Tit-for-tat
Last Friday the American Enterprise Institute sponsored a forum titled "Science Wars" that focused on the intelligent design/evolution controversy. Among the participants in the forum were the director for the Thomas More Institute, Richard Thompson, and Mark Ryland, Director of the Discovery Institute's Washington office.
As you may recall, the Discovery Institute is a pro-intelligent design group that was originally supposed to provide expert witnesses for the defense. However, their witnesses pulled out because the Thomas More Center did not want them to have their own attorneys represent them in depositions. (Thomas More Center is representing the Dover Area School District.)
During the debate, Thompson and Ryland ended up in a somewhat heated exchange. Ryland claimed that the Discovery Institute had "never set out to have school boards" teach intelligent design. He was quickly confronted by Thompson, who produced a copy of the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum: A Guidebook by Steven Meyer and David DeWolf.
Other participants in the excerpt include moderator Jon Entine, Kenneth R. Miller (who appeared as an expert witness for us a few weeks ago), and Steve Gey.
(Thanks to the National Center for Science Education's Nick Matzke for transcribing part of the debate.)
As you may recall, the Discovery Institute is a pro-intelligent design group that was originally supposed to provide expert witnesses for the defense. However, their witnesses pulled out because the Thomas More Center did not want them to have their own attorneys represent them in depositions. (Thomas More Center is representing the Dover Area School District.)
During the debate, Thompson and Ryland ended up in a somewhat heated exchange. Ryland claimed that the Discovery Institute had "never set out to have school boards" teach intelligent design. He was quickly confronted by Thompson, who produced a copy of the Discovery Institute's Intelligent Design in Public School Science Curriculum: A Guidebook by Steven Meyer and David DeWolf.
Other participants in the excerpt include moderator Jon Entine, Kenneth R. Miller (who appeared as an expert witness for us a few weeks ago), and Steve Gey.
(Thanks to the National Center for Science Education's Nick Matzke for transcribing part of the debate.)
posted by ACLU of Pennsylvania at 10/24/2005 11:49:00 AM
39 Comments:
One of the reasons evolutionists find it so hard to debate IDers (creationists), is they (IDers) often can't even agree amongst themselves exactly what it is that they believe. Oh yeah, and they also lie like rugs (as Ryland did in this instance).
Ken Miller said
Now the curious thing, is the advocates of that theory [Big Bang] did not try to get themselves injected into curricula. They didn't produce pamphlets on how you could get the Big Bang taught in your school district and avoid the constitutional questions. They did the research, they won the scientific battle. That's how science actually works. And for all the high-minded statements about design, about the philosophy of Aristotle, about fairness, and about the implicit theological assumptions of evolution, the straightforward and simple matter, as Dr. Krauss said, is that science works, and it is particularly good at predicting stuff that isn't true. If intelligent design has the facts of nature on its side, it'll win out. And I don't see any particular reason to fight this legal route, unless, unless, the battle you are fighting is primarily political, cultural, social, and religious, and not scientific. And in this case, to use a nice lawyer term these guys will understand, res ipse loquitor, the facts speak for themselves.
That sums it all up, very nicely.
ALL OF YOU, WHO DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR CREATION....OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS YOUR CHOICE.
JUST AS IT IS MY CHOICE TO BELIEVE IN GOD, THE ALMIGHTY CREATOR OF ALL.
WHY DO WE AS HUMANS FIND IT SO HARD TO JUST "LET GO" & TO JUST "TRUST GOD & TRUST IN THE WORD OF GOD??"
WHY IS THE TERM "UNDER GOD" SUCH A PROBLEM FOR SOME?
DOES IT HURT YOU? DOES GOD HURT YOU?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. GOD IS A GOD OF LOVE.
WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO BELIEVE?
WHAT IS IT GOING TO HURT, IN YOUR CURRENT LIFETIME, TO TAKE THAT "CHANCE" & SAY....
"YOU KNOW WHAT....LET ME GIVE GOD A TRY.
I HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE & POSSIBLY EVERYTHING TO GAIN."
