Critical Analysis of Evolution = Intelligent Design.

Posted 4 November 2006 by Steve Reuland

Republican State Superintendent of Education candidate Karen Floyd, a strong supporter of Intelligent Design, helpfully tells us what we've known all along:

"I support the Education Oversight (Committee)'s premise that we should have critical analysis so that the discussion of intelligent design is not prohibited and could be part of the classroom discussion," Floyd said.

The Discovery Institute must not be pleased. After having bent over backwards to insist that their "critical analysis of evolution" plan in South Carolina isn't the same thing as teaching ID, here Floyd goes and lets the cat out of the bag. As we've seen time and time again, it's hard for them to maintain their position that "critical analysis" has nothing to do with ID when their own supporters understand it as teaching ID. And here's something else that may have them spinning for damage control:

Forbidding teachers, even science teachers, to broach the subject of life's origins creates an atmosphere of fear that's unfair to children, [Floyd] said. Students are smart, she said, "and they connect the dots: Some will wonder "how many dinosaurs boarded Noah's Ark."

Uh-oh, here comes Young Earth Creationism. And to think that the Discovery Institute has spent all that time trying make people think that ID had nothing to do with creationism in general, much less the extreme YEC position. I have more to say about Karen Floyd and the race for State Superintendent of Education over at Sunbeams from Cucumbers.

34 Comments

steve s · 4 November 2006

"I support the Education Oversight (Committee)'s premise that we should have critical analysis so that the discussion of intelligent design is not prohibited and could be part of the classroom discussion," Floyd said.

LOL that's as good as when Salvador said the problem in Dover was that stupid Pandas textbook made it look like Intelligent Design was really creationism. Or when Dembski's Mini-me Joel said Teach the Controversy was really Intelligent Design in disguise. If this gets moved to the Bathroom Wall, I understand, but I can't help but channel Eric Cartman here: Intelligent Design is F'd in the A.

ts · 5 November 2006

Ok how many dinasours were on the ark?

jkc · 5 November 2006

What does the number of dinosaurs on the ark have to do with science or the origins of life, anyway?

Bouncy Castle Man · 5 November 2006

What does dinosaurs have to do with anything for that matter?

Regards a very confused
Bouncy Castle Man
www.BouncyParties.co.uk

MarkP · 5 November 2006

I guess this gives us a new version of the old joke: How many dinosaurs did Moses take on the ark?

I'll give you a hint TS, the answer is the same as it is for:

"How many testable predictions has ID Theory [sic] made in the last 20 years?"

"How many federal court cases has ID/creationsm won?"

"How much dissention from the Gospel according to Dembski is allowed on UD?"

"How many peer-reviewed scientific papers support ID?"

"How many biologists support ID?"

"How many ID research projects were submitted to the Templeton Fund?"

"How much understanding of the scientific process does Karen Floyd possess?"

This is too easy. Maybe we could make a new board game: Intelligently Trivial Pursuit.

Peter Henderson · 5 November 2006

Uh-oh, here comes Young Earth Creationism. And to think that the Discovery Institute has spent all that time trying make people think that ID had nothing to do with creationism in general, much less the extreme YEC position.

That clears a lot of things up for me Steve. I always wondered where IDers stood on things like the age of the Earth etc.

Ok how many dinasours were on the ark?

According to Ken Ham, Noah needed less than 50 kinds of dinosaur, and many were very small as well....only the size of sheep. At least that's what he (Ham) said in an interview with William Crawley on BBC Radio Ulster when he visited Belfast in March 2004. Obviously Noah had plenty of room on the ark ! (this is sarcasm by the way )

Steve Reuland · 5 November 2006

What does the number of dinosaurs on the ark have to do with science or the origins of life, anyway?

