Matt Dowling has organized the YouTube recordings of Dembski’s lecture at the University of Oklahoma: parts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. The man can drone on.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
He’s a little late, but Afarensis finally saw Judgement Day. Verdict: he likes it! I knew he would. He also points out the key factor that demolished the creationist case:
This, in a nutshell, is why ID lost at Dover. The contrast between the experiments embodied in that stack of papers and books vs the lack of any interest in performing experimental checks on their own ideas on the part of ID advocates spelled their doom.
I think there were several factors that played a role: the obvious dishonesty of Bonsell and Buckingham, and the analysis that showed Of Pandas and People to be a descendant text of creationist literature were pretty darned important. But yes, the Discovery Institute’s clear avoidance of actually doing any science was damning.
This failing will be repaired in time for the next trial by the recent hiring of eminent scientist Michael Medved.
Whoa. Somehow, I think I’ve ended up in the Bizarro Universe. New Scientist reports that the Discovery Institute has a problem with the information for teachers that accompanied the recent Judgment Day documentary.
The teaching package states: “Q: Can you accept evolution and still believe in religion? A: Yes. The common view that evolution is inherently anti-religious is simply false.” According to Casey Luskin, an attorney with the Discovery Institute, this answer favours one religious viewpoint, arguably violating the US constitution. “We’re afraid that teachers might get sued,” he says.
Say what?
If you’re curious about the public response to PBS’s Judgment Day, the PBS ombudsman has an article up on it. It had above average viewership; there were a lot of complaints that it was “one sided”, but that’s just too bad, since the science is decidedly one sided.
The letters are the best part. Here are a couple of my favorites:
It doesn’t take a “Rocket Scientist” to figure out that if we, as humans, evolved from monkeys . . . THEN WHY? . . . Are there STILL Monkeys??? We were “Created” by God!!! Pull up AOL now and you’ll notice the Gov. of Georgia praying for rain, (No Doubt to GOD). When 9/11 happened what did every good neighbor do? PRAY. Not to monkeys . . . To our “Creator”!!! It shouldn’t take tragic and desperate circumstances for people to realize this fact!!! GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! In GOD We Trust!!!
Yeah, you can tell which side had the geniuses. That’s just pathetic.
It was fascinating to see those dipstick high school teachers, bolstered by the heir to the Darwin fortune explain the impossible and to the great lengths that these . . . will go to deny that there is a greater power than some . . . that passed teacher’s college in some backwater . . . state.
“Heir to the Darwin fortune”? Like Darwin got rich off of his science. I don’t think Chapman is a wealthy heir, either. And insulting the teachers is a nice touch.
The Baylor Lariat is running a silly poll in which they ask how Baylor ought to approach ID: encourage it, discourage it, prohibit it, or support it. The creationists have been having fun with it, and “encourage” is winning by a landslide. Let’s everyone head over there and skew it the Pharyngula way!
It’s a measure of the DI’s intellectual bankruptcy that they are pleased to have recruited Michael Medved to their cause. He’s wingnut who loves Sasquatch; I don’t even care for his movie reviews, which seem to consist of nothing but sanctimonious assessments of movies in the light of his reactionary social agenda.
One thing he’s not, is any kind of scientist.
I guess it’s not surprising. They’ve got HIV denialists, climate change denialists, Bush boosters, war and torture fans, and of course, a whole mob of creationists…tossing Bigfoot believer in the nut mix at the DI is a perfect fit.
Hmmm. They’re arguing about teaching ID in Orange county and in Polk county. Both places have sensible people pointing out that Intelligent Design creationism is not science (and probably also sensibly have visions of $3 million court costs wafting through their heads), while a few clueless ignoramuses are whining that it isn’t fair, and that they need to give equal time to “the controversy”…the controversy that doesn’t really exist except in the pages of Discovery Institute press releases.
You know these people are reading the Discovery Institute’s propaganda — they’re using the same buzz phrases. In the next big creationism trial, I hope the creationist losers turn around afterwards and sue the DI for damages their bad advice is causing school districts.
Some people, after seeing the recent Dover documentary (now available online), have been wondering who the heck this Steve Fuller wanker is, and why he’s defending Intelligent Design. Here’s a philosopher to explain Fuller to you. You’ll wish you hadn’t asked.
The Discovery Institute is spreading misinformation again. They have a document that implies that it would be OK for schools in at least some states to “teach the controversy”, by which they mean that it is alright for teachers to promote Intelligent Design creationism in their classes. I wonder if the DI would also consider themselves liable if any teacher followed their advice, and discovered that they were costing their district an awful lot of money, as in Dover? Somehow, I doubt it.
On the front page of their screed, they quote Charles Darwin: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.” What they neglect to mention is the importance of that word “balancing”: we have been balancing the arguments, and the scientific side weighs tons while the creationist side is a puff of air. They also omit any mention of facts on their side, because they have none. Darwin’s quote is not advocacy for equal time for nonsense.
Clive Thompson wants us to simply redefine the “theory of evolution” as the “law of evolution”. This is possibly one of the worst ideas I’ve heard yet for overcoming the problem of the colloquial definition of theory. It is not correct. The theory of evolution is a whole collection of ideas describing complex phenomena; it is not reducible to the kind of clear and simple mathematical description we associate with scientific laws. When somebody asks me what the ideal gas law is, I can say PV=nRT; when someone asks me what the law describing the gravitational attraction between two bodies is, I say Gm1m2/R2; when they say, “OK, smartie pants, what is the law of evolution?”, what am I supposed to do? Recite Hardy-Weinberg at them (which, by the way, is called a law already, but is not the sum of all of evolution by any means)?
It’s a bad idea that sets us up for more confusion and will play right into creationist hands. Why not go all the way and just call it the “Truth of Evolution”? It’s the same strategy — it’s all avoiding the issue by an attempt at redefinition, and mangling the idea in the process.
(Larry Moran sees it the same way I do. He must be a very smart man.)
(And Wilkins was way, way ahead of us both.)
