A Letter to the Editor

Of all the egregious stupidity on both 'sides' of that discussion you chose to focus on the closing ad hominem? Why not speak to the point that highschool science classes are not the place to adjudicate scientific theories? Or that ID hasn't been vetted because there is no theory to vet? Or that those briliant scientists who believed in a designer either pre-dated Darwin or accepted Darwin's theory, retaining their beleif in God as theology, not science?

Because all of that has been covered elsewhere, is my guess, Garret. One can get tired of rehashing the same arguments again and again to little or no effect.

Besides, to this audience, all of that can be taken as read.

Mr Merriam, usually I'd be inclined to agree, but letters to the editor which are short and punchy are more likely to be published. As has been bemoaned before, good science takes up far more words than the pseudoscience it's refuting.

Plus, it's always neat to see a stubborn good guy get another (albeit apocryphal) swing in from beyond the grave.

-The Rev. Schmitt.

OK, that was the worst column I've read in awhile. (and typical of what I've seen from Cal Thomas) Why do some columnists feel they can write in a public forum without doing their homework first? A scientist would NEVER get away with such inaccuracies. Maybe newspaper columns need vigorous peer review...

Perhaps a national debate would be a good idea.
As far as I can see it should not be too difficult to show the public why ID is not science.

The column was appalling.
Bob and Cal are twittering on about the theory of ID.
What ID theory is that?

Explain what theory means in science, show that ID is a non-tested hypothesis.
Ask what falsifiable predictions ID can make.
Basically ask "Lenny's questions to Salvador".
Nearly all unbiased members of the public would soon realise that ID has no scientific value and no place in school science classes.

nice one Rev. and Mike
but... hrrrmppff...psssst....shhh....don't tell anyone else.
Here are another 2 real honest to God Biologists who can take an even bigger swing(albeit apocryphal) from beyond the grave.
Time for an Artistic and Historical update.
Tautological Solipsism's Dark Heart

Create a free account first
Find the 2 x New Horizons MP3
Magic Factologist's and New Horizons
Intelligible Design.

Stephen a debate with 'Count' Humbert on national TV ? He would just wave his arms around like he normally does and leer at the audience.

He knows exactly what he is up to and he knows the consequences, he will keep his little game going for as long as he is able.

No, what you need is a investigation showing the facts of their duplicity in a real court or someone with enough balls to reveal the facts on national TV.

Uh... I'm attempting to submit a complete rebuttal of the article but I'm getting a "Your comment was denied for questionable content" submission error. I wasn't swearing, honest - any ideas what could be causing the problem? What qualifies as "questionable content"?

Wow, a whole Cal Thomas editorial where he never once wandered off the tracks and started ranting about abortion. Perhaps Bob Beckel kept him focused.

If you have time to be a regular commenter here, perhaps you could write a well reasoned, clear letter to the editor, making some one good point.
Letters making ten points are less likely to be published, or so I've heard. Do a good job of one worthy point.

Maybe newspaper columns need vigorous peer review...

— KL

"I'm attempting to submit a complete rebuttal of the article but I'm getting a "Your comment was denied for questionable content" submission error. I wasn't swearing, honest - any ideas what could be causing the problem? What qualifies as "questionable content"?

— Corkscrew

Posted by k.e. on December 2, 2005 08:19 AM (e) (s) Stephen a debate with 'Count' Humbert on national TV ? He would just wave his arms around like he normally does and leer at the audience. He knows exactly what he is up to and he knows the consequences, he will keep his little game going for as long as he is able. No, what you need is a investigation showing the facts of their duplicity in a real court or someone with enough balls to reveal the facts on national TV.

It never ceases to amaze me at the amount of intellectual junk food Creationists serve up to propagate their transparent religious agendas.
Ad hominem attacks are all they are capable of, along with half truths and total duplicity.I would suggest a alternative connotation for I.D that of Increasingly Disingenuous.

Posted by JONBOY on December 2, 2005 10:27 AM (e) (s) ... I would suggest a alternative connotation for I.D that of Increasingly Disingenuous.

I'm not so sure it really is a serious debate.

I do know that taking Cal Thomas seriously is a little dangerous. The Tennessean, the local paper here, publishes his columns a couple times a week, and a few times they've had me close to cancelling the newspaper. The man is odious. Only once have I seen a column of his that did not make me cringe with horror.

