• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'An intelligent discussion about life'

Shalamar

Dark Lord of the JREF
Shalamar
Joined
Sep 21, 2007
Messages
5,875
Location
Somewhere Else
I live out in the beautiful Pacific Northwest. Usually this makes me pretty happy.

Usually.

Today, not so much. Occasionally I'm reminded that the Discovery Institute is actually headquartered in Seattle, and this disappoints me. But I suppose they have to be somewhere. I just wish that somewhere was say.. Mars.

Bruce Chapman, President of the Discovery institute, wrote a 'guest column' in todays Seattle Times. You can read it here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004353967_chapman17.html. He makes the usual claims: ID is not creationism, 'We just want a discussion', Darwinists refuse to debate us. ID is based in scientific fact, we have a list of over (Gasp!) 700 scientists who discount evolutionary theory, etc etc.

He also talks a lot about the movie expelled. Frankly, this is really unfortunate. I'm planning to write a letter to the Times, but, I'm a layman when it comes to this sort of thing. I know the article is full of lies, I just have to dig a bit to find them. I also plan to pass this acticle around a bit, and see what happens...
 
Think I'm going to write a response and post it on Skepchick.
 
As usual, you guys are quick. Good thing I checked the site before starting a thread.

`Bout lost all my coffee reading that article. It is a bit more subtle and slightly more sophisticated than the ususal ID propaganda, but full of erroneous 'arguments' none the less.
 
Philosopher of Science Stephen Meyer said:
Whenever we trace information back to its source — whether we are looking at an ancient hieroglyphic, a headline in a newspaper or software code in a computer program, we always come to an intelligent agent — to a mind, not a material process. So when we find information in life in the form of the digital code in DNA, the most likely explanation is that DNA also had an intelligent source.
Click to expand...
This is simply an example of the sort of deception the ID crowd engages in. Of course the three examples he gives came from intelligent agents, but there are many examples of information which do not come from intelligent agents but from material processes. The sediments which build up at the mouth of a river contain information about origins, flow rates, tides, etc. A spectrograph of starlight looks like a rainbow bar code, and contains information not only about the elements in the celestial objects, but their motion and distance as well. It is simply not true to say that information always implies an intelligent agent, and IDers are engaging in deliberate deception when they present such unscientific arguments.

Discovery Institute President Bruce Chapman said:
Scholars seeking a compromise that brings religion directly into the scientific discussion have offered the comforting possibility that God did the creating, but did it through Darwinian evolution. Guidance of an unguided process is the idea. But this vague proposition contradicts what almost all leading Darwinist scientists, including Dawkins, emphatically contend. In Darwin's universe, natural selection is blind, mutations are undirected and humanity is an unintended outcome. If the evolutionary process is guided, then it no longer is Darwinian. And if the evolutionary process is unguided, it allows no room for God. Logically, not even God can guide an unguided process.
Click to expand...
This brings to mind the old syllogism,

God is Love
Love is Blind
Therefore, God is Blind.

Certainly, the scientific evidence seems more consistent with a blind process than with an intelligently guided process. For example, nature furnishes us with many examples of working eyes, with many different designs. The eye of the octopus is remarkably similar to our own, except that in the case of the octopus, nature got it right: the retina is not inside out, so there is no "blind spot" where the optic nerve must be threaded through it to connect it with the brain. Since the octopus predates the dinosaurs, this design would certainly have been known to any "Intelligent Designer" which might have designed both octopuses and humans, yet the human eye has that curious inside-out retina. Blind nature, solving the problem of providing vision many times in independent experiments, could certainly have yielded this design which works well enough but is less than optimal, but how is such a mistake consistent with the notion of an intelligent designer?

As Chapman himself observes (re: Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings), science follows the evidence, and will readily discard even cherished theories when a better model is developed. The ID proponents are attempting an end-run around the scientific process, taking their case directly to a relatively scientifically unsophisticated audience (legislators and school boards). When they can make a scientific case (if ever), I'm certain scientists will be more than willing to consider it.
 
Interestingly, all six "letters to the editor" in the Times this morning were pro real science and not in favor of Chapman's pseudo science. Shal, maybe one of your letters was represented?

Gives one a glimmer of hope to see that people can see through the deception and semi slick way of pushing non scientific propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom