Interesting article about ID

[JLam]

From Newsweek. Very well done article

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6884904/site/newsweek/

 

[Dr Adequate]

Not that well done. They let too many stupid fundie lies go unchallenged in the first two pages.

 

[JLam]

They let too many stupid fundie lies go unchallenged in the first two pages

One must remember that this is Newsweek, not Skeptical Inquirer. I think they did a good job of presenting both sides of the argument and tried not to pass judgement. It's not the place of a magazine such as Newsweek to take sides on an issue as controversial as this, or to really challenge either side. That's why groups like ours are so important.

What this article did was present the current debate in a neutral light. Obviously we're biased. The young-earth crowd would probably say that the article let too many stupid evolutionist arguments go unchallenged. That's their bias.

The article wasn't aimed at people like us, who already have an opinion on the matter. It is aimed at people who genuinely have never heard of ID.

 

[Ipecac]

I agree with Dr. Adequate.

ID versus evolution isn't an issue like pro-choice versus pro-life where there is no objective scientific ground for choosing one over the other. ID is purporting to be "scientific" and in the "scientific" battle between ID and evolution, there's no contest. Evolution wins hands down. The article does a disservice to the truth by treating ID as if it's a viable scientific concept. It's not.

 

[JLam]

Ipecac stated:

The article does a disservice to the truth by treating ID as if it's a viable scientific concept.

From the article's 2nd paragraph:

"Intelligent design is predicated on a supernatural creator," says Vic Walczak, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is challenging Dover's introduction of the concept into biology classes. "That's not science, it's religion."

Towards the end of the article:

[Eugenie] Scott's organization has circulated a countermanifesto asserting that "there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is [the] major mechanism ... "

They have both points of view represented well in this article, and the above quotes prove that ID is not being blindly presented as science. It is not the job of the author to take a side...remember this is Newsweek. It's supposed to be objective.

It does not treat ID as if it's a viable concept. It simply quotes supporters who assert that it is, the same way it quotes detractors who say it isn't. At one point the article says that the ID supporters are using "scientific language," but that's not the same as asserting that it's a true scientific concept. In fact we criticize people for simply using language that sounds scientific in order to back up their ideas. So, the way I see it, when the article says that they're trying to sound scientific, it just makes ID even less credible.

I would bet one of my kidneys that this article in this form would be laughed off the desk of an editor of a skeptical publication. Newsweek is not a skeptical publication. I stand by my argument that this article did a good job of presenting both sides of the debate without showing a preference for either.

Here's a question. Do you see anywhere in the article where our side is not represented? Anywhere there is an argument put forth from an ID proponent that is not rebutted by an evolutionist? If there is, I haven't seen one. However, I may have missed something. I'm not trying to be sarcastic...I really may have missed something

 

[thaiboxerken]

A news magazine should be telling the truth instead of treating both sides of this issue as being equally valid in thinking. The ID'ers are wrong, wrong, wrong, any news magazine should be emphasizing this fact.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

I stand by my argument that this article did a good job of presenting both sides of the debate without showing a preference for either.

hat's a very common viewpoint nowdays - that this is the 'reasonable' way of dealing with a controversial topic. But as soon as you extend it to things that aren't controversial, the silliness of this approach becomes apparent.

For example, which of the two following hypothetical news reports would you consider 'good journalism'?

Today, in Times Square, a spokesman for the Yellow Sky Society outlined the theory that the sky is in fact yellow. He pointed out to support his claim that scientists have yet to explain how the light from the sun, which even the most hardened Blue Skyer would admit is yellow in tone, mysteriously becomes blue when it hits colourless air.

A pro-Blue Sky scientist from the local university contested that the interaction betweeen the yellow sun and clear atmosphere to form blue is understood , and further that blueness of the sky is a well-established fact in scientfic communities.

Today, the lunch crowd in Times Square was entertained by a man who claimed, all evidence to the contrary, that the sky was yellow. His reasoning was entirely logical - the light from the sun is yellow, air is colourless, therefore... You have to admire a man that commited to his beliefs!

PC'ness usually takes it even one step further - if there are two view points, the truth must lie somewhere in between. As a reasonable person, one has to conceed the fact that the sky is probably a shade of green.

 

[hgc]

..
the truth must lie somewhere in between.
...

This is a favorite tactic of Bill O'Reilly when his own point of view has been so obviously demonstrated to be absurd.

 

[pjh]

Presenting 2 sides of an argument is rubbish.

This week there have been a number of Holocaust rememberance programs on TV and in print. However, none have attempted to present 'Both Sides'. I'll bet that if they wanted to every journalist could have gotten some nutter who would have been prepared to argue that the Holocaust never happened.