My favorite ones are the ones where he speaks eloquently in favor of torture.

Brrr.

In my mind, associating Cal Thomas with Creationism is just another way of making Creaitonism look bad.

-Rob

I like bananas.

But I think an important point that has been made here already is that if you propose to introduce new scientific 'content' to the cirriculum, it should have some actual results that have gone through the process of formulating falsifiable hypotheses, data collection and analysis, conclusion formulation, peer-review, reproduced by other scientists.

For example, anyone know when the Theory of Relativity was first included (albeit at only at a superficial level, of course ) in a high school science text, or schhol board science standard ?
I'm guessing it was sometime after 1905, and I'd bet dollars to donuts it was not BEFORE his publciations.

The idea that ID should get a pass on this and go directly into the classroom is pretty astonishing.

I am always amazed by the ability of many Americans to believe that their personal opinions on science carry as much, or more, weight than the opinions of the scientific community.

I agree with Rob Knop that having Cal Thomas supporting ID is a point in our favor.

Truth? Science maybe? If you were making sense that might have done it.

— Apesnake

This "debate" was beyond appalling. I expect Cal Thomas to be a complete buffoon, but having science "defended" by Bob Beckel's tripe is like sending Hugo Chavez to defend capitalism. Beckel accepts the creationist understanding of evolution from the very start, repeating the nonsense of 'inexplicable gaps' and then compounding it with the nonsense of "only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will." Maybe we could all chip in and send him the complete works of Frans de Waal?

This is a good example of why scientists have to abandon the strategy of "I won't dignify ID with a reply." It's politicians who'll make decisions about the classroom and they're not hearing any better defense of science than what USA Today and Bob Beckel are providing.

Let's face facts: there are great numbers of people who simply aren't interested in an honest, intelligent examination of the merits of ID or any other religious claim. Lies (especially emotionally satisfying lies that are compatible with the views expressed in one's social environment) can run around the world while the truth is still putting its boots on.

It's time to stop arguing.

Letters making ten points are less likely to be published, or so I've heard. Do a good job of one worthy point.

— Pete Dunkelburg

One more comment. The ID folks seem to think they've found a winning argument with "science is supposed to be open to new ideas." The correct response is, "No, science is NOT open to new ideas. The only thing it is open to is evidence."

I also like bananas. In fact, to organisms from both the genus Pan and Homo, they are one of the best tasting and healthiest natural snacks in the natural world. It's almost like we were evolved, or designed, to eat them...

This column was just another example of fundamentalist ID idiots claiming, seemingly without any sense of irony, that scintists are the ones who are biased and unwilling to consider conflicting ideas. As if we just somehow refused to think about the possibility of ID...

I wonder who these "serious scientists" who "belive there is a strong case for intelligent design" they mention actually are. Demski and Behe?

In all, the column is textbook rhetoric from people who have no idea what they are discussing. My favorite part is when Bob says: "The scientists who view intelligent design as a science, not a dogma, believe that the smallest building blocks of life are so complex that they couldn't simply evolve from amoebas. That's about as far as I can go in my understanding of all this." Biological macromolecules didn't evolve from amoebae, eh? If you know that you don't understand it Bob, please don't write a column in a national newspaper about it.

Refutation here. Please critique it if you think it's lame.

If a banana is the result of I.D how would you consider a coconut???????????

Sorry to post off-topic here but I just saw this news on MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10283676/from/RS.5/. Apparently Professor Mirecki at the University of Kansas is dropping his course on " Intelligent Design, Creationism and Other Religious Mythologies" and issued an appology because he sent an email to a student group that insulted funamentalists, causing a public outcry. It's kind of shame, but a multi-disciplinary course critiquing ID probably would be best hosted by the biology or philosophy (as a philosophy of science topic) departments. Hopefully, they will be willing and allowed to do so.

corkscrew
Is loquacious idiots going to help ?
The moral thing let em keep it, just say thats up to the parents ;>
How much time do you have ?

k.e.: good points. Will make the changes when I have a moment.

I don't have as much time as it might seem. That was 1 hour's worth of waiting for the hangover to go away this morning (couldn't get my head round the Coding and Cryptography worksheet; creationist claims are a lot easier to dissect). It's end of term, so I'll soon have a bit more time. I plan to read and dissect a couple of Dembski's papers - will be good for the aforementioned information-theoretic course.

