EEK! Intelligent Design has Evolved!

[H3LL]

Not sure which forum I should use...Mods move this if there is better place.

I'm obviously a little out of touch and I was hoping those in the know could bring me up to speed.

Ironically, Creationism, after failing to successfully survive in its environment evolved into Intelligent Design. Apparently doing this very rapidly when the word Creationism was replaced in On Pandas and People with Intelligent Design in 1987.

Intelligent Design, not being well adapted to its environment, particularly in Dover, has now apparently evolved into Critical Examination of Evolution.

The new "Wedge" would seem to be Critical Examination. Particularly nasty as it is a clever disguise.

My guess is that the crazies behind Creationism/ID hope that science will welcome Critical Examination (it will and should) but fail to notice Creationism/ID masquerading in its new clothes.

So far, Ohio and the UK have seen through their new disguise....There may be others...Bring me up to date on progress please.



If Creationism/ID proponents succeed in opening the door to science class...They also leave it wide open for every other pseudo-science and crack-pot woo.

Astrology in your astronomy class
Alchemy in your chemistry class
Magic in your physics class
Numerology in your mathematics class
ID in your biology class
etc.

After all, these sciences should be "critically examined and open to non-natural interpretations".*

For "non-natural" read super-natural or woo-woo. In the case of ID, read non-natural as the Christian god....much as they would like to hide that fact.

As I have suggested...I'm behind the news on this new wedge strategy and would appreciate you all commenting on what you know and give me some links etc.

For the ID proponents that wish to comment in the thread - Give me a practical scientific/technological use for ID first - Then post. I'm bored with the usual lies and deceptions.

.

*NOT!

 

[Apathia]

I think we've beat on this one somewhere before.
Anyway, here's a linky to stuff like this.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/

Too long the Newtonian Theory of Gravitation has held the monpoly in our schools, it's time we taught a critical examination by introducing alternative theories such as the Aristotilian Theory of Gravitation. LOL.

 

[H3LL]

I think we've beat on this one somewhere before.
Anyway, here's a linky to stuff like this.
http://www.truthinscience.org.uk/

Too long the Newtonian Theory of Gravitation has held the monpoly in our schools, it's time we taught a critical examination by introducing alternative theories such as the Aristotilian Theory of Gravitation. LOL.

I prefer Gravity Pixies.

 

[Dr Adequate]

But it'll still involve telling the same old lies, yes?

 

[H3LL]

But it'll still involve telling the same old lies, yes?

Oh Yes.

But sneakier.

.

 

[Mashuna]

So the IDers have now adopted the 'just asking questions' approach.

Who would have guessed that creationists would evolve into truthers?

 

[CapelDodger]

But it'll still involve telling the same old lies, yes?

Obviously that's the intent. All we have here is yet another cut-out on that path after the previous one was blown, and it'll go the same way.

 

[CapelDodger]

So the IDers have now adopted the 'just asking questions' approach.

What they're having to take on board by these arguments is the idea that children should ask questions. They should be taught to seek them out. So ask questions about the Bible, ask questions about your teacher's interpretation of the Bible, question, question, question ...

Sounds good to me. And sounds like desperation from the creationists.

Who would have guessed that creationists would evolve into truthers?

Truthers are clearly from the same genus, but not necessarily descendents

 

[Darat]

...snip...


Truthers are clearly from the same genus, but not necessarily descendents

More likely ring species.

 

[CapelDodger]

The new "Wedge" would seem to be Critical Examination. Particularly nasty as it is a clever disguise.

But also a double-edged sword. They might live to regret it.

If Creationism/ID proponents succeed in opening the door to science class...They also leave it wide open for every other pseudo-science and crack-pot woo.

Astrology in your astronomy class
Alchemy in your chemistry class
Magic in your physics class
Numerology in your mathematics class
ID in your biology class
etc.

After all, these sciences should be "critically examined and open to non-natural interpretations".

Better yet, there could be courses in Comparative Astrology . Chinese, Indian, Babylonian, modern Western, yadda-yadda.

I sniff an opportunity here. Is anybody opposed to Critical Examination in principle? (OK, some people are, but they're not people like us.) Currently, teachers teach astronomy if that's in the curriculum, but they're not obliged to address astrology at the same time. Crtitical Examination gives them the opportunity.

 

[Apology]

Too long the Newtonian Theory of Gravitation has held the monpoly in our schools, it's time we taught a critical examination by introducing alternative theories such as the Aristotilian Theory of Gravitation. LOL.

You silly, there's no gravity. We're all stuck to the ground with Woo Glue.

 

[Apathia]

You silly, there's no gravity. We're all stuck to the ground with Woo Glue.

I'm held to Mother Earth by love!

 

[Hokulele]

Intelligent Falling.

 

[my_wan]

You silly, there's no gravity. We're all stuck to the ground with Woo Glue.

Sure, just keep your woo hugs to yourself!

 

[my_wan]

H3LL, I was caught without any knowledge of DI's evolution since Dover myself. This of course can only be remedied with a little research, and where better to start than than DIs own site. Using Googles site specific search with key-phrase "critical analysis" turned up a treasure trove. A good overview can be found here with the early damage control arguments after Dover et al. Here is DIs rebuttal to the claim that "critical analysis" is ID relabeled (PDF). You don't want to miss DI's Science Education Policy either, or their science and education policy page.

