Intelligent Design Pushers LIE

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” — Stephen Roberts

Immediately below is excerpted from Discovery institute website, retrieved on 01.05.08. Their address is:
http://www.discovery.org/

” Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)
By: Staff
Discovery Institute
July 1, 2007

Editor’s Note: Critics of intelligent design often claim that design advocates don’t publish their work in appropriate scientific literature. For example, Barbara Forrest, a philosophy professor at Southeastern Louisiana University, was quoted in USA Today (March 25, 2005) that design theorists “aren’t published because they don’t have scientific data.”
Other critics have made the more specific claim that design advocates do not publish their works in peer-reviewed scientific journals-as if such journals represented the only avenue of legitimate scientific publication.” end excerpt

Then they go on to list some ‘religious science’ that got peer review in the scientific arena. Among them is this jewel:

Begin excerpt again. “Stephen Meyer, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 117 (2004): 213-239.

Meyer argues that competing materialistic models (Neo-Darwinism, Self -Organization Models, Punctuated Equilibrium and Structuralism) are not sufficient to account for origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms present in the Cambrian Explosion. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa.” End of excerpt

Well this is great for the ID movement that the Discovery Institute not only backs, but actively pushes on schools and people. They finally got an article published in a scientific journal….but….
….Not long after the article was published, an embarrassed Council of the ‘Biological Society of Washington’ comes out with this statement

excerpt follows from Biological Society of Washingtom

“The paper by Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” in vol. 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239 of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, was published at the discretion of the former editor, Richard v. Sternberg. Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity. The Council endorses a resolution on ID published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml),** see below, which observes that there is no credible scientific evidence supporting ID as a testable hypothesis to explain the origin of organic diversity. Accordingly, the Meyer paper does not meet the scientific standards of the Proceedings.” End of excerpt Their address is: http://www.biolsocwash.org/

excerpt from American Association for the Advancement of Science
** “Over the past several years proponents of so-called “intelligent design theory,” also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of “intelligent design theory” into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents “intelligent design theory” to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of “intelligent design,” demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts. Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02″

Recognizing that the “intelligent design theory” represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution: ” excerpt ends. It goes on to basically say that ID is not science, never will be, keep it out of our public schools.
The full statement can be read here: http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml

What this little exercise in ‘investigative blogging’ is showing me, is that the Discovery Institute, as of 01.05.08, is knowingly passing off what they know to be rebutted, as mainstream science. In other words-they lie.

Gives me an all warm and fuzzy feeling when the pastor lies to me.

Peace to all

Fair use doctrine material included and credited.

Add to Technorati Favorites

Intelligent Design or Creationism

“It ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand.” – Mark Twain

Aha, the challenge is taken up. I just love arguments like this. It’s what makes the Internet great. More he said, he said.

He Said: With many years experience as a biologist, creationist, ex-evolutionist, and teacher, I wonder what special knowledge that …name deleted…. And thewordofme have for making such irresponsible statements.

Well sir, I have no special knowledge. I’m semi-literate, as I admit to on my blog’s About page. My claim to knowledge about this subject is that I am a voracious reader. For over 45 years these subjects of creation, religion, God myths, and lately the rise of the Young Earth Creationists, and it’s offshoots Intelligent Design and The Discovery Institute. In matters of science I tend to believe scientists over preachers. In matters of a magic creature, I tend to believe in scientists…i.e…no such thing.

He said: If either of you had any conviction in the veracity of the myth of evolution, you would be unafraid to have it exposed and scrutinized in the classroom f or fear of it being exposed as the fraud that it remains.

Certainly sir, I have no fear about that, but there’s a problem….most of the scientists are busy sciencing, and have probably gone through this many times, and are too busy to go through it again. Having said that, there have been many debates on the subject and I expect there will be more. Science always wins because religion has to fall back on ‘magic’ and that’s not allowed in science.

He said: A sure sign of the desperation of evolutionists is typified by statements like yours that make blatant, unsubstantiated claims as if saying so makes it right. Your ploy is “When all else fails, then deny”.

I admit nothing I deny nothing. Get that rubber hose away from me. Boy, you talk about ‘unsubstantiated claims’.

He said: What is especially shameful is that you would deny students the rare opportunity to become active participants in an important contemporary controversy and allowing them participation in the scientific process of weighing the evidence and drawing their own conclusions. It is not only unscrupulous and unconscionable, but terribly bad science.

I really have to think you are kidding in this paragraph. If, in fact you are a teacher, you will/would realize the inanity of what you are saying. First of all this is not ‘an important contemporary controversy’… it has been settled many times. Secondly: the ‘terrible bad science’ you mention, would come from you. Thirdly: the unscrupulousness would be coming from you.

Science class in school is for science subjects. I would NOT like your religion pushed upon my kids. I sure you would feel the same about mine.

Religion classes belong in church or a separate, elective class in school. The constitution alludes to this.

For someone to preach to our young kids in school that the Earth is only 6,000 to 8,000 years old and men were roaming the land with dinosaurs, and that the whole Earth was flooded at one time when God was angry with us is pure foolishness. The evidence is right in front of us and it is NOT what you believe on faith.

Add to Technorati Favorites