Introducing The College Student’s Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design

Evolution News & Views ^ | September 25, 2009 | Casey Luskin

[GodGunsGuts]

There are a lot of false urban legends promoted in academia about intelligent design (ID). They often start with myths promoted by misinformed critiques in scientific journals, court rulings, or even talks by activists at scientific conferences. Unfortunately, it’s not uncommon for this misinformation to then be passed down to college students, who may know very little about ID and lack the resources to correct their professors’ misinformed and misplaced attacks on ID. Not anymore.

If you’re a college student, recently gone back to school and expecting to hear a lot of anti-ID views from your professors, we’re pleased to present this “Back to School Guide” for students...

[count-your-change]

Thank you for your comments. I don’t experiment with animals, so it’s an odd comment you make. No matter, time to shut down.

[count-your-change]

Not a complicated experiment but a worthwhile one if I can finish it. But it seems poster donmeaker has retired for the evening or something so I'll have to wait until he returns for the enlightenment he requested.

And any hypothesis, etc., will have to wait until then unless you want to participate. but as I said I'm shutting down for the night and I'll be back here tomorrow before noon.

[donmeaker]

I don’t find that experiment convincing. It has less to do with what process made something and more to do with our human prejudices. Why not take a poll?

Of course I could search all over the world and find an accidental arrowhead, and then make a pebble with a grinder. Then what?

[dr_lew]

I don’t experiment with animals, so it’s an odd comment you make.

Man is, as Pope said, "in doubt to deem himself a god or beast."

Your experiment consisted in recruiting readers to answer your questions. Since I responded I became an experimental subject, even if I was uncooperative as per the maxim I quoted.

[Stultis]

If you actually read this "Guide" to "Intelligent Design," it's pretty damn funny. Even though the author (assuming the same Casey Luskin who signs the introduction) works for the IDer's Discovery Institute, even he doesn't understand the central concepts of ID. (I almost suspect this is a prerequisite for actually accepting ID!)

For instance the Guide falsely asserts:

One easily testable form of CSI ["complex specified information," a.k.a. "specified complexity"] is irreducible complexity (IC)

But Dembski appeals to IC as a justification for assuming pure randomness in calculating the probability of CSI being generated by natural law. (See for instance the section "Calculation of specified complexity" in the wiki entry on "Specified complexity".)

If IC is merely a "form of CSI," then the whole basis of Dembski's probability calculations would be grounded in circular reasoning. Granted, this would only add one more to it's other already debilitating flaws, but it's still pretty stupid (and funny) to find this in a "Guide" to ID published by the Discovery Institute itself!

[dr_lew]

If you actually read this "Guide" to "Intelligent Design," it's pretty damn funny. Even though the author (assuming the same Casey Luskin who signs the introduction) works for the IDer's Discovery Institute, even he doesn't understand the central concepts of ID. (I almost suspect this is a prerequisite for actually accepting ID!)

Cf. The Dover Decision ...

Third, Cleaver voted for the curriculum change despite the teachers' objections, based upon assurances from Bonsell. (32:23-25 (Cleaver)). Cleaver admittedly knew nothing about ID, including the words comprising the phrase, as she consistently referred to ID as "intelligence design" throughout her testimony. ... In addition, Superintendent Nilsen's entire understanding of ID was that "evolution has a design." (26:49-50 (Nilsen)).

[tragicmishap]

In Dembski’s own writings, should you choose to examine them, Dembski calls IC a “special case” of CSI and never uses it as a justification for CSI. Wiki is in general predisposed against ID. Though it is generally accurate and a good resource on many things, this is not one of them.

[count-your-change]

Since the experiment wasn't done how can you find it either convincing or not convincing? And since YOU asked for an experiment it appears you simply don't like what might come out of it. But it was enlightening, yes, very much so!

“Of course I could search all over the world and find an accidental arrowhead, and then make a pebble with a grinder. Then what?”

Nope, Again you asked for me for an experiment, if you're going to design it, then it's yours. Have at it.

I don't do polls, I wasn't asked to do a poll and given your response here see no benefit or reason to do a poll.

