Prediction #1 has come true. Here's Paul Nelson on why yesterday's loss in Kansas doesn't matter:
Once upon a time, there were a whole bunch of people who thought that what really mattered in thinking hard about design and evolution were state science standards. And school board elections.
Along came a 15 year old kid who loved science, read a lot, thought for herself, and generally saw the adults around her as missing the point. "As if," she said to the cat sleeping at her feet.
Then she smiled and went back to her web browsing.
The End.
Unfortunately, the whole bunch of people who think school board elections and state science standards really matter includes the Discovery Institute, at which Nelson is a fellow and one of their most prominent and important contributors. They were the ones who started the "Stand Up for Kansas" campaign and pumped far more money than is usually spent on state school board campaigns into it. One can only hope that it didn't drain too much money from their research budget. Come on, Pat, we're still waiting on prediction #2.
- Log in to post comments
That sounds like an "as if" story to me.
Pat will not fulfill prediction #2 because he is too busy predicting the rapture due to the events in the Middle East. He and his kind have religious wood over that war and cannot wait for the end of the world.
"As if" is sooooo last century per my kids...Just like ID!
To paraphrase them, only the teminally un-hip and stupid would even think of using it. Guess anyone from the DI qualifies on both counts!
Who is this 15 year old that he refers to? Is it an actual person or is he just inventing wise innocents in an effort to make himself look enlightened? If it's the latter, it backfired, because it just makes him look smug.
Hmm, I was going to fire off a comment to that entry there, but they don't do commenting on IDtF apparently. I thought they were meant to be the ones willing to engage in debate, and we were meant to be the ivory tower, fingers-in-ears types?
There's a part 2 now, which just gets smugger. For the sake of getting it out of my system I'll post my rebuttal here:
"Is an intelligent designer possible?" On current evidence, yes, but only if said designer is an omnipotent construct which leaves no evidence of its action. For simplicity, and because you can't make predictions with a model which includes omnipotent invisible entity, we'll use the logically equivalent model excluding the deity.
This is called "science". Theory, hypothesis, evidence, implications of evidence for the hypothesis, modification of theory. I can imagine Behe memorising and reciting knowledge, oblivious to the method as the Brazilian students Feynman lectured to.
Toto, I don't think Kansas is Kansas anymore.
John West beat him to it with the LA Times overnight:
I wonder if the paragraph about the 15-year-old girl foreshadows their next tactic: target kids with propaganda and then get the kids, not the DI or politicians, to advocate for "critical analysis" of evolution in class.
You like children, don't you?
Paul Nelson is off his rocker:
Does that make any sense at all? I mean, how does censoring ID prevent any student from finding out about the latest in evolution research?
tacitus -
In Creation-land, it's the evilutionists who are changing the definition of science, just so they can keep the incredibly powerful design theory out.
Of course after suffering yet another setback, they have to put the good face on things. It's like the child who falls and skins his knee, jumps right up and says, "That didn't hurt a bit", because his friends are watching.
Will students in Kansas be able to talk about this new paper and its interpretation, pro and con?
The "pro and con" Mr. Nelson is talking about pretty much boils down to this:
Pro: The ID Designer would make "junk" DNA.
Con: No, she wouldn't.
Lol, those guys are hilarious.
Actually, that's how I got into the fight against ID. When I was a senior in high school back in '94-'95, there was a student-led initiative to get ID taught in biology. Initially, I thoguht it was fine, because we also taught about Lamarckism and spontaneous generation, and how they had been disproven - I figured ID could be treated the same way. Then I actually read some of the materials being provided, and realized it was creationism* warmed over and a pack of lies and distortions. I then formed and led a counter-group. (Not that the administration was going to permit it in the first place - my school had a good biology program and the admin had their heads in the right places)
The sad thing is that it was my best friend who organized the pro-ID group. I don't know if he ever figured out I was leading the pro-science group. I must admit, being in on their planning did help in preparing pre-emptive poster strikes. Heehee!
*I first got involved in the evo-creo wars at the ripe old age of five, when my grandmother condemned me for reading a book on dinosaurs - paleontology was my first job choice. She didn't take well to a child being able to respond to her version of the Gish Gallup.
My guess - Nelson's inner child is really a 15 year old girl.
This is a classic lowbrow debate tactic - invent some fictional character to make a point in your favor, sort of an inverse strawman. I find it's a sign of delusion or desperation.
NDT: Using little kids already happens, albeit not for manipulating schools (it's usually for manipulating not-quite-religious-enough parents).