Assuming this is a serious question... Young-Earth creationists maintain that Genesis is literally true, that the Earth is approximately 6000 years old, and that Noak's Ark really existed and contained two of every kind of critter 4000 years ago. And since they maintain that God created all critters within 6 days, and since the Bible is clear that the Ark had two of everything, this means that dinosaurs would have had to have been on the Ark. And that leads to some really amusing and convoluted explanations for how these massive animals all got stuffed onto a wooden ship for a year. Needless to say, it's all a bunch of nonsense. Nonsense that the creationists want taught in public schools as part of the science curriculum. Claims of a young Earth and Noah's Flood were included in both the Arkansas Balanced Treatment Act and the Louisiana Creationism Act. Both of these laws were struck down in landmark court decisions (McLean and Edwards, respectively). Shortly thereafter, the ID movement formed with the idea that they could jettison most of the obvious Genesis references and water-down the religiosity, and thereby fly under the radar of the courts. They didn't contradict the YEC claims, mind you, they just dropped them and focused attention elsewhere. But as we see here, ID ends up serving as a foot-in-the-door for YEC and other forms of assorted craziness.

Altair IV · 5 November 2006

Forbidding teachers, even science teachers, to broach the subject of life's origins creates an atmosphere of fear that's unfair to children, [Floyd] said.

That's funny. In every account I've heard where ID has infiltrated a school system, it's always the true science supporters who are reluctant to speak out for fear of losing their jobs or other forms of persecution. Atmosphere of fear, indeed.

jkc · 5 November 2006

Assuming this is a serious question...
— Steve Reuland

This was a serious question, but formulated in a cryptic way, (unitentionally) disguising its true intent. Sorry about that, Steve. I understand that a literal belief in Noah's ark carries with it a lot of other baggage that contradicts most of what science says about the age of the earth and biological chronology. However, it just struck me as odd that Ms. Floyd would pull that out of a hat. I was trying to imagine a public school science class in which the lesson would leave that as the only unanswered question in the mind of the poor creationist student. I know this is South Carolina an' all, but surely the science curriculum would be clear enough on these issue to forestall such a question. Having said that...I grew up in a creationist home and went to public school (almost 30 years ago in Maryland) and somehow managed to come away from it believing that dinosaurs were a hoax concocted by scientists. I don't think I got this from my parents, but the schools didn't do a very good job of setting me straight, either, so this was my feeble brain's way of reconciling things.

mark · 5 November 2006

After having bent over backwards to insist that their "critical analysis of evolution" plan in South Carolina isn't the same thing as teaching ID

Well, except that what they suggest to their congregation, sometimes explicitly, is that Intelligent Design and all its mutations, aliases, and flavors, is God-of-the-Bible religion. They sure convinced William "Deer-in-the-headlights" Buckingham that ID was a force coming to the aid of his religion.

Steve Reuland · 5 November 2006

However, it just struck me as odd that Ms. Floyd would pull that out of a hat. I was trying to imagine a public school science class in which the lesson would leave that as the only unanswered question in the mind of the poor creationist student.
— jkc

I think the answer is that Floyd is so out of it and so ignorant of what's taught in science class that she doesn't realize that if the teacher does his job, the question, "How many dinosaurs boarded Noah's Ark?" will be recognized by the students as meaningless. For YECs that's a serious question; for everyone else it's comical and ridiculous.

stevaroni · 5 November 2006

how many dinosaurs boarded Noah's Ark.

Zero, obviously. Everyone knows that's a trick question. Zenu's spaceship got there first and took all the dinosaurs away!

Bertram Cabot, Jr. · 5 November 2006

So don't allow it to be disussed. Heck, ban it outright and don't let people even mention it.

Of course, that still does not estabish that our present existence is the result of mindless processess or lend ANY support WHATSSOEVER to the athesitic agenda of most of you.

Its so amusing to hear you jokers talk about "religious" agendas, when you know you have your own atheitic world view to prop up. Look at Dawkins, Harris, Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, all of them atheists and apoplectic at the thought of anything that might touch on a religious.

Or take Dawkins religious reant in his recent book and his spiel at KU.

That wasn't science, that was a propaganda excercise.

Many of us are very concerned about you people getting power over our lives.

PvM · 5 November 2006

Many of us are very concerned about you people getting power over our lives.

Seems you have little faith then if these atheists as you call them can gain power over your lives.