I BELIEVE HOWEVER, THAT I WOULD RATHER SPEND WHATEVER TIME I HAVE LEFT ON THIS EARTH, INVOLVED IN A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH MY SAVIOR & LORD JESUS CHRIST, FOR IT IS ONLY WITH HIM THAT I FIND TRUE PEACE, JOY & HOPE.
HE IS MY HEALER, MY HEALTH & MY ALL.
THE REAL STRUGGLE IS WITHIN OURSELVES.
THE PROBLEM THAT SO MANY HAVE HAD WITH THE WHOLE IDEA OF CREATIONISM & CHRISTIANITY IS THAT THEY HAVE SEEN SO MANY HYPOCRITES....AND SO MANY PEOPLE THAT HAVE CLAIMED TO BE CHRISTIANS, YET HAVE NOT "LIVED" OR "PORTRAYED" THE "CHRISTIAN" LIFESTYLE.
THAT (AMONGST MANY OTHER THINGS), IN EFFECT, HAS CAUSED SO MANY TO RUN "BACKWARDS" AWAY FROM GOD.
WHEN, IN REALITY, IT IS NOT ABOUT "WHO IS RIGHT...AND WHO IS WRONG.....AND YOU SHOULD DO THIS THAT WAY.....OR NO, IT SHOULD BE DONE THIS WAY....."
REALITY IS HAVING A SINCERE, HEARTFELT, DEEP, SOUL CLENCHING, PERSONAL & REAL RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD. OUR MOST LOVING CREATOR & LORD.
ALL IT TAKES IS A PRAYER, & JUST TALKING TO GOD.
FINGER POINTING & THE ARGUMENT OF CREATIONISM VS. EVOLUTION WILL CONTINUE TO THE END OF TIME.....
IN THE END, ONLY GOD KNOWS.
AFTER ALL, HE IS THE CREATOR OF ALL.
I AM NOT LOOKING FOR ANY RESPONSES FROM THIS "COMMENT." --ALTHOUGH I KNOW THERE MIGHT BE MANY.
THERE MIGHT BE MANY TO SAY THIS IS HOGWASH....A WASTE OF TIME....A WASTE OF SPACE....ETC....ETC...ETC...
HOWEVER, THAT IS YOUR PERROGATIVE.
I MADE THIS "COMMENT" BECAUSE I SINCERELY & DEEPLY HOPE THAT MANY WILL COME TO REALIZE THAT THE LORD JESUS LOVES YOU, AND JUST DESIRES TO HAVE A PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH YOU.
THAT IS ALL. TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.
JUST LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS LIFE, IT IS YOUR CHOICE.
HOPEFULLY, YOU MAKE THE RIGHT ONE....
AND MAY GOD BLESS YOU ALL.
Is there a reason you feel the need to shout?
That's freakin' awesome. Miller must have been having the time of his life watching that unfold.
MODERATOR: Can I just say one thing, now I want to let Ken have his shot, and then, I think, we'll come back.
KEN MILLER: Do we have to? I'm really enjoying this. (Laughter; MR says "sure, yeah!") That is the most fascinating discussion I've heard all day. (Laughter.) This is, wow.
You know what the real confilct is? Thompson is in this because he believes in it. The DI's don't - they're just in it for the money.
all of you, who do not believe in god or creation....obviously, that is your choice.
just as it is my choice to believe in god, the almighty creator of all.
Your point? Do you imagine someone here is trying to take that choice away?
The court case is about whether ID is valid science that should be taught in public classrooms, or if it's a backdoor attempt to sneak religion into public classrooms. I feel strongly it's the latter.
why do we as humans find it so hard to just "let go" & to just "trust god & trust in the word of god??"
You speak as if it's a given that the God you talk about exists. Many people doubt that. How can you and why should you put trust in something you have no good reason to believe even exists?
why is the term "under god" such a problem for some?
How would you feel if American currency proclaimed "In Satan We Trust"? You could spend the money just the same, so why fret over what it says, huh?
absolutely not. god is a god of love. why is that so hard to believe?
For me belief isn't about "hard" or "easy", it's about "unconvincing" vs. "convincing". What's so convincing about the evidence for a God? Which faith's idea of God? What evidence rules out multiple gods?
what is it going to hurt, in your current lifetime, to take that "chance" & say....
