I spent this afternoon giving a public talk to the Greater Phoenix Mensa Regional Gathering. The topic was the history of anti-evolutionism (largely Intelligent Design) in this country over the past twenty years. Slides (without my soft Irish accent) are available here for those that care.
The slide player is a little funky and seems to skip certain parts of the slideshow, but it's probably enough to give you the gist of what I said. Props go to Nick Matzke at NCSE for providing some of the material.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
At various times over the last few years I have declared ID to be dead. One of my reasons for saying that is the complete intellectual collapse of Uncommon Descent (UD).
When William Dembski started the blog, it was intended as an outpost for serious commentary on intelligent design and related…
Speaking of the intellectual collapse of ID, its other major blog, the Discovery Institute's “Evolution News and Views” also seems to have fallen on hard times. How else to explain the presence of this article, by Steve Laufmann?
Laufmann addresses the question, “Is Intelligent Design Science?”…
Having strongly stated my opinion that PowerPoint is not actively evil, but can be used to give good scientific presentations as well as soul-crushingly dull bullet-point talks, I feel like I ought to say something to back it up. Here, then, are some of the rules of thumb I use when putting…
I welcome Jason Rosenhouse to SB. But, I take issue with the way he frames the issue of politics & evolution. He states:
People like Shapiro, George Will, or Charles Krauthammer are lonely voices in the conservative wilderness, accorded about as much respect in the Republican party as pro-…
Thank you for the slides. Good information.
John, this is an exceedingly well-crafted and well-documented presentation. It is essential that talks like these not only be presented to Mensa chapters, etc., but also adapted to the general public.
With US acceptance of evolution at the bottom (slide 7, I think), sandwiched between Cyprus and Turkey, our only hope for reason is to educate the next generation about the facts of evolution.
I kind of view the challenge to us in the sense of that old Max Planck quote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." In this case, evolution is an old scientific truth that many of us think is so obvious that it does not require defence. However, the scientific ignorance of the US populace provides a vacuum for ID to take hold and must be countered by effective presentations of scientific fact on evolution tailored to general audiences. Maybe we can't win over folks in their 40s, but developing critical thinking skills in schoolkids and college students is essential to combatting this intellectual decline in the US.
And, yes, I would've loved to hear the talk delivered in your Irish accent - preferably over one or more Irish ales.
I'm sorry to interrupt with what may be a ridiculous question to you, but I'm genuinely asking out of search for an answer:
Does ID have to preclude evolution? There's absolutely no reason for evolution to preclude ID, but do you see a reason why it must be either/or?
Thanks.
Nan--
Some ID proponents, notably Michael Behe, have conceded that certain elements of evolution must certainly have been occurring. Some may concede common descent and some limited amount of evolution (commonly saying microevolution occurs, but not macroevolution--a usage not consistent with that of evolution scientists). But when pressed about what Intelligent Design really explains, and its scientific usefulness, they are at a loss to provide a coherent theory useful for generating new knowledge. While the science of evolution does not preclude "magic man done it" (but that phrase is not scientifically useful), the argument cannot be simply reversed because the basis of Intelligent Design is very different. Those who support ID have a religious basis, and find the methodical naturalism of the scientific method antithetical to their religious beliefs.