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.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Tlaloc. We're in a drought now.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"ANY PERSON should be held to a higher standard
than what you evos subject people to."

Nice evasion. You did answer my question though, and for that I thank you.

[Right Wing Professor]

Don't be dim, and reconsider the question.

Don't be a moron, and realize there are a thousand gods. There are also demigods, demons, fairies, pixies, djinns, ghosts, poltergeists, familiar spirits, banshees, and a zillion other fanciful creatures. How many of those do you want to include in your statement, and why should you include some and not others?

I have an idea. Why we don't say that science doesn't consider the supernatural, and leave it at that?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Why do you think get fooled by Turing tests?

[WKB]

Giddy up
Giddy up

Well I’m a long tall texan
I ride a big white horse
(he rides from texas on a big white horse)

[Right Wing Professor]

But the simple right to discuss this simple question in a public school classroom, in any class whether it be physical science or social science, is now being stripped right out of the classroom by the ACLU and courts.

No, what you want to do is impose the consideration of supernatural phenomena in a public school classroom, imposed by the government. Let's try a modicum of truthfulness here.

[Stultis]

There are scientist who do not hold to the blank check evolution THEORIES as unchallengeable fact.

Yeah. That would be nearly all scientists, including evolutionists. Nearly all scientists recognize, indeed insist upon, that all scientific claims are liable to challenge.

Like the typical antievolutionist, you're gratuitously (and falsely) asserting that evolution is held as "unchallengeable" simply (and solely) because all your challenges have failed miserably. It's classic "sour grapes".

[stands2reason]

Why we don't say that science doesn't consider the supernatural, and leave it at that?

Well, if you want to be a purist about it, fine with me.

[E=MC²]

(By the way, I like the pictures on your FR home page with Clayton Moore and Jay Silverheels...that was my favorite TV show growing up.)

[Dimensio]

Do you have an argument of substance to offer?

[E=MC²]

Do you have an argument of substance to offer?

Nope...I defer to the superior intellect of the evolutionists for now.

[Dimensio]

What, exactly, is wrong with the responses to metmom's posting? Please be specific.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"What, exactly, is wrong with the responses to metmom's posting? Please be specific."

Apparently, it's the fact we didn't agree with her.

[trashcanbred]

Holy SH!T, brilliant deduction. Who'd you think IDers were talking about when they said someone intelligent designed it, Al Gore?

Oh... I "know" who they mean. However many of the "smart" ID'ers won't admit to "who" they mean the Intelligent Designer is. For example Stephen Meyer from the Discovery Institute wrote an article earlier this year titled "Intelligent design is not Creationism". He claims that "ID is an inference from biological data" and not "theistic beliefs".

Most ID'ers here are just Creationists... they just want to get rid of teaching Evolution because in their mind it contradicts Genesis. Some ID'ers though won't come out and admit that ID is creationism... and they follow the Stephan Meyer (actually Behe's) approach of using "irreducibly complexity" to argue ID from a scientific standpoint.

Hey...I am all for them challenging Evolution. What I am not for is their decision to "teach it anyway" in public schools even though it really hasn't gotten past any scientific scrutiny.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

""

I'll take that as an admission that there was nothing wrong with our responses to Metmom. :)

[Dimensio]

Are you saying that there was nothing wrong with the responses to metmom's posting? If so, why did you criticize the responses?

[metmom]

I have an idea. Why we don't say that science doesn't consider the supernatural, and leave it at that?

Good, then we can tell some scientists that they can stop telling everybody that God used evolution to create mankind.

[WKB]

Except that
3 posts in 1 minute responding to the same post (115) by metmom plus two more immediatley following.

just looks mighty suspicious.
Not that I would ever accuse anyone
of ganging up of course. BTW you misspelled immediately

[WKB]

Now see what you've done
Got me talking to myself