"you know what....let me give god a try.
i have nothing to lose & possibly everything to gain."
Do yourself a favor and Google "Pascal's Wager", and discover for yourself how poor an argument for a belief in God the above is.
the problem that so many have had with the whole idea of creationism & christianity is that they have seen so many hypocrites....and so many people that have claimed to be christians, yet have not "lived" or "portrayed" the "christian" lifestyle.
The problem I have with creationism is purely a matter of evidence -- or rather, extreme lack thereof -- for creationism, and the poor quality of scientific thinking behind it.
Yet another Christian who has no idea what other people actually believe. It's "anger at god" or something we do just to be contrary. It can't just be that we sincerely don't believe such a being exists.
Sigh.
Here's the truth. I don't believe in god the same way you don't believe in Santa Claus. Get it now?
Evidence for creation can be found:
http://www.creationmoments.com/
and
http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/
Evidence for creation can be found:
http://www.creationmoments.com/
and
http://www.creationmoments.com/radio/
Correction: The same old tired sophistry parading as a lame imitation of science, for people who mostly don't understand one bit of science, and who just want to be comforted in their ignorance... that's what can be found at the links above.
Prof. Ken Miller is a very impressive speaker and it doesn't hurt that he's a person of deep faith as well.
The problem with spoken debate (as opposed to a written one) is that it's hard to expose all the problems that a single statement can hold.
For instance, "There are gaps in the theory of Evolution and therefore Creationism/ID must be right." How long so you think you need to explain all the logical fallacies and the entire philosophy of science and the concept of falsifiability?
Without it, someone coming into the debate with an 'open-mind' is liable to get persuaded through rhetoric alone.
From Merriam-Webster Online:
faith - noun - 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
It always tickles me to no end how religious people talk up the importance of "faith" then make a beeline to come up with "evidence". Evidently, those who feel the need to rush and "prove" their faith are the ones who are the most insecure about it.
I wonder why Mr. Preacher insists upon being annon? Should he not be so proud of his faith in God, his sermons to unbelieveing heathens that he would hollar his name from the rooftops? How, when we all see the light, will we ever find him to baptize us in the river?
All I have is anonymous said...where & what is the name of anonymous? I am so curious.
If millions of people see evolution as junk science, what does that say about the state of our schools? Next we'll have junk algebra and junk English. Hey, I know, let's replace algebra with an abacus course! Hey, let's replace real English with IM chat English. THEN let's see is we can compete glabally in the REAL world. Is it just me?????
Is Ken Miller speaking in cap locaks?
Abacus studies would at least be compatible with mathematics. Putting ID in science classes is more like putting turnips in English classes.
Fishyfred: I think Raven is talking about the third comment down on this post, not on the actual Reverend in the previous post.
Raven said...
If millions of people see evolution as junk science, what does that say about the state of our schools? Next we'll have junk algebra and junk English. Hey, I know, let's replace algebra with an abacus course! Hey, let's replace real English with IM chat English. THEN let's see is we can compete glabally in the REAL world. Is it just me?????
It's just you. Evolution isn't proved, and it has big holes in it. There is no reason to teach it as a fact in school. If I make a million people belive that you are a jerk, it does not at all imply it is true. People belive what they are told, look at Hitler. Sounds like you are trying to say that the people under hitler must be doing the truth since there is so many of them. Or maybe I got you wrong..
People belive what they are told, look at Hitler.
Or the American people today who believe whatever the politicians tell them. I can't name any politicians by name unless I want the Secret Service knocking on my door.....which is why we need the ACLU.
Thank God (if you will) for the ACLU.
Wow. Godwin's law is proven after only 20 posts. The trolls must be rookies.
In case anyone is wondering what doc is talking about, check out Godwin's law
here.
This thread is now, officially, over, thanks to anb.
anb writes:
It's just you. Evolution isn't proved, and it has big holes in it. There is no reason to teach it as a fact in school.
It isn't "proved" that the sun will rise tomorrow, but there are very good reasons to believe it will, and no good reasons to treat sunrise tomorrow as some sort of unproven bit of trivial speculation.