B. Spitzer · 5 November 2006

Its so amusing to hear you jokers talk about "religious" agendas, when you know you have your own atheitic world view to prop up.

I might as well start the chorus of rebuttal: When you talk about propping up an "atheistic agenda", you're conveniently overlooking Ken Miller, and Francis Collins, and a lot of the posters here who are devoutly religious (me included). The "evolution = atheism" pitch is a hoax. Don't buy into it.

Justin Hirsh · 5 November 2006

Some will wonder "how many dinosaurs boarded Noah's Ark."

Wouldn't that be zero? Or did they become extinct after they boarded the Ark? Or were they agents of Satan like that one tract said?

P.S. I'm being facetious.

Pete Dunkelberg · 5 November 2006

How many dinosaurs did Moses take on the ark?

Moses wasn't on the Ark. He was carried safely in the belly of a whale.

Peter Henderson · 5 November 2006

Moses wasn't on the Ark. He was carried safely in the belly of a whale.

I'm afraid that was Jonah Pete and it wasn't necessarily a whale. The bible just sates that it was a large fish. Unless you're only pulling our legs of course !

Stuart Weinstein · 5 November 2006

"Ok how many dinasours were on the ark?"

The same as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

stevaroni · 5 November 2006

Many of us are very concerned about you people getting power over our lives.

I'm curious, exactly what power is that? Has anybody stopped you from going to church this week? Have you been beat up because you're the wrong religion? Have the atheists in your town bulldozed all the synagogues yet? Did your Senator, Congressman, mayor or dogcatcher have to hide his faith to be elected? Did you have to answer questions about your religious affiliation to get your job? Has you marriage been annulled and replaced with a civil union so that you could better match a gay couple in Massachusetts? How long has it been since the police broke down your door and rousted you off to jail for hosting that illegal prayer meeting? There are, in fact, places on this globe where all this has, and still is, happening. But let's face it, not where you live, Bertram. No, I suspect that where you live, the effect of the great atheist cabal has been limited to two exactly things. 1) Your town can't use public spaces for religous displays and 2) Your school district has to teach generally accepted physical facts in biology class. All in all, not terribly unfair rules, I think. Past that, nobody gives a fig what you believe, how you pray, or who you pray to. Really. Go try it out. Wear a Christian-themed T-shirt down to your local supermarket and you know what will happen? Nothing. Not exactly rabid persecution by the jack-booted atheist thugs, Bertram.

Stuart Weinstein · 5 November 2006

Bertram writes
"So don't allow it to be disussed. Heck, ban it outright and don't let people even mention it."

Actually, and I think I speak for most of of the Panda's crowd, is that our priniciple concern is that it not
be taught as sceince. If some district wants to put it in a compartaive religions course, most of us care not. But if they
wish to to teach it as a scientific alternative to evolution, then we have a problem. Cuz its not science.

"Of course, that still does not estabish that our present existence is the result of mindless processess or lend ANY support WHATSSOEVER to the athesitic agenda of most of you."

I don't have an atheistic agenda. Some of us do, some us don't. Ken Miller author of finding Darwin's God is a devout Catholic for example. At any rate the prime concern for most of us is not religion, but the integrity of science.

No, shutting ID out of scientific discusion doesn't establish the credentials of TOE. It has mountains of evidence for that. Consult www.talkorigins.org.

"Its so amusing to hear you jokers talk about "religious" agendas, when you know you have your own atheitic world view to prop up. Look at Dawkins, Harris, Eugenie Scott, Barbara Forrest, all of them atheists and apoplectic at the thought of anything that might touch on a religious."

The objection of evolution is purely on religious grounds. Don't be foolish. On the other hand there are many people of faith, ministers, Popes etc., that also accept the basic findings of TOE.

Perhaps the will help you out:
http://www.butler.edu/clergyproject/religion_science_collaboration.htm

This demolishes your contention that evolution is some guided missle for atheism. Most people have reconciled their religious beliefs with basic science. I suggest you do the same.

"Or take Dawkins religious reant in his recent book and his spiel at KU."