Just because some narrow minded bigot with their own political or religous agenda disputes the overwhelming evidence of History it doesn't mean that every program should be 'fair and even handed' and 'present both sides'

The same applies to Scientific evidence and evolution ... It's an established Scientific fact, with not one alternative with any supporting evidence.

 

[JLam]

Presenting 2 sides of an argument is rubbish

That statement in itself is flawed.

I just finished reading "Why People Believe Weird Things" by Michael Shermer, and he goes to great lengths to present both sides of the issues covered in his book. He then goes on to explain why he thinks that those beliefs are false. That's because it's a book about HIS point of view.

A news magazine should be telling the truth instead of treating both sides of this issue as being equally valid in thinking.

I'll say this again...Newsweek IS NOT there to debunk woo-woos. They are not there to argue for the truth. They are there to say "This is something that is happening that we think you might find interesting and worthy of discussion." Anything else is not news in its purest definition...it's commentary.

I also don't think that this article drew any conclusions about either side being more, less, or equally valid. It simply stated the facts: These people believe one thing, and these folks believe another.

The reason that no one presented the views of Holocaust deniers during the rememberance week is because the vast majority of the people in the wolrd know that the Holocaust did in fact happen. From the fundies to athiests and everyone in between...the fact is that Holocaust denial is not a very popular viewpoint. Those who believe in it certainly are vocal, but they are very much in the minority.

IDer's, Creationists, young-earthers and their various combinations and permutations are, as much as we hate to admit it, a much larger part of the general population. It doesn't matter that most scientists believe that they're wacko. The fact is that MILLIONS of people believe this crap, and they're trying to get it pushed into the schools. That's why it's in Newsweek, and that's why it's important that an article like this presents both sides in an unbiased way. People who are IGNORANT of the situation should at least be informed that the issue EXISTS. Then they can make their own (hopefully rational) decisions based on the evidence.

I would LOVE it if Newsweek took on these folks the way Shermer did in his book. But that's not thier place. That's why we have people like Shermer and Richard Dawkins, and Randi and all the great members of this message board. It's OUR job to try to convice these folks that they're wrong. To put the onus on Newsweek is to shift the burden of making the arguments away from the people most qualified to make them.

 

[RamblingOnwards]

These people believe one thing, and these folks believe another.

This might be the crux of our objection - you are using the term 'belief' in two different contexts here, but that would NOT be obvious to a casual reader, and makes the entire statement misleading. The same can be said of any article that tries to compare apples (religious belief) and oranges (scientific theory) as it they were equivalent objects.

 

[JLam]

you are using the term 'belief' in two different contexts here, but that would NOT be obvious to a casual reader

I see your point. I do still think the article served a good purpose, which was to get the issue out into the public eye.

Boy, all I wanted to do was post a link...didn't think I'd be getting into deep discussions. Thank (insert supreme being or non-entity here) for critical thinkers. I feel like I can keep my brain sharp here. I really enjoy good debate, especially debate about finer points of a subject with people whom I agree with on almost everything. In a way that's harder than debating people who are on the other side of the spectrum.

Good people here, that's for sure.

 

[Matabiri]

It's not the place of a magazine such as Newsweek to take sides on an issue as controversial as this, or to really challenge either side. That's why groups like ours are so important.

What this article did was present the current debate in a neutral light.

Except there is no particular controversy, and hence no debate, amongst those who are actually trained biologists.

So whenever something like this is presented, that should also be made clear: that the "controversy" is entirely in the minds of those opposed to the science.

 

[hammegk]

Except there is no particular controversy, and hence no debate, amongst those who are actually trained biologists.

So whenever something like this is presented, that should also be made clear: that the "controversy" is entirely in the minds of those opposed to the science.

As was any controversy in 1899, when science had also unlocked all the secrets of a hard science, physics?

 

[Matabiri]

As was any controversy in 1899, when science had also unlocked all the secrets of a hard science, physics?

Why, that's an interesting and perfectly apt analogy!

 

[thaiboxerken]

That statement in itself is flawed.

Perhaps, but in the context of this discussion, it's perfect.

I'll say this again...Newsweek IS NOT there to debunk woo-woos.

I know, it's there to present news and the truth. Sure, they can present the creationist side, but then they should tell people why it's wrong, not why some skeptics think it's wrong. That is, if they had any integrity. Instead, the controversy is a good way to keep readers reading. Real news would be "Creationism is still not valid science, regardless of it's changed name to Intelligent Design." That's news, it's informative and true.

because the vast majority of the people in the wolrd know that the Holocaust did in fact happen.