For all practical uses of the word "fact" and the word "proved" -- the possible philosophy class versions of those words set aside -- evolution is a proven fact. That those hostile to the idea of evolution can continue to act as if nothing short of an experimental recreation of the last four billion years counts as sufficient "proof" has not a thing to do with the compelling quality of the mountain of evidence in support of evolution.
If you don't understand the meaning of the word "theory" (hint: I doesn't mean "wild hunch"), consider the "theory of gravity." There's been more than one such theory, actually. Please note that as one theory has yielded over time to a better theory, there have been no reported cases of world-wide gravity failures, with people and animals floating off into space.
Why not? A theory of gravity is an attempt to explain how gravity works, and perhaps obtain new insights into gravity or greater accuracy in predictions involving gravitational forces. A theory of gravity is NOT about the existence of gravity -- that is taken to be a fact.
The theory of evolution is at this point in time a theory about the mechanisms of evolution and their relative importance. How important is sexual selection compared to random mutation? How much influence does genetic drift have verses natural selection? A very few ID proponents aside, who have produced nothing spectacular at all in the way of evidence for their own theories, let alone compelling criticism of evolution, scientists are nearly universally agreed that the existence of evolution is, for all practical intents and purposes, a fact.
There are so many people here talking about the holes in evolution. Have they read the transcripts in this trial?
Further, I would think that the existence of physics, the big bang, and the power of those two simple things to create the diversity of life would be enough to believe in God, if you are truly faithful. These are AMAZING things. I don't believe in God, but hey, that's my right, and I'm not trying to put 'In No God We Trust' or 'Under No God' anywhere.
Just trying to get people with their personal beliefs out of my hair.
There are "holes" in medical treatments but how many of us say, gee, 90% chance w/ chemo to cure my cancer, I think I'll just pray because the 10% hole makes chemo invalid. I need to try a second antibiotic to cure my infection? Must be invalid science, I will just die instead.
Creationists are just pissed off because, although there are a few holes in evolution, they are left with ID, a great empty pit of nothingness, founded and "proven" by faith in a few hundred words. Put the pages of Genesis in a test tube and the will turn to mush.
FYI on Hitler & How Christianity was the catalyst of the Holocaust:
Hitler’s anti-Semitism grew out of his Christian education. Austria and Germany were majorly Christian during his time and they held the belief that Jews were an inferior status to Aryan Christians. The Christians blamed the Jews for the killing of Jesus. Jewish hatred did not actually spring from Hitler, it came from the preaching of Catholic priests and Protestant ministers throughout Germany for hundreds of years. The Protestant leader, Martin Luther, himself, held a livid hatred for Jews and their Jewish religion. In his book, “On the Jews and their Lies,” Luther set the standard for Jewish hatred in Protestant Germany up until World War 2. Hitler expressed a great admiration for Martin Luther constantly quoting his works and beliefs.
Before Hitler rose to Chancellor of Germany the country was in a deep economic depression due to the Versailles treaty. The Versailles treaty demanded that Germans made financial reparations for the previous war and Germany simply was not self sufficient enough in order to pay the debt. Hitler was the leader that raised Germany out of the depression and brought them back to a world recognized power. Due to his annulment of the financial woes of the Germanic people he became their redeemer and they anointed him as the leader of the German Reich Christian Church in 1933. This placed him in power of the German Christian Socialist movement which legislates their political and religious agendas. It united all denominations, mainly the Protestant/Catholic and Lutheran people to instill faith in a national Christianity.
Without the backing of Christian bigots 6 million people would not have died.
If the ID case is won they can expect to see more openminded science classes being taught. Wonder how they'll fell about...
Witchcraft Science I
How does majick work? How is it that we can often predict the future or know the past of someone else? Psychic power belongs to each of us. The science of Alpha will help you to be psychic and accurate in your majick. The practice and study of aura, visualization, healing and techniques of spell casting shall be achieved in this class. Your teacher will guide you in the practical application of using your psychic abilities. Learn to use the Alpha brain wave to control your natural psychic power in order to heal, communicate (with the living and the dead) and manifest a better world. This brings tangible majick to your life and helps you to develop better intuition.
Raven: it's funny how you try to draw something out of my statement. I said something about holes in evolution, and you end up talking about Hitler and how he was a product of christianity. I didn't have anything about religion in my earlier comment.
