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.

[Fester Chugabrew]

. . . there is absolutely no possible observation that could contradict ID.

Science does not have the luxury of making all possible observations. Be that as it may, your statement above above is why from my point of view your faith appears so preposterous. More superstitious than the faith of astrologers, really. Rather than accept the ubiquitous presence of matter that performs specific functions as potential evidence of intelligent design you prefer to explain it away, ignore it, or scream out that such implications have nothing at all to do with science. Not only so, but you enjoy seeing the force of law brought to bear on your faith as if it is the only reasonable one worth a hearing in any public academic scientific context. BINGO!

[Liberal Classic]

Third base!

[andysandmikesmom]

First what?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"First what?"

Does that question interest you?

[andysandmikesmom]

Thanks for that pic...I always loved those two guys...grew up watching them, and still watch them when they come on TV today...Abbot and Costello, The Three Stooges, Laurel and Hardy, Andy Clyde, The Three Tons of Fun, all of them were so funny....

[Dimensio]

Science does not have the luxury of making all possible observations.

I never claimed that science had such a luxury. This does not invalidate my previous statement.

Be that as it may, your statement above above is why from my point of view your faith appears so preposterous.

To what "faith" do you refer?

Rather than accept the ubiquitous presence of matter that performs specific functions as potential evidence of intelligent design you prefer to explain it away, ignore it, or scream out that such implications have nothing at all to do with science.

This is false. You apparently have failed to understand the objections to your claims. Your claim of "intelligent design" is not science because you have failed to explain why what you present as evidence actually supports your claim of intelligent design. That is, you claim "organized matter performing specific functions" is evidence of intelligent design, but you steadfastly refuse to explain why "organized matter performing specific functions" is best explained by intelligent design.

Not only so, but you enjoy seeing the force of law brought to bear on your faith as if it is the only reasonable one worth a hearing in any public academic scientific context.

This statement is also false. The fact is that your claims are not scientific. I need no laws to guarantee as much; the lack of scientific merit of your claims is true regardless of the law.

BINGO!

Saying "BINGO!" does not add any further credibility to your claim.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Note that "organized matter performing specific functions" is not itself "observable data" until you can demonstrate a link between such matter and intelligent design.

BS. Organized matter performing specific functions is indeed observable data which may be reasonably interpreted as a product of intelligent design. I no more have to demonstrate a physical, intellectual, personal link in this case than a physicist has to place a Higgins particle under your nose in order to reasonably infer they exist, posit them as explanatory, and still be scientific.

[andysandmikesmom]

Do my interests, interest you?

[Fester Chugabrew]

The fact is that your claims are not scientific.

No. The fact is that your standard for "scientific" is not consistent. It applies only to your inferences, which are more numerous and less well-supported by objective reality than mine.

[Dimensio]

Organized matter performing specific functions is indeed observable data which may be reasonably interpreted as a product of intelligent design.

Why is it more reasonable to assume such a thing as a product of intelligent design than not?

[PatrickHenry]

Does it matter how long I have had feelings about Eliza?

Are you worried that you've [had feelings about Eliza] for a long time?
</ELIZA creationism version>

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Why do you say your interests interest i?

[andysandmikesmom]

Do my worries interest you?

[andysandmikesmom]

GRRRRRR...I have had it with this ELIZA talking...I can feel my brain slowly shutting down...

[CarolinaGuitarman]

Why do you say your brain slowly shutting down?

[andysandmikesmom]

Does my brain interest you?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Inter alia.

[PatrickHenry]

There are no transitional fossils. Why are there still monkeys? Were you there? Hitler. Marx. School violence. Sexual freedom. Atheism.
</ELIZA creationism version>

[PatrickHenry]

900