of geological processes?

It hardly seems sufficient simply to state that ID is not a science, so get out of here and stop bothering us. Because it is a perfectly reasonable scientific hypothesis.

[Timmy]

Claire Rind and Peter Simmons of Newcastle University, in the U.K., published a study in which they electrically monitored the activity of a brain cell in a locust while that locust was watching selected highlights from the movie "Star Wars."

Which one? I s'pose that would matter a great deal.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"My point made, exactly."

What is that? That you like creating strawmen that have nothing to do with the theory of evolution?

And what's with this *goatheader* crap? Something to do with your personal obsession?

[Jeff Gordon]

But is it series? If so, it could be hugh.

I feel (justifiably) ridiculed.

[ml1954]

Ooops. I guess I made an invalid assumption when I saw the part about 'male domination'. I forgot this is the 21st century in America.

[Cicero]

Especially if it cheered the first movie and booed the last.

[frgoff]

You do realize that many of Darwins critics were atheists, right? Darwin's problem is that he constructed a post hoc fallacy (Variation within species ergo variation creates new species). It went against all empirical biology of the day and still goes against empirical biology today. Why is it that we only find mythical common ancestors? Where's the honest to goodness real living common ancestor? How about sharks? They've been on the planet for 600 million years. TOE predicts they should be the common ancestor to millions of species, a sizable fraction of them alive today.

I think we are seeing archaeologists studying the fossil record suffering from the Percival Lowell effect. He swore there were canals on Mars, and a sizable number of astronomers independently confirmed his observations. They were all wrong.

[Killborn]

Since you fashion yourself a man of science, I should argue in a way that you are familiar with, and have a preference for:

Hypothesis: Landover Baptist is a leftist anti-Christian site with unfunny and mean spirited "satire" that no reasonable human should enjoy.

Evidence: 1) An article called "American Injuns: The First Terrorist". An often spouted lie by the left that we murdering whities just came in and wiped out all the peaceful kumbaya "native Americans". Of course, they neglect the fact that Indians do coexist with whites and Indians do commit atrocities. It's not "whitey's fault". It is simply human nature. Were the Indians the one with power, we'd be talking about "Native European rights."

2) "May God Damn you to Hell!" Nice title for their archives. Promotes the BS that Christians are on a constant crusade of smiting infidels. Last time I check, other religions and pagan faiths have been known to commit genocide from time to time.

3) Their women page. Spreading the lie that we are sexist women oppressors. Of course, we weren't the ones that invented the Burka.

4) A page on Catholics. Another lie that Catholics are infidels. Most true Christians have no problem getting along with Catholics. Segregation of the Christian religions is long dead. Only fanatics still adhere to the Catholic infidel lie.

5) "Worship our Godly Ruler!" Poster with President Bush's face in an unflattering pose. And another poster of him looking menacing behind a red and black flag with the GOP elephant and Nazi symbol. No further comment.

Statistics: Incidents of Anti-Christian Bigotry: 92-100%
Incidents of anti-conservative bias: 87-100%
Light hearted poking fun at Christians, Protestants, and Proponents of Intelligent Design: 0%
Light Hearted Mockery of Conservatism, GOP and the President: 0%
Overt and Orwellian Usage of Mean Spirited Mockery Using Popular Liberal Lies about Christians and Conservatives: 100%
Humor: 0%

Conclusion: With the evidence presented, it has been noted that this site is a garbage heap of unfunny and intolerant horse apples aimed exclusively at conservatives and Christians with no fair presentation of facts or balance. It is also as humorous as looking at a kitten being slowly tortured by inbred musclebound retards with the IQ of -5 and 20 times more muscle than brain. It is the kind of "humor" that provokes a scientific response called "@$$whup".

QED

Further Note: The researcher has seen more humorous incidences in DU. Recommend Mr. Randolph disregard this leftist turd of a site and find true humor at ID elsewhere.

[Cicero]

Summary of your argument: Evolution is science and ID is not. Because I say so.

Don't you get tired of repeating that mantra?

[RussP]

How ironic. I see a table labeled "Evolution Troll's Toolkit"," in which many valid arguments and points against evolution are lumped together with obviously invalid arguments. That's a classic debating trick: discredit some (strawman) arguments against a position, then infer that you have discredited them all. I hope that's not the best you guys can do.