For scientists who accept evolution

[PatKelley]

Biggest giveaway that ID is religion/dogmatic thought is strategy. In an institution built on argument from faith and dogma, a hole in dogma is fatal, and the other position wins by default or causes a schism. Not so in science, but ID is pursuing a strategy of saying don't look at us, we'll win by default as long as we poke one hole in evolutionary theory.

It doesn't work that way.

It's not a court case, and if it were the defense would be arguing that the prosecution does not know where the defendant was between 12:02.23 and 12:03.13 and so their case should be thrown out. This is the order of minutia that ID is arguing against evolutionary theory. Meantime, ID is proposing an alternate theory that the defendant has a twin brother, was in a coma in Istanbul, and apported randomly until he ended up at the crime scene. While their theory is possible, it is not probable.

 

[Dr Adequate]

As a signatory, I got this update.

Hi folks,

This is R. Joe Brandon, the organizer of the four day petition against
Intelligent Design being taught as science in our public schools which
you signed last September/October at www.shovelbums.org/ID . I wanted to
drop you a note to give you a few updates and get your opinion on an
idea I have.

First I wanted to thank any of you signatories who contacted the science
editor at NY Times, Kenneth Chang this week after he published the
article Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution
Petition about the signatories of the Discovery Institutes petition on
Feb 21st:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html?pagewanted=1


Many of you noticed that, oddly, the results of our four-day drive were
not included as a comparison. Kenneth contacted me after hearing from
you to let me know that he had the results of our four-day drive in the
article originally, but decided to drop any mention of it to save space
on the web page. Nevertheless, with the response he was getting from
signatories for that omission he asked for some further information and
put up a small bit about it at:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/22askscience.html

So many thanks to those of you who contacted Kenneth to help keep these
relevant results in the news.

Updates:

While the Kitzmiller case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs in
court and is not being contested there are still numerous other regional
battles going on around the country. In particular, here in Ohio we have
been involved in a long time battle with not a local school board but
the state school board itself. I will spare you the details of the mess
we were in here in Ohio, but it is best summed up with what my neighbor,
an Olentangy High School student, told me when I asked her if there was
ever any mention of the controversy in her biology class. “No there were
not any problems, my biology teacher just told us she did not believe in
evolution so she was not going to teach it to us…”. A recent vote has
hopefully turned the tide here in Ohio but then of course there are the
ongoing situations in Kansas, California, etc…

So where are we now?

The Discovery Institute (DI) took notice of the 7,733 signatories of
this four-day drive, which we all know made their 400 signatories in
four-year efforts beyond pale in comparison. The Discovery Institute’s
response has been to step up their efforts to gather scientist
signatures on their statement:

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and
natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful
examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

The DI is doing this through a new web site they have set up,
http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org that is dedicated to expanding the
number of signatories on their list to further bolster their arguments
in court. The DI claims that by signing this document scientists are not
endorsing Intelligent Design. The reality is that this document itself
is only being used, as it was in Kitzmiller, as a catalyst to get
Intelligent Design into schools.

So here is my question.

In response to the DI’s new effort to expand the number of signatories
on their list, should I re-open my statement to signatories for
scientists in support of evolution to sign? The results of the four-day
drive stand by themselves, but by re-opening the signatory page it will
allow us to be sure that the media hears our voice clearly. You know,
and I know, that these “numbers” do not mean much in themselves, but
that is not stopping the DI from misrepresenting the truth to the media
when they wave their signatory list around as if it represents a wave of
dissent among science. The truth is the media needs to know about the
existence of our results to be able to report fairly on these issues. If
all the media has is the DI’s version that is all they are going to
being telling the public that is making decisions about Intelligent
Design in schools.

One useful thing about re-opening this signatory list would be the
possibility to gather enough financial support to be able to do more
press releases about our results to keep it fresh in the medias eye. The
initial $1,200 it took to pay for the first press release ate up most of
the financial support I had from all of you, and for those of you who
have continued to buy t-shirts or contribute a few dollars here and
there at www.shovelbums.org/ID it has been helpful.

To keep everything Apples for Apples with the DI’s dissentfromdarwin.com
I have picked up the web site http://www.ascentfromdarwin.org/ to host
the new signatory list if we decided to go forward with this.

Drop me a note and let me know what you think. And if you are on a
discussion board or blog drop the question out there also if you have a
chance.

Best,

R. Joe Brandon

Your thoughts please.

 

[Nitedawg]

We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwianian theory should be encouraged.

You have to remember something about ID. At its heart, it is not a proponent of science. It is a media campaign aimed at popular culture. It is not really interested in getting good science published, it is interested in winning over american voters. It is a little more than a well organized and well funded lobby group.

It wants to present itself as being the open minded reasonable side of the discussion and scientist as being the close minded dogmatists. It worded the language of that petition to sound reasonable and to get reasonable people to sign it, but they use it in an unreasonable way. They use it as some kind appeal against current scientific methodology when in reality is about as scientific a statement as you can get.