Godwin's law (thanks doc ) seems to be true, but if you look at the nature of my comparison I don't see why you want to mix in Godwin's law. Even though the "Hitler" name was mentioned (oops I proved Godwin's law again) and that i wasn't pro evolution, doesn't mean you can you can use that in an attempt to look smart. I think Godwin's law might be interesting for raven to read thou.
And for you, Anonymous, comparing the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution isn't really a good example. If I drop my pencil to the floor right now, or the computer, I will observe that it falls. Evolution doesn't have such strong foundation. My problem is just that evolution is taught as a fact, especially in school. Gravity is taught as a theory. And to you Paul , talking about holes in Evolution was just a response to something said. It seems like a lot of you guys are really pro-evolutionist , and when you argue that point of view (that doesn't fit this trial) you have to expect some response back. Don't complain about that.
I forgot something about Godwin's law. Sorry about that. But you should look at Quirk's Exception too, it might help you to understand what I was trying to say.
abn said: I forgot something about Godwin's law. Sorry about that. But you should look at Quirk's Exception too, it might help you to understand what I was trying to say.
Comparing Germans following Hitler to people believing in evolution is a poor comparison, no matter what you were trying to say. What were you trying to say, anyway? Can you even rationalize the comparison?
I was trying to say that you can make people believe stuff that isn't true, or "good, right" (whatever you want to call it). I just thought Hitler is one of the main examples of that. It was an answer to something said here. I agree that Hitler/Nazi stuff might be heavily overused, but it doesn't mean that you can't use it anymore.
What I am saying is that if the president, all the main scientists and really big/important people all went out saying that I am a big jerk, most people would believe it. They would adopt the opinion of others. Just a few out of them would actually take the time and sit down and figure out if it was true or not. So if you then use the argument that I am a jerk because millions of people say it, then you are making a statement that really doesn't make sense. The truth is that even thou most people believe it, they just adopted the opinion without thinking to much about it (in this case anyway). Is that a good enough explanation for you?
fishyfred: Seeing some evolution and mutation among bacteria is not a very good evidence when it comes to humans and how we evolved.
anb wrote I was trying to say that you can make people believe stuff that isn't true
Who is "you"? A sociopath/megalomaniac fooled the Germans into participating in genocide. Who is fooling the people now regarding evolution?
Are you suggesting a conspiracy of thousands and thousands of researchers, scientists and doctors to fool the public to push their 'atheist agenda'? That 200 years worth of research, including incredible advances in computing, microscopy, and genetic research, is somehow twisted to refute God? That millions of man-hours devoted to furthering man's understanding of the universe is actually being falsified to push some sort of agenda?
What I am saying is that if the president, all the main scientists and really big/important people all went out saying that I am a big jerk, most people would believe it. (snip snip snip) The truth is that even thou most people believe it, they just adopted the opinion without thinking to much about it (in this case anyway). Is that a good enough explanation for you?
No, it's not. You manufactured an artificial situation. If all the main scientists determined that you are a jerk, and had been doing research on you for all of your life, documenting all your moments of jerkiness, tabulating the predominate percentage of your waking hours devoted to being a jerk, theorizing the roots of your jerkedness and had (hypothetical) instrumentation to measure your jerkitude, and had published thousands of papers examining every facet of your jerkery, then I would believe that you probably are a jerk. But since such conditions don't exist, you can't try to equate this example with the case of evolution's adoption.
Good arguing. Maybe what I am trying to say is that I could ask a lot of my friends that believes in evolution to give me reasons why, and 9 out of 10 would have a problem doing so. They have just adopted the opinion. If they at first were critical to it, then read about it, got educated about it and then said that they believe in evolution it would be different. Then they would have their own opinion and they all could explain to me why they believe in evolution.
Are you suggesting a conspiracy of thousands and thousands of researchers, scientists and doctors to fool the public to push their 'atheist agenda'?
Nope, not at all. You are trying to read something out from my statements that isn't there. It seems like you are trying to "attack" me because I have opinions that differs from yours. Even if you don't like my opinions or me, doesn't mean that you can't show some respect and not try to twist everything I say in your favor. Of course it's all up to you.
anb said You are trying to read something out from my statements that isn't there.
