Stranger Fruit

Not looking good for the cdesign proponentsists and their attempts to weaken science education by proposing "academic freedom" bills. First Florida. Now Alabama.

Comments

  1. #1 Joshua Zelinsky
    May 9, 2008

    There’s a typo in the title “feedom” should be “freedom”.

  2. #2 John Lynch
    May 9, 2008

    Thanks. Fixed.

  3. #3 Tyler DiPietro
    May 9, 2008

    Looks like the latest anti-evolution stratagem may turn out to be a complete dud, which would joy me to no end.

    If that turns out to be the case, then it will solidify the emerging reality the DI and their groupies are basically irrelevant.

  4. #4 shonny
    May 10, 2008

    If that turns out to be the case, then it will solidify the emerging reality the DI and their groupies are basically irrelevant.
    Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 9, 2008 9:27 PM

    They are not ‘basically irrelevant’, Tyler, they are a dark, backward-oriented force, much like the cat’lick church, and the other powerful religious groups.

    But I don’t think rational arguments will be of much help to make them understand anything. They want dogma. Reality would scare the shit out of them, and there sure is a lot of shit in them to be scared out.

  5. #5 Michael
    May 10, 2008

    They want dogma

    ID is secular as it only posts an “intelligent” agency, it does not make any claims to it being either natural or supernatural. Here is an example…

    The Edge of Evolution (p. 237):
    Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very similar to it.

    This statement here produced by an ID proponent; Michael Bebe, would not be biblical. The Bible says, it was the “fall” which is not what Bebe concluded. And another thing, this conclusion of Bebe’s wouldn’t be acceptable for teaching in the public school. There is a difference about being critical when it comes to Evolution, such as showing it’s weakness rather than teaching kids it’s just plain fact whether or not we can explain certain aspects of the hypothesis.

    While the ID Bills haven’t done quite that well as of yet, I believe those proposing it, may not fully understand the need for details. They need to narrow down what they mean by being “critical” of evolution. ID is caught in the middle, creationists don’t care for it’s secularism much as it leads to unbiblical conclusions, and atheists don’t care for the “intelligent” agency” concept because it violates their beliefs.

  6. #6 Onias
    May 10, 2008

    Academic freedom? Where was Norman Finkelstein’s academic freedom when he was denied tenure for criticising Dershowitz?

    The hypocrisy of the Right is astonishing.

  7. #7 Tyler DiPietro
    May 10, 2008

    “They are not ‘basically irrelevant’, Tyler, they are a dark, backward-oriented force, much like the cat’lick church, and the other powerful religious groups.”

    What I should say is “comparatively less relevant”. I know there is always a danger of underestimating your enemies capabilities, but it’s pretty clear to me that the DI has been effectively routed since the Dover. If this latest fiasco involving Expelled and “academic freedom” is to be taken as their comeback strategy, then they’re in pretty bad shape IMO.

    I have no doubt the broader anti-evolution movement can regroup, but it may be the case that the DI and the ID movement specifically has so thoroughly torpedoed its reputation that they’re no longer a viable agent to carry out the agenda. The DI may be irrelevant much in the same way that the ICR and AiG are now pretty much irrelevant, they’re no longer viable frontmen for the central effort of the anti-evolution movement, i.e., getting the crap into the schools.

  8. #8 cl
    June 13, 2008

    @ John,

    Hi, I’m a random stop-by who also bears the affliction of incessant thought about religious and scientific issues, and I would like to ask: How do you feel about the statement that complete empirical evidence for man’s descent from the lower animals is lacking? Would you say that statement was true or false? Why? And to what extent, if any, should the truth or falsity of the statement bear on the surety with which we teach common descent?

    I’m more interested in hearing your opinion than asserting mine.

    Loved the picture of Earth and Moon from Mars, btw.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.