Children are brainwashed to believe long before they have the abilities to reason. Then they can push whatever stuff the fundies want at home. It's only a matter of time before they try it in the schools.
It's almost like tobacco companies. Get 'em young, then they're hooked.
Good call on the foreshadowing.
Ok, Mr. Vicklund, it is already being used in schools ;-)
I just hope it doesn't become a tactic of choice for the DI in the future.
It really is manipulation when your little kid comes home from Sunday school crying because "daddy is going to hell because he believes in evolution." (Not me, but very similar to an inlaw's family).
Thankfully, my childhood church was pro-evolution (of the theistic variety, of course). We even used to have a non-overlapping magisteria sermon once a year.
So, is Bill Dembski just blowing smoke or really unveiling the new Disco Institude ID strategy, version 12.5?
http://www.uncommondescent.com/index.php/archives/1383
More trivialization, of course, but now they've going to pretend that ID is "cool" and "hip" to win over the kids?? Let the lampooning commence...
It reminds me of Dembski's comment a few years ago about how they wanted to be more fun to talk to at dinner parties than us Darwinists LOL
So it was pro-evolution but anti-science and -reason, then?
That seems rather a Pyrrhic victory for the rationalists.
What, you expect a religion to deny the existence of their deit(y/ies)? That's the type of quote-mining that Heddle was trying to complain about, Caledonian. Since you seem to need it spelled out, the sermon supported all the non-meta-physical findings of science (while focusing on the more "controversial" aspects), but rejected some of the meta-physical aspects some people attribute to science and applied certain theistic meta-physics.
I'm not saying I support my childhood church's position. I'm also not saying I don't support my chldhood church's position. I'm merely stating the position they took, which is the closest I expect any religion that believes in an active God to come to a "rationalist" approach.
In other words, they believed that a being existed that interacted with the real world, but insisted that despite being real, this being could not be examined by the scientific method.
They're either liars, fools, or both at once.
Or maybe that kind of active disdain and marginalisation of the reasonable theists out there who accept the findings of science is exactly what gets us into this kind of trouble and promotes anti-science sentiments in the first place. You'll note "non-overlapping magesteria" is a Stephen Jay Gould term, not some ID-lite prattle. Bludgeoning theists who accept science because they 're still theists helps nobody.
tacitus: The claim is also ridiculous at face value, since all the folks really pushing ID are of course the older generation trying to hold on to their creationism. They're just PR-canny creationists, is all.
Chill out, Cal, he's one of our guys! Care to take some shots at the enemy for a change? Or is our foxhole too crowded for your taste?
At the present time, no form of belief in a deity is supported by rational argument.
It is meaningless to accept the findings of science but reject the method. The method is what causes those findings to be credible, and distinguishes them from doctrine.
Like it or not, they are repeating a lie. Perhaps they know it's a lie, or perhaps they've never actually given the matter any thought. It doesn't make a difference. They are misrepresenting the nature of rational thought and the scientific method in an attempt to carve out a psychological exemption for their cherished beliefs.
It is meaningless to accept the findings of science but reject the method.
They weren't rejecting the method. Acceptance or rejection of a deity is outside the methods of science. There is a difference between methodological naturalism (which my church embraced) and philosophical naturalism (which my church rejected).
Let me reiterate: I may or may not accept the position of my childhood church. I am merely reporting their position. My own meta-physical position is private (though by now it should be obvious that I am neither fundamental theistic nor fundamental atheistic)
Something to note: I am not making any claims as to the rationality of their position, just that it does not conflict with the methodology of science.
But it does. Using the scientific method requires trying very, very hard not to make assumptions about the nature of things (some very rudimentary things are usually taken for granted, such as the usefulness of trying to understand the universe). It also requires that we keep open minds, not rejecting any possibility out of hand and never holding the current understanding to be sacrosanct.
You cannot speak meaningfully about the 'supernatural' unless you have some criteria for defining what is and is not natural. Such criteria conflict with retaining an open mind about nature. If we can observe a phenomenon, how can we exclude it from nature? Scientists expand their understanding of what nature includes when they find new, unexplained things. How many religions reject the category of 'supernatural' that you know of?
More importantly, phenomena are within the domain of science if they can in theory be examined and studied - they don't need to be within our current technological grasp, nor do they need to involve evidence that is currently available to us. The only way for religious teachings to be beyond scientific investigation in theory is for their topics to be nonexistent. Unless moral and ethical principles are meaningless, science can study them. Unless the entities worshipped as deities don't interact with reality in any way, science can examine them.