So far it seems to be a fairly early stage project for DI to salvage the "critical analysis" language to provide a foothold (wedge) for future confusion. Ultimately, if they get the "teaching more not less about evolution" strategy, to input their own arguments it will boil down to "irreducible complexity". This is their Achilles heal, and they can only maintain it under the guise of critical thinking. I wonder how they are going to respond if we agree with them but require that demonstrations of irreducibly complex systems created randomly be included?

P.S. I wouldn't be so quick to refuse a woo huge from you .

 

[CapelDodger]

H3LL, I was caught without any knowledge of DI's evolution since Dover myself. This of course can only be remedied with a little research, and where better to start than than DIs own site. Using Googles site specific search with key-phrase "critical analysis" turned up a treasure trove. A good overview can be found here with the early damage control arguments after Dover et al. Here is DIs rebuttal to the claim that "critical analysis" is ID relabeled (PDF). You don't want to miss DI's Science Education Policy either, or their science and education policy page.

That's an impressive arsenal you've provided there; thank you muchly .

So far it seems to be a fairly early stage project for DI to salvage the "critical analysis" language to provide a foothold (wedge) for future confusion. Ultimately, if they get the "teaching more not less about evolution" strategy, to input their own arguments it will boil down to "irreducible complexity". This is their Achilles heal, and they can only maintain it under the guise of critical thinking.

Call me an optimist (that would be new) but I see a soft and exposed underbelly. It's maybe an Achilles Heel if you focus on evolution, but an argument in favour of Critical Analysis in principle - and who'd be against that? - cannot be restricted to one subject. If it's justified in the case of evolution it's justified in every case. If every course had to have a regular period dedicated to Critical Analysis of what the students have been taught it would a damn' fine thing, IMO.

 

[drkitten]

Ironically, Creationism, after failing to successfully survive in its environment evolved into Intelligent Design. Apparently doing this very rapidly when the word Creationism was replaced in On Pandas and People with Intelligent Design in 1987.

Intelligent Design, not being well adapted to its environment, particularly in Dover, has now apparently evolved into Critical Examination of Evolution.

The new "Wedge" would seem to be Critical Examination. Particularly nasty as it is a clever disguise.

Not that clever, (un)fortunately. I think that this can and will backfire badly for the creationists. One of the key aspects of nearly every court case post-"creationism" has been a discussion of why the theory of evolution, in particular, is singled out for particular discussion, examination, and criticism. The courts have uniformly held that this is evidence in support of the religious purpose behind the Wedge, which is sufficient to invalidate whatever silly measures they propose.

So unless the creationists substantially broaden the scope of their arguments, which will both water them down and make them substantially less effective, then they'll still be caught on a legal prong.

The basic problem is that what they need to do, from a legal point of view, is either overthrow the entire system or else take down all of science. From a scientific point of view, they either need to overthrow the entire system or else refute evolution from within science itself (i.e. do the "science" that we've been telling them to do for years).

It rather reminds me, actually, of those old WWII Escape-from-Stalag-N movies. Every time a POW tried and failed to escape, the security of the camp got that little bit more secure (because the guards learned about one more loophole and covered it). The creationists are running out of easy/safe ways to get their message out....

My guess is that the crazies behind Creationism/ID hope that science will welcome Critical Examination (it will and should) but fail to notice Creationism/ID masquerading in its new clothes.

They will. But the courts have already pre-spotted this masquerade. "Why only evolution?" "Um, 'cause it's evil and unGodly!" "Right. Off you go, then. Come back when you've got a secular case."

 

[H3LL]

Some great links..Thanks.

Plus, The Onion always raises a giggle.

.

 

[arthwollipot]

I sniff an opportunity here. Is anybody opposed to Critical Examination in principle? (OK, some people are, but they're not people like us.) Currently, teachers teach astronomy if that's in the curriculum, but they're not obliged to address astrology at the same time. Crtitical Examination gives them the opportunity.

No, I'm not opposed to CE in principle - but it strikes me that the ID version of CE is completely spurious. As an example, Check this (long) thread on another forum of which I am a member. In particular, notice how Asyncritus points out what he considers as "problems" with evolution, and notice how he completely ignores everything I and others say when we start applying CE to his own claims.

 

[my_wan]

I was digging a little deeper and found some interesting links.
On Discovery Institute's Science Education Policy they said;

Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.

Four states (Minnesota, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina) have science standards that require learning about some of the scientific controversies relating to evolution.

I started searching "Minnesota evolution" since they put it out as a model.
Here (2005), http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2005/04/21/64302, it says;

A recent poll by The Minnesota Daily concluded that University students are much more likely to believe in evolution than the rest of the U.S. public.
According to the March poll, 83 percent of University students believe in the theory that humans evolve over time. The remaining 17 percent of respondents believe God created man 10,000 years ago and humans have not evolved.

This is compared to a 55% national average (Gallup, same article). Then I ran across "The Clergy Letter Project". It consist signatures of Clergy support for evolution. Here it says;

We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.

It presently has 11,083 names of Clergy which I believe blows away DI's list of scientist skeptical of evolution (729 total). DI even pools their signatures worldwide whereas the clergy list is all from the US. The only people DI can hope to preach to is their own choir.