This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Proving ID is Creationism

Proving ID is Creationism - Comments

dazzjazz's Avatar Comment 1 by dazzjazz

So glad these people are on the tails of these IDiots.

Darren

Tue, 20 May 2008 19:29:00 UTC | #173393

Big City's Avatar Comment 2 by Big City

See also:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1847,Judgement-Day-Intelligent-Design-on-Trial,NOVA-PBS

(I've been a fan of the graph at 2:00 since the first time I saw it.)

Tue, 20 May 2008 19:40:00 UTC | #173399

Count von Count's Avatar Comment 3 by Count von Count

If there's something weird, in the neighborhood, who ya gonna call?

NCSE!

(I ain't afraid 'a no ghost.)

Tue, 20 May 2008 19:42:00 UTC | #173400

HourglassMemory's Avatar Comment 4 by HourglassMemory

For me, that was the best part of the whole trial.
"cdesign proponentsists".
It's brilliant how "our side" just pointed it out and pretty much won the case.

Tue, 20 May 2008 19:58:00 UTC | #173403

mindpath's Avatar Comment 5 by mindpath

That is brilliant. The NCSE was more than ready to make the case without that sloppy copy and paste, but it made things quite a bit easier.

Yay science!

Tue, 20 May 2008 20:18:00 UTC | #173409

Tetsujin's Avatar Comment 6 by Tetsujin

I can understand that one would rewrite a book with the intention of modifying an idea to perhaps take into account new data or new information you come across.

There's simply no integrity in this. How does one come across when you've pointed out that the whole fabrication was a simple "Find" -> "Replace All".

I can almost feel hatred for someone like that.

Tue, 20 May 2008 20:41:00 UTC | #173416

Styrer-'s Avatar Comment 7 by Styrer-

Not sure why this stuff is being rehearsed, Josh and Wayne.

What am I missing? Is this for the newbies only?

No comprende.

Styrer

Tue, 20 May 2008 20:50:00 UTC | #173417

obscured by clouds's Avatar Comment 8 by obscured by clouds

Not sure why this stuff is being rehearsed, Josh and Wayne.

What am I missing? Is this for the newbies only?


Eugenie Scott posted this thread, on the forum. It's new video and a new site, http://www.expelledexposed.com/ , just getting the word out there.

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:16:00 UTC | #173426

Andrew Stich's Avatar Comment 9 by Andrew Stich

I do not completely agree. Of Pandas and People is ID, and is quite obviously poorly disguised creationism as well. This doesn't necessarily make the entire ID movement creationist (although its founders, main proponents and the majority of its followers are creationists). An intelligent agency could also mean extraterrestrials (not that this hypothesis would be of any parsimonious value. It would require rather serious evidence).

I understand that I am somewhat being a nitpicker, but, well, there it is.

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:25:00 UTC | #173429

William Wallace's Avatar Comment 10 by William Wallace

Wow, Richard Dawkins dot net (didn't Richard Dawkins used to work at Berkley) coordinating with the NCSE. Say it isn't so...(and the NC"S"E claims they're not about atheism). LOL.

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:35:00 UTC | #173436

William Wallace's Avatar Comment 11 by William Wallace

Andrew,

I agree with you.

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:36:00 UTC | #173437

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 12 by mordacious1

Doesn't matter. No one wants ET taught in the classroom unless there is scientific proof thereof.

I wonder what the next re-write will look like. I'm sure this textbook will reappear soon.

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:38:00 UTC | #173440

Mbee's Avatar Comment 13 by Mbee

Here's that 'Grand Old Designer ' at work again...

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:42:00 UTC | #173443

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Comment 14 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Eugenie Scott spoke at the AAI 2007, she had one of the more interesting and useful talks and this video is a great compilation of her work and research.

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:42:00 UTC | #173444

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Comment 15 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Two things you can always count on:

Those who endorse Intelligent Design, are not

Those who are Liberal, are anything but

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:44:00 UTC | #173446

ICONIC FREEDOM's Avatar Comment 16 by ICONIC FREEDOM

Andrew Stich - I believe in the book, 40 Days & 40 Nights, this hypothesis along with others was explored when Ken Miller was on the stand, additionally when Michael Behe was cross examined.

What came of it was the obvious agenda of the ID movement to invoke a "god" like figure, even though ET's and other potential designers were discusses. It ended up making the case look even sillier than it was, even to the extent that, if I recall, Behe believed that astrology was legit science - unbelievable! : ) LOL

Check out the book if you get a chance, Chapman writes it like a movie script and its terribly entertaining.

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:49:00 UTC | #173447

b0ltzm0n's Avatar Comment 17 by b0ltzm0n

and the NC"S"E claims they're not about atheism


Well, I would hope they're "pro-science" and anti-non-science (aka creationism aka ID). If the NCSE being anti-non-science makes them "about atheism" to you, then so be it. But that's your correlation, not mine. And it's a telling correlation indeed. Cheers!

