To evolve into real science:
Intelligent design posits that the complexity of biological life is itself evidence of a higher being at work. As a political cause, the idea has gained currency, and for good reason. The movement was intended to be a “big tent” that would attract everyone from biblical creationists who regard the Book of Genesis as literal truth to academics who believe that secular universities are hostile to faith. The slogan, “Teach the controversy,” has simple appeal in a democracy.
Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for. It has gained little support among the academics who should have been its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement’s credibility.
On college campuses, the movement’s theorists are academic pariahs, publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals.
The Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked proponents to submit proposals for actual research.
“They never came in,” said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned.
Nor will they, no matter how often their proponents pretend publicly that this is really a competing scientific theory and not just warmed over creationism.
(via Mark Kleiman, with whom I agree that this article has one of the best headlines I have seen in a long time.)
Baron Elmo
Is there some way to legally compel proponents of Creation Sci — um, I’m sorry, Intelligent Design — to turn in their opposable thumbs? Might reduce the amount of shit they sling.
Kaldrani
I never understood why this ID gang was not rounded up and just electroshocked right away. Including the president. It is amazing that in modern society, there is no set mechanism against such intellectual corruption.
Our understanding of the universe and all it contains has been developed by humanities greatest minds through scientific methods the last 2 – 300 years. And it is impossible to expect that every Tom, Dick and Harry actually understands how it all hangs together. And that is all right, people have the right to remain in stupidities denial and select any hocus pocus theory they like to believe. But like other invalids, those people need to be protected by society, kept somewhere they can not do harm to themselves or their environment.
And putting them on schoolboards is a crime.
Beating up your children is a crime in most countries in the world. So is sexually molesting them. But it seems like we are still at a stage where screwing with their minds is accepted, even encouraged. And as a result, we will have a whole generation of intellectual wankers coming out of the Kentucky shoolsystem these years. People unable to differ between the preachers rethoric and the indeas of science.
Kaldrani
As this is awaiting moderation, you might want to add a tiny bit…
“But it seems like we are still at a stage where screwing with their minds is accepted, even encouraged.”
Should read:
But it seems like we are still at a stage where screwing with their minds is accepted, even encouraged by the highest office.”
Thanks
Kaldi :)
Mitch
You voted for it (twice). And you’ll do it again in 2008. You own it. You knew what you were getting. Eat it up.
Sherard
Buy a clue, Mitch. Just because someone voted for Bush does not mean they believe in this ID bullshit. You don’t really think that dipshit Kerry would have been a better alternative, do you ? Now THAT is a belief in magic.
Krista
I feel sorry for anybody who voted for Bush in 2000…the man sounded quite reasonable when he campaigned. But in 2004? The blinders were off by then, and I think that a lot of people were fooling themselves into thinking that things would get better. Bad-boyfriend syndrome is pretty common in politics, isn’t it? We’re the same up here…always preferring the devil we know, until it gets to the breaking point.
Mitch
Are you kidding Sherard? Bush believes this creationism garbage – and this was known prior to the 2000 election – yet you trust his judgment? So you’d vote for Bush again if given the chance. Just like the host here. What a woeful criteria you have for selecting a president. Thanks for proving my point. You and your ilk deserve George Bush.
ubernerd83
Baron Elmo: I’m not a legal scholar by any means, but I just wrote a research paper on the constitutionality of ID in public schools. While there is no legal way to prevent ID proponents to give up their thumbs, the legality of teaching ID in public schools is questionable. Arguably, the it fails all three prongs of the Lemon test because the Supreme Court has said (I believe in Edwards v. Aguillard) that the belief in a creator (which IDers call “intelligent agency”) is an inherenly religious idea. Whether or not this is a valid analysis, I don’t know; I haven’t gotten the paper back yet.
Jon H
Sherard writes: “You don’t really think that dipshit Kerry would have been a better alternative, do you ”
Just look at the clowns Bush puts on his scientific panels; like that guy Hager.
Walker
If it was ever there, it was dismantled by the post-modernists. The modern university is pretty disfunctional when it comes to evaluation of competing ideas. I am not a Horowitz supporter, but universities do have a problem.
I mean, what do you do in a society where a nontrivial number of college students these days thinks that Chomsky makes logically sound arguments?
Kirk Spencer
Sherard,
Here’s the amusing thing… How do you know Kerry would have been worse? I mean, I know you have opinions on the issue, but how do you KNOW? What, exactly, would he have done to put us in a more troublesome spot than we are already? What does your crystal ball say?
