Intelligent design creationism in a nutshell : Respectful Insolence

Who (or what) is Orac?

Orac is the nom de blog of a (not so) humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued here, along with a DISCLAIMER that you should read before reading any medical discussions here.)

Orac's old Blog is archived at Archived Insolence.

Search

Non-Orac Insolence

Medicine

Science

Skepticism and critical thinking

Combatting Holocaust denial

Blog carnivals

Science and Surgery

« A question on mobile phones | Main | It's that day again! »

Intelligent design creationism in a nutshell

Category: Evolution • Intelligent design/creationism • Pseudoscience • Science • Skepticism/critical thinking
Posted on: April 30, 2007 3:01 AM, by Orac

Thanks to a reader commenting in yesterday's post, I've been made aware of a truly brilliant summation of creationism of both the young earth and intelligent design variety:

Exactly.

Share this: Facebook Twitter Stumbleupon Reddit Email + More

Comments

I have a feeling I'm going to be linking to that quite a lot.

Posted by: Bronze Dog | April 30, 2007 8:54 AM

Unfortunately, I'm on a connection too slow for You Tube, but I'd expect it's pretty funny.

I'm not a scientist, though I did do more math than is normal for a music major. The "framing" issue is what brought me here since it astounds me how the side with all the arguments, the evolution side, is so incredibly stupid about the simple necessity of selling your message to the general public. It's very simple, evolution is science, the idea of a designer isn't. There isn't any reason for science to have to deal with it unless some try to foist the phony science onto 1. the schools, 2. the public funding system. 3. misc.

Mixing the message for evolution with other misc. such as the war against belief is too big a burden for science to carry. If you doubt that might be true, look at the mewling when you just suggest to scientists that scientists are the best people to make the case and that if they want to explain themselves to non-scientists they are going to have to speak the language that the voting public will understand. All the nonsense accusing people with a realistic view of what will be effective with the public "you want us to support creationism" is just nonsense UNLESS that has actually been proposed.

If the goal is actually to protect the teaching and funding of science then that should be the matter or most importance. Snark will not help, it has been and is counter-productive.

Let me suggest to you, friends, that you will find more useful material to plan your battles with from Ogilvy on Advertising than the pseudo-skeptical literature so much in vogue at present. I assure you that even if the present course wins you something, better and clearer explainations to the people you want ot win over to science are not only a good idea, they are the only one that will work.

Posted by: olvlzl, no ism, no ist | April 30, 2007 9:04 AM

Creationists in a NUTshell? Where else would you keep them? It is when they come out of their shells that they cause problems.

Posted by: TheProbe | April 30, 2007 9:22 AM

"A magic man done it!"

Posted by: Heart | April 30, 2007 10:38 AM