Thank you, it certainly has been enlightening!

[count-your-change]

I asked and you declined so you were not part of any experiment at my hands. My experiment, I get to decide what it was or was not and you were not part of it as I was unable to do it.

Man can, says The Lunch Box Philosopher, deem himself Superman, but he better have more than long underwear and a bath towel tucked into his collar before he leaps off a building.

[Stultis]

Dembski calls IC a “special case” of CSI and never uses it as a justification for CSI.

So what? Dembski also treats complexity, information and probability as if they were the same things, even though they're not.

CSI is, in any case, basically about those three things -- information, complexity and probability. IC is about structure and function. The only relation between the two is the common assertion that neither can arise solely within the rubric of natural law, and the fact that in both cases the assertion is false and gratuitous, achieved by studiously ignoring both the mechanisms by which they can occur and the fact that they do occur.

[Tribune7]

For instance the Guide falsely asserts: One easily testable form of CSI ["complex specified information," a.k.a. "specified complexity"] is irreducible complexity (IC)

I think I agree with you. IC's relationship with CSI is indirect at best.

Wiki, though, has a noted bias against ID or any criticism of evolution.

[metmom]

However, as it turns out, and I was quite surprised to see this (note: sarcasm), but in the evolution sections all of their standards jettison any implementation of inquiry-based learning, as virtually EVERY SINGLE STANDARD require “Students understand that…”

Essentially what students really need to understand is how to spit back to the professor what he wants to hear in order to get a good grade.

But that applies to any liberal professor they encounter.

Liberalism brooks no dissent.

[metmom]

More unadulterated codswallop. In an undergraduate class, students are expected to learn the material that is presented.

That's the way to educate, isn't it.

Just demand that they vomit back the material given them.

Don't let them think or question, should they dare to question the all-knowing professor. The nerve of some students. Honestly.....

[metmom]

So someone tell me, how would you do an experiment to test for intelligent design?

Do you consider that nothing can be verified as accurate and true unless it can be reduced to a scientific experiment?

Why on earth do you need to experiment to test for something that is so patently obvious to the casual observer and even Dawkins admits that the universe and life give the appearance (illusion) of design?

How ridiculous is that? It appears to be designed but we're going to assume that it's not unless we puny humans can conduct an experiment on it to *prove* it. On what basis would you conclude that something so complex as to give the appearance of design, isn't designed after all?

[stormer]

An education is what allow you to coherently frame questions. Without some standard, communication (the basis of education) is meaningless.

“Oh, Professor? I'm having a problem with your insistence that 1 + 1 = 2. I know I heard this ever since I was a lad, but to ask me to mindlessly vomit what you perceive to be facts violates my right to religious freedom.” p>

You want to challenge the paradigm? Go to grad school.

[count-your-change]

I suggested a simple experiment:

” I put an arrow head in a paper sack and a similarly sized stone that I picked up from somewhere, anywhere goes in the sack too. Now you reach in and take out either one and tell me whether it is intelligently designed or not or if you are unable to say either way.

Not too hard so far, but now explain how you reasoned out your answer, the steps of logic, etc. you used.”

But look at the reactions to my suggestion!

Good questions, all.

[stormer]

"Why on earth do you need to experiment to test for something that is so patently obvious to the casual observer..."

You're kidding, right? Have you ever taken a science class?

[metmom]

Of course, using a ridiculous comparison.

Not everything is so black and white.

The ToE is the THEORY of Evolution.

1+1=2 is not the THEORY of 1+1=2.

You ought to try comparing apples to apples and not apples to oranges.

[Tribune7]

“Oh, Professor? I'm having a problem with your insistence that 1 + 1 = 2. I know I heard this ever since I was a lad, but to ask me to mindlessly vomit what you perceive to be facts violates my right to religious freedom.”

It's more akin to "Oh, Professor, I'm having a problem with your insistence that we are all going to burn to death in five years unless we ban the automobile right now, and that Israeli soldiers are harvesting the organs off of innocent Palestinians . . . "

[Tribune7]

Good answer