Would he have seen the economy suffer? (Probably – this present course was set a year or two ago) Appointed inexperienced cronies to head critical government agencies? (Possible, but more likely experienced cronies.) But we don’t know, as none of us has the power to KNOW what THE alternate future would have been. His pre-election rhetoric would imply that we’d have seen the standards of victory (and so the criteria for withdrawal) about 4 or 5 months ago – he was NOT for immediate withdrawal, but rather claimed to be of the “we broke it, we bought it, but let’s fix it and get out” mindset.
Note that I cannot say Kerry would have been better – I, too, lack a crystal ball. But to say definitively that Kerry would have been worse requires not only the crystal ball, but at this point also requires a bit of explanation as to HOW he would have been worse.
Greg
You don’t really think that dipshit Kerry would have been a better alternative, do you ? Now THAT is a belief in magic.
Yeah, good point, Sherard. I’m sure if Kerry had been elected he would have also appointed two religious fanatics to the Supreme Court, would be declaring war on the environment, and would be giving the troops carte blanche for torture. Let me guess, you were one of the 2% undecideds who just couldn’t see the difference between night and day during the last election?
Steve S
This is the problem you get into when you base your voting patterns on emotion rather than logic.
Steve S
I honestly don’t know Chomsky very well, probably not as well as most of my wingnut friends here who spend an awful lot of time attacking him.
So do you have an example of an illogical statement? Is it any more illogical than the crap that comes from the Bushie Administration?
The point, I guess, is I don’t think people who listen to Horowitz, O’Reilly, Limbaugh, and all the Republican elected officials have any monopoly on sound reasoning. Rather just the opposite.
DougJ
I’m in the mood to break Godwin’s rule today: just because someone supports Hitler doesn’t mean they believe in that Master Race bullshit.
ET
I like this blog post title over at the Carpebagger
Intelligent Design gets ID’d as DOA
thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6004.html
Micah
Okay, don’t kill me . . . I think ID should be taught in biology classes. It’s the perfect way of teaching the scientific process. You explain that theories begin with a hypothesis–ID in this case–then tests are made to prove or disprove the hypothesis. If the tests are positive and can be repeated by other researchers, then the hypothesis passes into theory. Then you engage the students in an exercise on whether ID as a hypothesis can be tested at all. Ultimately it would become clear that there is no way to test ID, and therefore ID is NOT a theory, it is only an unprovable hypothesis . . . I.e., at best it’s philosophy and has no place in a science class. Then you can get on with teach real theory.
BIRDZILLA
All this evolution crap come from NATIONAL GEOGRAFAKE and NO COVERES magazines and its stilled based on a unproven theory
Perry Como
It seems that one professor has changed his godless views after seeing the love of Jesus.
Slartibartfast
You know, I wasn’t absolutely certain that this BIRDZILLA entity was a troll until now. But I haven’t really been paying attention.
The other possibility is GBOWR-stupid, which is just about ruled out by any ability to operate a computer.
Robert
Ah…so Mitch says that if you happen to vote Republican this means you automatically vote for religious fanaticism? Regardless of the fact some Republicans are openly opposing some of Bush’s agenda?
Typical right-wing logic if I ever saw it.
BruceH
Robert, Mitch did not say that at all. He said that if you voted for Bush (not Republicans in general,) then you voted for religious fanaticism. Since Bush is a self-described born again Christian, Mitch’s statement stands.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hahahahaa
Sojourner
No. Anyone who voted for bush knew that they were voting for a religious fanatic. No excuses now.
DougJ
But, hey, Kerry was a flip-flopper. Wouldn’t you rather have a delusional religious fanatic with a Messiah complex who invades countries because God tells him to than a flip-flopper? It’s a no brainer. Bush may be guided by the voices in his head, but better that than someone who is guided by the voices on National Public Radio. Am I right?
Aaron
Kaldrani
Your comment is dead on point, humanity will never be able to effectively continue our evolution as long as we continue to screw with our kids heads when they are at their most impressionable.
DougJ
Like your page Aaron, but a couple points: (1) Paint It Black is not on Let It Bleed (2) where’s the freaking Al Green? Anybody who puts Johnny Cash and Nina Simone on the page needs to add “For the Good Times” to the playlist.
John
Micah Says:
. . I.e., at best it’s philosophy and has no place in a science class. Then you can get on with teach real theory.
This is exactly how my biology class in high school was taught. But they called it creationism back then.
I don’t have a problem with this stuff — as RELIGION. It is not now nor ever will be science. So don’t call it that. And don’t teach it in the public schools, unless you identify it as religion.
david.g
Contrary to your belief, there is a Theory of Intelligent Design which is supported by evidence which can be found at Intelligent Design Theory . It is interesting that such a theory has been ignored in the recent debate and court case. Then again the proponents of intelligent design may be unaware of it and think that it is just creationism!