So only present multiple sides of an issue if they are popular sides, right? That's not news, that's pandering.

That's why it's in Newsweek, and that's why it's important that an article like this presents both sides in an unbiased way. People who are IGNORANT of the situation should at least be informed that the issue EXISTS. Then they can make their own (hopefully rational) decisions based on the evidence.

I don't agree. The scientific viewpoint is unbiased and objective. The creationist viewpoint is entirely based on belief. Presenting the unbiased viewpoint would be to state that creationism is still just religion. Leaving people to make up their own minds is silly, most people are idiots. Most people need to be told what to believe and think, that's why religion is so popular. Why not have the news tell people the truth instead of "both sides" of an issue?

 

[drkitten]

As was any controversy in 1899, when science had also unlocked all the secrets of a hard science, physics?

Really? When was this? As I recall, in 1899, the "ultraviolet catastrophe" was the equivalent of headline news in physics, and the precession of Mercury was hotly discussed in the journals because it simply could not be fit to the accepted Newtonian equations of motion.

The photoelectric effect continued to puzzle researchers because it illustrated that there was something completely unknown about the nature of light.

People had just determined that the "indivisible" atom was in fact made up of other sorts of particles (such as the electron and the proton). Although this had completely overthrown Thompson's vortex atom model, people still had no idea how atoms actually were put together [Kelvin would not propose the "plum-pudding model" for another three years.]

The same Lord Kelvin, by the way, had calculated the maximum age of a coal-burning sun at a few thousand years, and had proposed instead that gravitational contraction could yield enough heat to keep the sun going for up to about 20 million years. At the same time, the biologists had calculated the age of the earth to be several billions -- the search for a source of such energy to power the sun (which was at that time of unknown composition) was on.

Becquerel had just discovered a mysterious substance, "radioactivity," that would fog photographic plates and cause air to conduct electricity -- but no one knew why (although the Curies were busy investigating why pitchblende was much more effective at causing conductivity than the uranium in it would suggest).

And this is a physics that you suggest "had unlocked all the secrets of a hard science"?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here's a question. Do you see anywhere in the article where our side is not represented? Anywhere there is an argument put forth from an ID proponent that is not rebutted by an evolutionist? If there is, I haven't seen one. However, I may have missed something. I'm not trying to be sarcastic...I really may have missed something

Well, you might have a look at this:

Americans are still fighting the slur that they share an ancestry with apes.

That is not a quotation from a woo, but from the article. Descent from apes is a "slur" --- an offensive lie. And "Americans" are fighting it. Not "a bunch of crackpots". No, "Americans" are fighting this slur. Patriotically. Science doesn't say that humans are descended from apes, but that Americans are descended from apes. And they are all fighting this slur, like they fight evil everywhere. Go Americans! Don't let those evil scientists, all of whom are atheists, badmouth you.

Now look at this, again from the text of the article, not quoting a lunatic:

Behe points out that while most Christians accept a God who set the universe in motion according to natural laws, evolution raises more difficult existential questions. People want to feel that God cares for them personally. British biologist Richard Dawkins has written that Darwin's theory "made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist." But that's not what most Americans want for their children.

Fair reportage? As for unanswered gibble, where's the answer to this stinking propagandist trash from one Philip Johnson, nonscientist and lawyer:

"Is it the obligation of the scientist to come up with a materialist explanation of phenomena, choosing among an artificially limited set of options," Meyer asks rhetorically, "or just the best explanation?"

These people are filth. They lie, they whine, and they gibber, and I could put up with the gibbering if it wasn;'t for the whining, and I could put up with the whining if it wasn't for the lying. I'm sorry to spout, but I came across a piece of these people's propaganda yesterday so evil and twisted and full of lies that I'm still angry. And this trash isn't making me any happier. Of all the filth that creeps the Earth these people have the least intellectual integrity. They are culpably ignorant. And Newsweek should not be describing science as a "slur" which Americans are fighting, because to do so is yet more culpably ignorant, because they are paid to report the truth, and instead they are letting themselves be duped by lying scum.

 

[JLam]

Americans are still fighting the slur that they share an ancestry with apes.

I guess I saw that line as more of a tounge-in-cheek statement, but I see where you're coming from.

 

[hammegk]

And this is a physics that you suggest "had unlocked all the secrets of a hard science"?

Yup, just a few minor clouds on the horizon. Thank Ed the skies today are clear.

You have a good memory as well as amazing longevity if you "recall" 1899. Congratulations.