Dawkins is entitled to his opinions on religion. He doesn't claim to be a theologian. Nor is trying to have "atheism" taught in Churches. Again, concult the website above. An extremely diverse group of people accept the findings of TOE, including ther very devout and militant atheists.

"That wasn't science, that was a propaganda excercise".

I haven't read it. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But the science in support of evolution is clear.

"Many of us are very concerned about you people getting power over our lives."

Really? how so? Keep your fingers out of my soup, and I'll keep mine out of yours.

MarkP · 5 November 2006

So don't allow it to be discussed. Heck, ban it outright and don't let people even mention it. Of course, that still does not estabish that our present existence is the result of mindless processess or lend ANY support WHATSSOEVER to the athesitic agenda of most of you.

No one is talking about banning discussion Bertram. We atheists are more than happy to leave the job of book burning and censorship to the fundies, you all do it with so much more fervor than any of us could muster. Frankly, I and many of us would love a class that not only allowed the question of Noah's ark to be raised, but that dealt objectively with the mountain of evidence showing that story to be the wonderful moralistic fairy tale it is. I suspect you would not be nearly as happy about that free exchange of ideas. There is no "atheistic agenda". That's a myth made up by the Bill O'Reilly's of the world to rile up the flock and sell books. Atheists have little in common besides their lack of belief in that one being. It is not nearly enough to build a group on worthy of the fear you send our way. Just imagine living your life never praying or thinking about god. That's all being an atheist is. Otherwise, we love and live and hate and cry and sleep and dream just as you do.

stevaroni · 5 November 2006

"Ok how many dinasours were on the ark?" The same as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Oooh. Dancing dinosaurs in confined spaces... that's probably not so good....

Frank J · 5 November 2006

That clears a lot of things up for me Steve. I always wondered where IDers stood on things like the age of the Earth etc.
— Peter Henderson

No it doesn't. All it clears up is that one can add one to the few million rubes that, In Ron O's words, "didn't get the memo." IIRC even some OEC positions accommodate the Flood. But the bigger picture is that anti-evolution leaders, if not their cheerleaders, know that none of the mutually contradictory creationist accounts hold up to the evidence. But that doesn't keep them from their main goal having their cheerleaders hold on to their fairy tales. The price they pay is that, once in a while, some of them spill the beans. But sadly, only scientists and long-time ID critics seem to notice. In ID's early days, Michael Behe conceded an old earth and even common descent. Since none of the major IDers ever challenged him directly, it's doubtful that many disagree in private. Since then most have conceded an old earth, but play "don't ask, don't tell" about common descent. More importantly, however, is their increasing admission that they are politically more sympathetic to YEC than to OEC, and that theistic evolutionists, not atheists, are their chief enemy. Bottom line, ID, including its designer-free phony "critical analysis," is a scam, and the chief promoters know it.

Frank J · 5 November 2006

So don't allow it to be discussed. Heck, ban it outright and don't let people even mention it.
— Bertram Cabot Jr.

Any student who wants to learn the phony "critical analysis," which is nothing but misrepresentation, can do so on his own time, such as by checking the Talk Origins Archive. Anti-evolution activists do not like to advertise the TOA, even though it ironically has easier access to sites promoting the mutually contradictory anti-evolution positions than any anti-evolution sites. The reason they avoid it is because it includes the scientific critiques, many of which come from theists who also object that ID/creationism is an insult to God. If anyone is trying to ban discussion, it's the anti-evolution activists.

Henry J · 5 November 2006

Re "how many dinosaurs boarded Noah's Ark."

Well, at least the ones that appeared on that televised documentary, "The Flintsones". (heh heh heh)

Henry

stevaroni · 5 November 2006

So don't allow it to be disussed. Heck, ban it outright and don't let people even mention it.