As I suspected, no one answered my question about the coconut,there for it must be the result of I.D another gap God can fill, creationism is so simple.

Corkscrew: nice job. One possible addition: their mention of the Flat Earth Society allowing teaching of only one explanation would be the perfect place to metion that we only teach one explanation about the shape of Earth, i.e. that it's basically spherical, and no one would dare suggest in a national newspaper that we "teach the controversy" and have students debate the very same flat earth they're bithcing about.

Corkscrew:
It looked fine to me, except that it's not 223 years since Darwin's death. Perhaps you could also make the point that there is no theory of ID.

Corkscrew,

A point by point rebuttal is useful in forums such as the PT, but is essentially useless in the US media. If it cannot be stated in 30 seconds or less (or 1-3 short paragraphs), and if it is not stated in terms understandable by the target audience, then it will not be used, and if used, it will not be effective.

Try something like this:

"Mr. Thomas is appallingly ill informed about the ID vs. Evolution issue, and he should stop reading Anne Coulter and actually look at a science book. It is past time that he should stop insulting the Christian community's intelligence. Does he think we are all morons?"

Of course this is utterly devoid of information, but full of righteous indignation. It should sell much better.

... you chose to focus on the closing ad hominem? Why not speak to the point that ...

No, I mean I'm trying to submit a complete rebuttal to this thread, and the Pandas Thumb blog software is blocking it. I have no idea why, and the error message is singularly unhelpful.

— Corkscrew

I know the professor made some unfortunate comments but the course sounds like it would be a valid one if taught by someone who is a little less emotionally involved with the fundamentalist issue in general. Oh well. I was never sold on the idea of teaching I.D. as myth anyway

— Apensnake

If you take the column's advice and Google for "Scientists and intelligent design", you see that the majority of links say something like, "Intelligent Design Not Accepted by Most Scientists." I wonder if the columnists noticed that?

To: editor@usatoday.com Subject: Re: 'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear? Dear Sir: In the December 1 column entitled 'Intelligent design': What do scientists fear?, Cal Thomas and Bob Beckel argue that so-called ID 'theory' should be taught as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes. Unfortunately, ID is not a scientific theory, because it is not supported by scientific evidence. ID is merely a claim: "Certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection." There is little if any scientific evidence to support that claim. Bob Beckel actually hit the nail on the head when he wrote, "[Scientists] say the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution, and no other theory comes close. Well, of course it doesn't because no other theory has been studied seriously." If proponents wish ID to be treated as science, they should engage in serious study. They should make predictions and perform experiments to test them. They should try to generate significant evidence that supports ID better than it supports evolution. If they can do that, they will have a legitimate scientific argument for including ID in public science classes. The fact that some are arguing for that now, in the absence of good scientific evidence, gives considerable insight into the true motivations of many in the ID movement. Sincerely, Ross H. Durland, Ph.D. [address & telephone number redacted] P.S. If you elect to publish my letter, please withhold my address and telephone number. Thank you. P.P.S. The ID claim quoted above is taken from the Intelligent Design Network, at www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org.

Corkscrew, your post was blocked because is has too many URL links. Porn spam has 5 or more links, so there is a script that checks for how many links you used. I forget the maximum allowed.

That was all.

I am afraid that I have not drunk enough beer yet today to try reading the "debate." But at least I could resolve this tiny technical issue.

More Beer!

Good letter Mike.

After following the evolution vs. intelligent design for weeks now, I've pretty much concluded that no amount of evidence will convince the ID crowd of their erroneous ways. It's something that NelC said in response to Garret Merriam's (hard hitting, but accurate) comment that caught my eye: "One can get tired of rehashing the same arguments again and again to little or no effect."

Do some people actually thrive on looping the same thoughts round and round inside their minds while making the same arguments (or "talking points") over and over again? It doesn't seem to matter whether or not these arguments make sense, are illogical, or are patently false.

For you and me, repeating the same argument again and again is boring, uninteresting, pointless, and enough to drive us mad. We enjoy learning new things and have the ability to accept new ideas and discard ones that have been shown to be incorrect or untrue. Most people I know are able to adjust their thinking or beliefs after being shown the error or their ways (especially in the face of overwhelming evidence), Yet, there are those who cannot. Why do IDers continue to repeat the same arguments over and over again in spite of the flaws in their arguments and evidence to the contrary?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson).