"Non-overlapping magisteria" is a desperate attempt to avoid having to apply the difficult standard of rationality to cherished beliefs. It is no more logically valid than Pascal's Wager, and is equally ridiculous.
Caledonian wrote:
At the present time, no form of belief in a deity is supported by rational argument.
Which is rubbish. Belief in a higher power, and passing on stories from holy texts, serves several useful purposes, for both individuals and society overall. There are many people all over the world who cannot be disciplined or deterred from wrong actions by any means other than the belief that some supreme being(s) will judge them by their actions. Furthermore, I've heard from plenty of individuals who claim -- credibly if not provably -- that their belief in a "higher power" helped them to take the hard steps necessary to improve their lives, or to help other more needy people at great cost to themselves. Therefore, even if those beliefs are themselves not literally true (or at least not provable), there is indeed a rational case to be made for such beliefs.
Believing in one or more Gods is certainly more rational than automatically labelling all persons of faith "liars, fools, or both at once."
The issue is not whether beliefs are useful, but whether they are supported rationally. This postmodern social critique garbage is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant to the believers.
If religious beliefs are useful for achieving ends we recognize as good, then that's the rational support you're looking for.
"The ends do not justify the means."
Atheism is not rational, either. Agnosticism is the only rational position on this particular axis. Note: I make no claim to being or not being fully rational.
Rationality is not part of my agenda. Proper science eduction is part of my agenda. Not presenting meta-physics as science is also part of my agenda. You seem to have mistaken me for someone who gives a damn about publicly supporting your meta-physical assumptions. What meta-physical assumptions I personally support is a private matter to myself - not even my wife knows the full extent.
Do you need antacids do deal with all that unnecessary vitriol, Caledonian?
That's rather like saying it's not rational to disbelieve in Santa Claus, and only being uncertain about his existence is rational. Certain types of gods are logically possible, but we have no evidence showing that they exist despite centuries of looking -- and the ones that are logically impossible are, well, impossible.
Proper science education requires teaching the scientific method, and the scientific method is founded on rational thought. Perhaps you should rethink your agenda and your assumptions.
"The mean can't justify their ends."
It is rational to say that there is no evidence of deities, and that it is highly unlikely that any deities exist. It is irrational to state that given the lack of evidence for deities, there are no deities. You, sir, are irrational. But unlike you, I don't mind a little irrationality in my life. It adds a little spice, you know?
Have few more antacids. And then crawl back under your bridge.
You're misrepresenting. There is a significant difference between noting which kinds of beliefs are justified and making existential statements. Given the absolute lack of any evidence for deities, it is utterly irrational to believe that they exist, and quite rational to conclude that they do not -- just as we conclude for Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but when we would expect evidence to be present which doesn't actually exist, the conclusion that the thing really is absent follows naturally.
You also seem to be confused on the subject of metaphysical assumptions. Science's position is what you get when you don't make any such assumptions and continually attempt to change your knowledge and beliefs as new information comes in.
Exactly. Which is why atheism is irrational - it makes the assumption that deities don't exist. Science merely assumes that deities, if they do exist, aren't interfering with the experiment/observation.
Out of respect for Ed, I'm going to stop feeding this troll.
Exactly. Which is why atheism is irrational - it makes the assumption that deities don't exist. Science merely assumes that deities, if they do exist, aren't interfering with the experiment/observation.
Ergo, science is as irrational as atheism because science irrationally assumes that deities are not interfering. QED. Thanks for playing!
Obviously, the deities exist and are interfering, but aren't doing so in a way we can detect, and no matter how our detection abilities change, we never find any evidence of their existence. Also, believing in an invisible black cat sitting on a black velvet cushion in a totally dark room is rational. Clearly this is a strange new definition of 'rational' that I haven't previously encountered.
Nonexistent means that there are no interactions, and a phenomenon that never provides any interactions for us to take note of is logically indistinguishable and therefore equivalent to the nonexistence of that phenomenon.
West et al. should be seriously worried. Much of their funding is based on selling rosy-picture, 'right-around-the-corner' promises of how ID will revolutionize science, reinvigorate religious belief and smash 'materialism' (so called) to people who are at the core, conservative, religious businessmen. The problem for West is: No successful deliveries, no more funding. For the DI, it's hard to spin any news from the last year in a positive light. Their money could dry up quickly.