Actually, it's not true that discussing creation per se is banned. All the recent court cases have agreed that the simple problem is that creationism (intelligent design, whatever) has simply not provided the proper prerequisite to be included in the debate. All you have to do is put some evidence on the table. Creation instantly stops being religion and becomes a legitimate alternative explanation which can't be banned under the current interpretations of Edwards and Kitzmiller. Um, anytime now, would be nice.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 5 November 2006

to the athesitic agenda of most of you

But ID doesn't have anything to do with religion. no sirree Bob. It's just them lying atheist darwinists who say it does. (snicker) (giggle) I love fundies. I really do. They can be relied upon to shoot themselves in the head, publicly, every single time. Especially in court.

'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 5 November 2006

Did someone change the fonts in the comments? It's hard as hell to read . . . . .

Flint · 6 November 2006

Looks like another generic drive-by post by someone who either has no clue what "evidence" means, or who thinks evidence is like religion: it's whatever you SAY it is, and means whatever you WANT it to mean.

whheydt · 6 November 2006

Steveroni wrote;
"Ok how many dinasours were on the ark?"

The same as the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin.

Oooh. Dancing dinosaurs in confined spaces... that's probably not so good....
--

What you need now is a rousing chorus of Jane Robinson's _Graviportal Polka_.

(And by the way, the canonical answer to "How many angels..." is "as many as want to.")

Marek 14 · 7 November 2006

Angels dancing on the head of the pin...

One of my teachers actually says that this question is not as meaningless as it sounds - that it was a certain primitive way our ancestors wrapped themselves around the concept of infinitely small, perfect concepts - like geometrical points. If you rephrase the question to how many POINTS can be fit on the head of the pin, it's a bit more interesting, as you can see that can cause problems to someone with no concept of infinitesimal.

I wonder if there is any truth to it?

Steve Reuland · 17 November 2006

Excuse me? I believe YECS would fit your standards of Science a bit better than ID would any day there chum :).

To a certain extent this is true. The core claims of ID cannot be evaluated with empirical evidence, which makes ID unscientific. The core claims of YEC can be evaluated with empirical evidence, and we know that they are utterly, irrevocably false. This makes YEC more scientific in a certain sense because it is testable. But it doesn't make it any less fraudulent.

YECS at least accepts Natural Selection.

ID advocates accept natural selection as well. But as with YECs, they have no coherent, consistent position on what they think natural selection is or isn't capable of.

I think the problem you're having is that you think that YECS's are the only ones who believe in Noah's ark. Try, any Christian on the face of the planet :).

Most Christians I know believe that Noah's Ark is a fable, not an actual historical occurrence. Though I suspect that your personal definition of "Christian" is constrained somewhat by the extreme insularity of the belief system with which you associate. At any rate, someone who thinks that there were dinosaurs on the Ark is pretty much by definition a YEC. While I can imagine a scenario by which someone accepts an ancient Earth and yet somehow thinks that dinosaurs and humans lived together, I know of no one who actually believes that. People who believed that dinosaurs lived with humans also believe that the Earth is only 6000 years old.

Melanie Stephan · 26 December 2006

Intelligent Design, Yes, I have proof that there is intelligence behind all of this. How do I know? I was contacted by an intelligence. How was I contacted? The first contact was in three dreams. Then events that followed told me who the dreams were from. They were from the Creator. He does want to have contact with us. Why did he pick me for this contact? That is the same question that I have, I don't know. I have proof of my story, and I have witnesses and objects.
OH, one more thing before I post this. One of the pieces of proof is that he told me who killed JFK. My question was why would be tell me this, it has nothing to do with his creations or the other messages he gave me. I think it was so that people would believe that he contacted me. The man that Killed JFK was a policeman in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22, 1963. His initials are F. R., his last name is Ritter. I think some day he will confess or leave something in his will to say that he was involved in the shooting. That is only one piece of proof that I was contacted. Really who would know who killed John F. Kennedy besides the killer? Maybe God for one. I live in New York, I have never been in the South. The only way that I know this is that an Intelligence Contacted me, The Creator. That is not a lie, I don't lie. I don't go to Church and I am not here to convert anyone. This is not a joke, I am very serious about what I wrote here.
Sincerely, Melanie Stephan
If your Christmas less than you wished for, Have a Happy New Year, 2007