Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PROPHET

AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PROPHET

Filed at 10:15 am under by dcobranchi

of Pastafarianism. My favorite bit:

WN: Do you think that’s a mistake? [Scientists ignoring the IDists]

Henderson: Yeah, totally. They need to be out there calling these people retarded all the time. Nonstop. The ID people are winning because the scientists think if they ignore the issue, it will go away. Plus, I’m sure it would be therapeutic to make fun of the ID people. I think it’s pretty amazing that these people without scientific backgrounds — or really any education at all — think they have the right to decide the science curriculum. And it blows my mind that they are getting away with it.

I look forward to my missionary trip about the pirate ship. (Big hat tip to Chris)

8 Responses to “AN INTERVIEW WITH THE PROPHET”


Comment by
COD
December 22nd, 2005
at 10:43 am

My favorite bit was this. (speaking of the Kansas school board getting voted out ala PA)

I think it’s likely. Or, worst-case scenario, in 20 years everyone will get sick of having no electricity, etc., because science based on magic doesn’t work so well for things like engineering.


Comment by
Dave
December 22nd, 2005
at 2:36 pm

From today’s USA Today

Idea not based on religion
By John G. West
Pyrrhic victory.
It’s a phrase proponents of Darwin’s theory might do well to ponder as they crow over the decision by a federal judge in Pennsylvania “permanently enjoining” the Dover school district from mentioning the theory of intelligent design in science classes.

Contrary to Judge John Jones’ assertions, intelligent design is not a religious-based idea, but instead an evidence-based scientific theory that holds there are certain features of living systems and the universe that are best explained by an intelligent cause. No legal decree can remove the digitally coded information from DNA, nor molecular machines from cells. The facts of biology cannot be overruled by a federal judge. Research on intelligent design will continue to go forward, and the scientific evidence will win out in the end.

Still, Darwinists clearly won this latest skirmish in the evolution wars. But at what cost?

Evolutionists used to style themselves the champions of free speech and academic freedom against unthinking dogmatism. But increasingly, they have become the new dogmatists, demanding judicially-imposed censorship of dissent.

Now, Darwinists are trying to silence debate through persecution. At Ohio State University, a graduate student’s dissertation is in limbo because he was openly critical of Darwin’s theory. At George Mason University, a biology professor lost her job after she mentioned intelligent design in class. At the Smithsonian, an evolutionary biologist was harassed and vilified for permitting an article favoring intelligent design to be published in a peer-reviewed biology journal.

Those who think they can stop the growing interest in intelligent design through court orders or intimidation are deluding themselves. Americans don’t like being told there are some ideas they aren’t permitted to investigate. Try to ban an idea, and you will generate even more interest in it.

Efforts to mandate intelligent design are misguided, but efforts to shut down discussion of a scientific idea through harassment and judicial decrees hurt democratic pluralism. The more Darwinists resort to censorship and persecution, the clearer it will become that they are championing dogmatism, not science.

John G. West is associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, andassociate professor of political science at Seattle Pacific University.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 22nd, 2005
at 2:45 pm

Dave,

Thanks for the laugh. That was funnier than the interview.

IDists are almost as bad at math as they are science. They seriously argue that ID isn’t religious. But ID = creation science and creation science IS religious. If A = B and B = C, then A = C.


Comment by
Dave
December 22nd, 2005
at 8:38 pm

Its alot like homeschooling. All of us are religious whackos in the eyes of the mainstream media. Fortunately the early homeschoolers were courageous enough to look past existing laws and policies and go foward with educating their children on their own.

The growing list of scientists that publicly declare their support for ID has now grown to almost 500. And the popularity of ID friendly web sites is exploding. Your weak rhetorical tactics have been used before by others in other circumstances, but they always fail because people ultimately want to think and decide for themselves. Remember, what you are doing is what Eugenic Scott has been doing for a while and during that time, ID has radically changed the debate and opened a window into the philosophical and policatical motivations behind the people and organizations that promote evolutionism.

Its hard to debate you on this topic because you discard the DI definitions and substitute them with your own strawmen that are absurd, but of course, easy for you to criticize.

Its true that in Dover and elsewhere, supporters of ID are religiously motiviated, but that doesn’t invalidate the hypothesis of design any more than Richard Dawkins atheism invalidates Darwinian evolution.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 22nd, 2005
at 8:52 pm

Stawman, eh? Tell you what, Dave. I’ll step by step throw out my evidence that ID is a religious concept, giving you and anyone else on the board a chance to object. I’ll then let the board vote. If I win, you admit that ID is a religious concept and give up once and for all. Willing to put your “money” where your mouth is?


Comment by
Dave
December 22nd, 2005
at 9:35 pm

I’m interested in a discussion that goes past ad hominems. And I’m interested in your disection of ID from the perspective of the published position of the DI as well as its most credible advocates. Obviously, the former Dover school board are not the folks that I look to for guidance in this area.

Take the “official” DI definition of ID and go from there.

I can’t agree to your challenge the way its proposed. But I appreciate the consideration and would likely agree to a moderated debate with a defined problem and rules.

IMHO science doesn’t proceed by popular vote or by judicial decree. I really don’t need the authority of this blog to do my thinking, even though I respect the folks that post on it.

There was an awful lot of “evidence” that the “big bang” was a religious concept too. Many of the most credible science bodies came out against it because it opened the door for religion.

Its no secret that most of the most vocal advocates of evolutionism are atheists. They don’t discredit evolution any more than Michael Behe’s Christianity discredits ID.

See Klinghoffer here for more detail: discov...20News


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 22nd, 2005
at 9:47 pm

Sorry- My blog. My rules. Take it or leave it. It’s very simple. It’ll take all of about 5 steps. Of course, like for the DI, facts don’t seem to matter for many IDists.


Comment by
Dave
December 23rd, 2005
at 10:56 am

Well, go for it. I’ll participate in the discussion.