Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action

American Society for Clinical Investigation ^ | 01 May 2006 | Alan D. Attie, Elliot Sober, Ronald L. Numbers, etc.

[Junior]

His Noodliness comes in many shapes and flavors.

Ramen, brother.

[wyattearp]

Not from personal experience, LOL.

From old reports about cannibalism in the South Pacific. The islanders referred to man as "long pig", because it looks, cooks, and tastes like pork.

[BibChr]

Bingo.

[Junior]

After reading Misquoting Jesus I wonder just how much of what Jesus supposedly said actually came out of his mouth.

[js1138]

You are correct. I have been out of sorts today. I get that way when the Bible gets brought up as a reference on science threads.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"As with liberalism in general, opponents of intelligent design wish to muzzle alternative presentation..."

It's the ID'ers taking the liberal route by crying victim and demanding *diversity* and affirmative action for a theological claim to be pushed into a science class.

"If the man-from-monkey crowd..."

You DO realize that most of the main proponents of ID have accepted common descent, right?

"then why are they attempting to "burn the books" of those with an alternative view?"

They are doing no such thing; they are asking for only science to be taught in a science classroom. ID is theology.

[gondramB]

>>If the man-from-monkey crowd are secure in the correctness of their theories, believing that in honest debate their view will prevail, then why are they attempting to "burn the books" of those with an alternative view?<<


You don't see a difference between not wanting to be ordered to teach something they don't believe has a scientific basis versus book burning.

[js1138]

There really seem to be two completely different people: one concerned with love and good works, and one concerned with keeping the preachers gainfully employed.

[mlc9852]

What Christian has ever told you they believed God sprinkled fairy dust to create human beings?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Not from personal experience, LOL."

Well that's a relief! :)

[gondramB]

>>You are correct. I have been out of sorts today. I get that way when the Bible gets brought up as a reference on science threads.<<

These threads have a way of doing that - I deliberately stayed out of discussions with one Freeper last night for just such a reason - I responded to his posts but removed his name.

[mlc9852]

I guess we'll have to find out after we get to Heaven and ask Him.

[mlc9852]

I almost feel sorry for some of you - almost.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I almost feel sorry for some of you - almost."

I don't feel sorry for you at all. Your ignorance is self-inflicted. :)

I don't do pity.

[Dimensio]

What? and evolution is not faith based?

No, it is not.

It takes more faith for someone to believe that, given enough time hydrogen will turn into a man,

I do not see the relevance of this statement, as the theory of evolution does not state that hydrogen will turn into a man under any circumstances.

than for me to believe that GOD created everything.

To which "GOD", out of the thousands of often mutually exclusive deities worshipped and acknowledged throughout human history, do you refer and why do you assume the existene of that particular deity and not any other? Also, what has this deity to do with the theory of evolution?

All of our so called brilliant scientists can't even duplicate an ant with all their collective reasoning brain power and your trying to tell me that it all just happened all by itself?,

I am curious. Do you have an actual argument against the mechanisms of the theory of evolution, or do you not understand what the theory actually states?

Cut all the mumbo-jumbo show me the validating experiments.

Are you unaware of the extensive fossil record? What of DNA evidence showing similar features, even in non-coding regions of DNA, across related species? At least bring back to life something that was once alive!

How would this validate evolution? Evolution says nothing regarding restoring life to the dead.

There are no scientific facts to support evolution that's why 58% still don't believe it,

This is inaccurate. You should understand that even though you personally do not understand evolution, it does not logically follow that no facts support it. It only means that you are unaware of them.

"Only a fool says in his heart, there is no GOD"

This is an unsupported assertion, and also not relevant to a discussion on evolution.

[Quark2005]

If the man-from-monkey crowd are secure in the correctness of their theories, believing that in honest debate their view will prevail, then why are they attempting to "burn the books" of those with an alternative view?

They don't. Science simply demands the same thing from IDers that it demands from evolutionary theory - if you want your theory taught in schools, you need to do research, submit papers for peer review, subsequently allow those papers to undergo scrutiny by the community at large, then have your major discovery published in one of the more major journals, at which point science textbook writers include your theory in college level textbooks, and eventually, if the theory is appropriate in comprehension level, it enters the secondary school teaching arena.

What IDers and creationists demand instead is special treatment, a.k.a. affirmative action for their theory, when its advocates aren't even really participating in the scientific method to start with.

Sort of like football fans complaining that the referee won't count imaginary touchdowns for one side just because their opponents have stronger players.

[Liberal Classic]

Just looked that up on Amazon.com, and it has generated some interesting reviews.

[mlc9852]

And your arrogance is self-inflicted so in a way we are even.

[Virginia-American]

If the man-from-monkey crowd are secure in the correctness of their theories, believing that in honest debate their view will prevail...

It did prevail, by about 1870 or so.

Also, we have come to expect dishonest debate from the anti scientists. Soundbutes, sophistry, equivocation, drug-induced perjury, ...

[Junior]

It's definitely worth the price. The author originally intended to read the original words of the Bible to know exactly what God had to say. During his researches and schooling, however, he came to realize the original words were long lost and it would be difficult to recreate them from all the different versions of Scripture that have come down through the ages (he mentions one of the early researchers in this field compiled 30,000 variations in the New Testament alone from only 100 different manuscripts).

It's a fascinating read as he weedles out what the original Scriptures may have said and explains why they were changed over the centuries (politics, typos, whatnot).