Why do IDers continue to repeat the same arguments over and over again in spite of the flaws in their arguments and evidence to the contrary?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson).

Why do IDers continue to repeat the same arguments over and over again in spite of the flaws in their arguments and evidence to the contrary?

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson)

............... the hobgoblin made me do it!

I often get the impression that Thomas is divisive on purpose. Perhaps by provoking a libel suit against himself, he would get his constituents' goofy beliefs aired in court. Winning or losing makes no difference to them. Even when they lose, they declare victory.

There is an old proverb, according to a Chinese friend of mine, which says, "Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty and the pig loves it."

I am always amazed by the ability of many Americans to believe that their personal opinions on science carry as much, or more, weight than the opinions of the scientific community.

Rev Dr.

I get to see examples of that type of thinking everyday. This is the first misconception I have to rectify in my High School students. They have a hard time accepting that "not all opinions are equally valid." And more importantly, we have an objective method to determine which opinions are valid.

Many of them never get past the roadblock. For me, I get a fresh crop of roadblocks every nine months.

Vandalhooch

I have read through several PT threads within the past number of hours (ran into this site this evening for the first time) and I noticed that on several occasions in several threads people have suggested that ID has no merit. If ID retains no merit, then could you provide for me naturalistic explanations for:

1) Consciousness (both its origin and its current function);
2) DNA (its origin: how did complex information arise from nothing?);
3) Origin of life (how did matter change to living organisms?);
4) A Debunk of Michael J. Behe's irreducibly complex systems; and finally,
5) A debunk of Young Earth theories.

If you want to dismiss ID based on the validity of its arguments then there isn't a problem, if you continue to dismiss it (as I have seen on numerous occasions) simply because it does not fit your definition of a scientific theory save your breath and write a critical response on my 5 topics instead.

ID has no merit

Viktor, Viktor, Viktor. A little further research is required by you before you come here suggesting that all we are doing is dissing ID based on our opinions of what scientific theory is. A wee browse through www.talkorigins.org should answer most if not all of your questions.

Come back when you've done that.

Cheers.

5) A debunk of Young Earth theories.

To Viktor:

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." (Emerson).

Posted by Viktor on December 3, 2005 12:19 AM (e) (s) I have read through several PT threads within the past number of hours (ran into this site this evening for the first time) and I noticed that on several occasions in several threads people have suggested that ID has no merit. If ID retains no merit, then could you provide for me naturalistic explanations for: 1) Consciousness (both its origin and its current function); 2) DNA (its origin: how did complex information arise from nothing?); 3) Origin of life (how did matter change to living organisms?); 4) A Debunk of Michael J. Behe's irreducibly complex systems; and finally, 5) A debunk of Young Earth theories. If you want to dismiss ID based on the validity of its arguments then there isn't a problem, if you continue to dismiss it (as I have seen on numerous occasions) simply because it does not fit your definition of a scientific theory save your breath and write a critical response on my 5 topics instead.

I know you all mean well when you try to enlighten people like Viktor, and I applaud you for your efforts. Unfortunately, I don't believe that anything we can offer in educating such individuals will be viewed by them as having any value.

In addition, it's unproductive, (to say the least) to keep on starting from scratch and repeating the same material over and over again every time one of these ID supporters just happens to drop in on this website and ask the same lame duck questions over and over. Let them do their own damn homework - go to a library, search out other educational websites, take an introductory science course, etc... If they're serious about learning, they'll do just that. As adults, it's their responsibility to become educated on such matters.

It's also a favourite trick of trolls who spend two minutes of their time asking such questions hoping that someone will spend a great deal of time and effort responding to them. They get some kind of perverse, emotional kick out of it.

Viktor,
Go here:
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/10/25/where_is_your_i.php
Especially read the article listed last that appears in the November Scientific American. Conciousness may be a mystery still to science but that doesn't mean it will remain so forever.
Sincerely,
Paul

PS
As for the other four, go back to the homepage of Panda's Thumb and use the links for talkorigins, talkreason, and the rest of the legitimate science sites. If you are sincere, you could spend days learning from them. Are you?