Tue, 20 May 2008 21:50:00 UTC | #173449

Raiko's Avatar Comment 18 by Raiko

Andrew Stich, in principle, ID could not be creationism, but all evidence points towards the fact that the term was invented and is usually used in creationist context - to the point where it would be absolutely misleading to use this term for anything, but a religious context. In any case, we should keep on mind that whether or not it is religious doesn't stop it from failing as a theory.


William Wallace, maybe this would be a novel concept to you, but generally people can collaborate if they agree on some aspect, even without having all their views matched by 100%. This website and the NCSE both have an interest in removing unscientific hogwash from schools and exposing ID for what it is. Unlike many religious people, rational ones are not likely to automatically refuse cooperation when agreeing to disagree.

Tue, 20 May 2008 22:16:00 UTC | #173457

Count von Count's Avatar Comment 19 by Count von Count

William Wallace-


"Richard Dawkins dot net...coordinating with the NCSE. Say it isn't so..."

I have not heard much about the NCSE. Is there a serpent under this innocent looking flower? Do tell.

Tue, 20 May 2008 22:58:00 UTC | #173470

Geoff's Avatar Comment 20 by Geoff

Old news to most of us, I guess, but the more ways this gets publicised, the better.
They could have mentioned the wedge document, too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy

Wed, 21 May 2008 02:17:00 UTC | #173560

Andrew Stich's Avatar Comment 21 by Andrew Stich

scooternyc: Behe is a creationist, but I didn't know he was an astrologist, too! But while Behe and the founders and main proponents and majority of supporters of ID may be creationists, there are those hypothetical few who are not religious and simply believe that we have been intelligently designed by aliens, a few who would have isolated themselves from the main ID movement but whose beliefs would still be called ID. But this form of intelligent design, while slightly better than theistic forms, still is a bad idea, yes. I just wouldn't want to mislabel anyone. Thanks for the book recommendation!

And Raiko, yes, the alien design is a bad theory as well. And I agree that the word(s) ID is a word that has been twisted and turned to have a religious connotation. But what, then, do we name those who believe in intelligent design and not Intelligent Design?

Wed, 21 May 2008 05:02:00 UTC | #173637

headcold's Avatar Comment 22 by headcold

She's hot!

Wed, 21 May 2008 06:37:00 UTC | #173694

Jamie Walton's Avatar Comment 23 by Jamie Walton

Wow, I want more videos from Anne Holden please. Who's with me?

c-assholes-ists

Cheers

Jamie Walton

Wed, 21 May 2008 06:40:00 UTC | #173697

Border Collie's Avatar Comment 24 by Border Collie

No matter ... the YEC's will fight evolution forever ... I know, from having been one as a child ... that they're searching for something, anything ... because religious fundamentalism engenders such an abysmally bleak, fearful and constricted life outlook ... the fights and the media attention make them feel alive ... the best thing we can do is simply continue to do good science ... I am truly grateful for Dr. Dawkins, Dr. Dennett, Mr. Hitchens, Mr. Harris and all of you other science and rational guys and gals out there who keep this light flickering in the darkness.

Wed, 21 May 2008 10:02:00 UTC | #173773

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 25 by robotaholic

I'm amazed there are people who have weighed the evidence and don't believe in evolution.

Wed, 21 May 2008 13:14:00 UTC | #173906

SilentMike's Avatar Comment 26 by SilentMike

cdesign proponentsists

Wed, 21 May 2008 14:49:00 UTC | #173941

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 27 by Dr. Strangegod

Good video. Never hurts to hear more detail and have more ammo.

One thing, though - and I mean no disrespect to anyone here - but I'm getting really sick of the use of the word "IDiots." It annoys me almost as much as "New Atheists" and is equally useless as a descriptor. Really. Sort of clever to begin with, not so much anymore, and it seems to often take the place of saying something substantive. And its a lame insult at that. Anyone with me on this?

Wed, 21 May 2008 14:52:00 UTC | #173944

SilentMike's Avatar Comment 28 by SilentMike

27. Comment #183255 by Lucas

I've never used "IDiots" as far as I can recall. Never really took to it. I don't think it's quite like "new atheists". "IDiots" is meant as an insult and not as a neutral descriptor.

If people want to insult them, let them have their fun.

Personally I like cdesign proponentsists better.

Wed, 21 May 2008 14:58:00 UTC | #173945

cjnkns's Avatar Comment 29 by cjnkns

Smart and cute... nice

Wed, 21 May 2008 15:55:00 UTC | #173951

Shrommer's Avatar Comment 30 by Shrommer

"Proving Of Pandas and People is Creationism" is what the title of the thread should read. No serious ID person claims that species appearing intact is a key intelligent design idea, yet the book Of Pandas and People made it THE key definition. Dr. Behe believes in common descent with a very gradual evolution from a single or several few ancestors.

Imagine a textbook that came out and said that "Evolution means that all species went through an algae-covered blender powered by lightning and oil in exactly the year 3,040,678 BCE." I suppose that we would all be fighting a battle to get evolution out of our schools and calling evolution junk science, based on that one book's definition.

Wed, 21 May 2008 16:27:00 UTC | #173959