Really? You created a situation where a conspiracy of the President and scientists proclaim that you are a jerk. I proposed a somewhat hyperbolic situation where a conspiracy of scientists proclaim evolution to be fact. How am I misreading your statement?
Maybe what I am trying to say is that I could ask a lot of my friends that believes in evolution to give me reasons why, and 9 out of 10 would have a problem doing so.
So what? Nobody is debating whether you friends have a full understanding of evolution. Maybe if science teachers didn't have to tiptoe around the subject so as not to offend the religious, they would have learned something in school.
Look - ID is at its roots older the Darwin's theory. But yet despite all the advances in technology, all the millions of man hours building and building scientific knowledge, making new discoveries and discarding flawed ideas, the evidence for evolution only grows bigger. Why hasn't ID made the same gains? Could it be because there is no evidence for it?
It really doesn't matter how many people believe in ID or evolution (though it does seem to matter to IDiots, else why would they be so insistent on indoctrinating students?). What matters is whether there is anything substantiating the theories.
It all boils down to a conflict between belief and reason, faith and logic. These two competing structures operate on different planes, and can't be reconciled. Belief, and faith, results in knowledge without evidence (and sometimes in the face of contrary evidence), the use of reason or logic (what science uses) results in the opposite. You cannot "believe" in evolution any more than you can provide rational evidence for the existence of a god.
So discussing whether millions of people believe in evolution is a fruitless exercise. The whole world could believe in it, save one lone person, but if that one lone person could falsify evolution, evolution would fail as a theory.
So far, there is no one who has been able to do that since Darwin proposed the theory. Not one.
We're still waiting.
anb, your argument boils down to "popularity doesn't equal truth". Duh. Science cares not a whit about differences of opinion.
"Maybe what I am trying to say is that I could ask a lot of my friends that believes in evolution to give me reasons why, and 9 out of 10 would have a problem doing so. They have just adopted the opinion. If they at first were critical to it, then read about it, got educated about it and then said that they believe in evolution it would be different. Then they would have their own opinion and they all could explain to me why they believe in evolution."
If I ask a bunch of people who don't accept evolution why not, 10 out of 10 will have a hard time giving me logically sound reasons that fit the evidence. There are many people here and elsewhere giving you plenty of reasons why they accept evolution as both theory and fact. I suggest looking in the mirror and reading what I quoted to yourself. Get educated about evolution first. Then I'll give a damn about your opinion.
Lats just say it tuens out ID is an accepted science & Dover wasn't trying to push a religous agenda and Dover wins the ID case. How many of Gods faithful will be satisfied to have him limited to an "unknown itelligent designer?" Will ALL Christians want the Protestant/Catholic/Jewdism version of ID taught (evolution and creation / Genesis work dandy together). How many Christians will want the book of Genesis printed right into the science text books? If they win more suits will fly over religion in schools than the world has ever known.
lol. If you read through what is being said, you would see that I am not trying to say that ID is right. I was just responding to someone in the pro evolution camp that said something involving the millions of people that believes evolution is right. It's funny how you can pull out so much from that.
Whether 10 out of 5 people don't know why they believe in ID or not is totally irrelevant to what I am saying. I don't care about that since I am not promoting the fact that millions believe in ID.
your argument boils down to "popularity doesn't equal truth"
Exactly. But if you actually took the time to read through you would find out that that was my reply to ravens statement. I have not used that in some attempt to "prove ID". So, please, read before you write and you would do us all a big favor.
Get educated about evolution first. Then I'll give a damn about your opinion.
You are missing the point here. And also, again, kind of what you said: Read before you talk. Then I'll be able to understand you more.
Creation, according to the Bible, is an account of ID. In order to prove the existence of anything there must be 5 elements: time, forse, space, matter & motion. Genesis 1:1 says: " In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth." Now there is a scientific staement that has all 5 elements!
Evolutionists teach that their is no God. Just like Hitler! If there is no God, there are no rules!
Eternity is a long time to be wrong!
I suspect edm may be a troll, but:
--evolution says nothing about God
--Hitler believed in God
It was better than "Cats". I'm going to see it again and again.
Post a Comment
<< Home