I was just browsing Amazon.com and was recommended Richard Dawkins' most excellent book "The Ancestor's Tale." I have read it already, but thought that the customer reviews of it might reflect some of the evolution vs. creation discussions that seem to be almost anywhere. Well, they did --- but I was positively surprised. I found that the creationist reviews of the book were typically rated as being unhelpful, e.g. 2 of 43, 1 of 63, 0 of 36 people finding the reviews helpful. One reviewer even claimed that it is stupid to even write a book like "The Ancestor's Tale," since the subject is already covered in the Bible! The helpfulness of the neutral (as in non-creationist) reviewers has been rated far, far higher. Seems like Amazon shoppers are a clever bunch. I found the following review very, very funny --- the person who wrote it must have a sense of humor that matches mine quite well --- so put on your sardonic glasses and read: This is a detailed and meticulous description of evolution and the history of biological life. Of its type, this is one of the most comprehensive and readable accounts available. Unfortunately Dawkins is operating entirely within the wrong paradigm! Creation may be contradicted by facts, but facts don't necessarily add up to truth. Evolution itself is flawed on several counts, for example it cannot explain: 1) Why heavy fish, like whales, don't just sink to the bottom of the ocean 2) Why most trees are so much taller than necessary 3) How non-biological animals, like crocodiles and ostriches, came into existence 4) Why sharks haven't grown legs, moved onto land and taken over the world 5) The existence of invisible species that remain undiscovered So go ahead and read Dawkins' lucid prose in "The Ancestor's Tale" --- but remember there are some occasions when facts are wrong. Regardless, I very much recommend the book!

Creation may be contradicted by facts, but facts don't necessarily add up to truth.

Good grief,
How could you possibly have a discussion with somebody like that?

Creation may be contradicted by facts, but facts don't necessarily add up to truth. Evolution itself is flawed on several counts, for example it cannot explain: 1) Why heavy fish, like whales, don't just sink to the bottom of the ocean 2) Why most trees are so much taller than necessary 3) How non-biological animals, like crocodiles and ostriches, came into existence 4) Why sharks haven't grown legs, moved onto land and taken over the world 5) The existence of invisible species that remain undiscovered So go ahead and read Dawkins' lucid prose in "The Ancestor's Tale" --- but remember there are some occasions when facts are wrong. Regardless, I very much recommend the book!

How could you possibly have a discussion with somebody like that?

Um, Stephen Elliott, the review was written as a joke. Notice Randi calling it very, very funny, and to put on your sardonic glasses when reading it.
Hope that helps

Notice Randi calling it very, very funny, and to put on your sardonic glasses when reading it.

3) How non-biological animals, like crocodiles and ostriches, came into existence

I'll note one phrase from this appalling column - "the science crowd". That phrase includes, and denigrates, a large, highly diverse, intelluctually influential, and inquisitive segment of the current human population. An earlier comment refers to "the ID crowd" - a group that cannot be described in a similar manner.

Creation may be contradicted by facts, but facts don't necessarily add up to truth. Evolution itself is flawed on several counts, for example it cannot explain: 1) Why heavy fish, like whales, don't just sink to the bottom of the ocean 2) Why most trees are so much taller than necessary 3) How non-biological animals, like crocodiles and ostriches, came into existence 4) Why sharks haven't grown legs, moved onto land and taken over the world 5) The existence of invisible species that remain undiscovered That is freakin genius. Note that number 5 is merely a restatement of Philip Johnson's strategy for wedging ID into schools: convince everyone that because science can't prove that God exists, science needs to be "rejuvenated." Wouldn't it be fun if a bunch of us pretended to be creationists for a good period of time and stroked Dembski's ego and the ego's of other ID peddlers on their blogs and such and then slowly, on some secret signal, shifting gears ever so slightly and asking some of the more, er, difficult questions about "ID theory"? Hmm. I wonder if any of us aren't already doing that ... I wonder ...

Argh. Please oh rulers of the blog, fix the previous post and delete this one.

The existence of invisible species that remain undiscovered

Indeed. It would be like Americans barging into the operating room and declaring that their personal opinions on medicine carry as much, or more, weight than the opinions of the medical community. It is, I suspect, due to the peculiar American idea that "democracy" means "everyone's opinions are equal".

— Lenny