Of course we are skeptical, that is an important part of science. Of course we should be carefully examining the evidence of Darwinian theory. We should always be carefully examing evidence and challenging theories.

Darwinian Evolution has been one of the most closely scrutinized and constantly challenged theories in modern science. It has been and is still being challenged ALL THE TIME. What is amazing is that it has held up so well.

The ID spin masters continue to present it as an unchallenged belief that science follows like a religion, an accepted fundamentalist dogma, and AT THE EXACT SAME TIME lists off scientific debates about it as being proof that it is falling apart because it is being challenged. Well which is it? An unchallenged Dogma that no one ever questions or one that is constantly under attack and crumbling under "good" scientific scrutiny.

The reality of it is this. It is the best working theory we have which best explains the evidence we see. The basic tennant of it is holding up very well and no one seriously doubts that evolution exists. The arguments about evolution are not whether it happens but how fast or slow it happens, what mechanisms cause it to happen, and what is the best way to describe it.

In science you have doubts and you are skeptical and you challenge theories, but you don't take a working theory and replace it with nothing at all! You replace it with a theory that BETTER explains the evidence or the process that the original theory dealt with.

ID wantd to replace the good working theory of Evolution with what now? What is their theory that better explains the world of life on this planet and the history of that life? That is the question ID needs to answer in order to be taken seriously.

And we you ask that question of it, you get no answer at all.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hi and welcome aboard.

That was well expressed, but you could have saved yourself a lot of time if you'd remembered that you're preaching to the choir.

With the exception of hammegk, who has his fingers in his ears and is tone-deaf.

 

[Nitedawg]

glad to be here

Thanks for the welcome. I want to say sorry in advance that this got so long but I had something I really wanted to say.

I support having as many scientists as possible sign that petition, no matter what field they are working in. Here's why.

The ID Lobby is combing all fields looking for any knew scientific theory, conjecture, speculation, etc that can possibly be used to indicate a scientific opposition to Darwinian Evolution. I think someone pointed out earlier that they are attacking in through physics, astronomy, geology, archeology, biology and even mathematics.

They go to theistic colleges and recruit anyone they can, especially anyone with some kind of credentials and a sympathy to their cause. They are trying to appeal to the public by making it appear that a belief in a creator is not only religiously sound but also scientifically sound.

There is a deep human psychological need to believe in a creator who has made us, has a plan for us, and is watching over us. This has been the case since mankind developed a social consciousness and it is never going to go away. This is very human and all of us, even the skeptics, can feel the appeal of it.

But then again, there is also a deep human need to inquire about things, explore, learn, and to manipulate the world around us. It has been a matter of survival as well as entertainment and joy. But during the course of our discoveries we started to examine the creation stories we were told and started having doubts about their validity. In fact I’m going to go out on a limb and say that deep down inside all of us, even the believers, know that none of those stories makes allot of sense.

So we try to have it both ways. We decide we will believe in the comfort of a creator on the basis of faith, and we will understand the actual workings of the world around us on the basis of reason and experiment. Sometimes science has made adjustments to avoid contradicting the faith but more often, amazingly enough, the faiths have made adjustments to live in harmony with the discoveries of science.

But here’s the problem. Fundamentalist don’t like to adjust themselves (at least not in public). In fundamentalist Christianity the slightest deviation from the faith is intolerable. To them, evolution does not fit with the story of Adam and Eve. If Adam and Eve didn’t actually happen there is no original sin. If there is no original sin there is no need for Jesus to be our salvation. So obviously…evolution must be wiped out.

Their campaign is aimed at appealing to every American who believes in a creator without any mention of a specific faith. They offer the comforts of the caring creator without the nagging worry of trying to make sense of the creation story. They make it seem like there is science to back it up.

“We the Intelligent Design community”, they preach, “are the true seekers of knowledge. We are the open minded thinkers who are not afraid to question authority. The scientists are the stodgy authority figures who refuse to look at the evidence.”

They know that Americans love to be on the side of the open minded thinkers, and love to question authority. They cast themselves as the rebel underdogs and traditional scientists as the oppressors.

And the scientific community lets them do this without opposition.

They don’t care if it’s true or not because this isn’t about science it’s about politics. They think that by selling this idea to the majority of Americans they can gain control over what sciences will be taught in the schools.

Unfortunately, they are absolutely right.

The scientific community has ignored ID because they have viewed it as a battle of wits in which ID is unarmed. In the world of science they are correct but as far as the rest of the country is concerned Intelligent Design is winning the battle.

The good news is the American public can still be reached through reason, though not if they only hear one side of the story.

I say sign the petition. Sign a hundred petitions. Get your voice out there and be heard by the public. They need to know that intelligent design is not science, it’s a sound bite.

They need to be reminded that ID is not the future, it is the past.

Deep down they know this. They just need some help remembering why.