May 312006
 

On ARN Mung started a thread discussing John Brockman’s book “Intelligent Thought : Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement”‚ Mung provided these quotes from the book.

Evolutionary science lies at the heart of a modern understanding of the natural world. Darwin’s theory has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny, and today it not only explains the origin and design of living things, but highlights the importance of a scientific understanding in our culture and in our lives.

Brockman has got to be joking. See Darwinian Fizzbin 1,
2, & 3 and What’s a Theory?.

Recently the movement known as Intelligent Design has attracted the attention of journalists, educators, and legislators. The scientific community is puzzled and saddened by this trend – not only because it distorts modern biology, but also because it diverts people from the truly fascinating ideas emerging from the real science of evolution. Here, join sixteen of our preeminent thinkers whose clear, accessible, and passionate essays reveal the fact and power of Darwin’s theory, and the beauty of the scientific quest to understand our world.

What fascinating ideas from science has been diverted due to ID? The inquiring mind would like to know. Certainly ID as a scientific theoretic is growing. However, I am not aware of any Darwinian mythology idea/research has been diverted due to ID. Brockman should give some specific examples or get his facts straight.

…religious fundamentalism is on the rise around the world, and our own virulent domestic version of it, under the rubric of “intelligent design,” by elbowing its way into the classroom abrogates the divide between church and state that has served this country so well for so long. Moreover, the intelligent-design (ID) movement imperils American global dominance in science and in so doing presents the gravest of threats to the American economy, which is driven by advances in science and in the technology derived therefrom.

I don’t know about religious fundamentalism, but Christian fundamentalism is certainly on the decline as far as I can tell. Brockman is misrepresenting ID here. The ID community and supporters in general are not in favor of teaching ID in the classroom. A sloppy research into the debate would have born that out and he is writing a book on this subject?

WRT ID “imperils American global dominance in science”‚ , that is just hogwash. Krauss has pushed this same sort of drivel which I’ve refuted in The Darwinian Empire Strikes Back

This book … is a thoughtful response to the bizarre claims made by the ID movement’s advocates, whose only interest in science appears to be to replace it with beliefs consistent with those of the Middle Ages.

I wonder did he really write that with a straight face. 😯 From what I’ve seen so far, it is anything but thoughtful. Replace science with beliefs from the Middle Ages? 😛 If anything, it is the Darwinians who are practicing Middle Ages religious oppression. Jeffrey Schwartz, a noted anthropologist at the University of Pittsburgh said this:

Also, the challenge to evolutionary thinking in recent decades from advocates of Intelligent Design and creationism have impelled many scientists to band together in defense of Darwin’s ideas, shoving alternative theories to the background.

On the contrary my dear Brockman. The Darwinian community is the one brushing aside science in favor of religious atheism.

The fault lies not in our stars but in ourselves, in this case Darwinists. Your religious zeal has barred you from admitting Darwinism has failed. In order for Darwinian scientists to admit, there are other more plausible explanations for the emergence of novel forms. Darwinists needs to admit their boisterous claim that Darwinism has withstood 150 years of scientific scrutiny and is now a fact, IS WRONG.

School districts across the country – most notably in Kansas and later in Pennsylvania, where the anti-evolutionist tide was turned but undoubtedly not stopped – have been besieged by demands to “teach the debate,” to “present the controversy,” when, in actuality, there is no debate, no controversy.

There is no controversy, if you are an ostrich with its head in the sand. There is no controversy, if you are a religious Darwinian zealot who does not want to doubt your faith.
Quote:

“The strange thing about the theory of evolution is that everyone thinks he understands it. But we do not….“Stuart Kauffman, 2003

Keep repeating that mantra my dear Brockman, we don’t want you to lose your faith. Nietzsche’s Madman : Finding Darwin’s God

… I have asked the contributors … to present essays on their personal view of the issues raised by the intelligent-design movement, and of the fact, power, and beauty of the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection.
`
Some of these essays deal with the bogus arguments put forward by the movement’s proponents.
`
Others are imaginative takes on Darwinian evolutionary theory.

The only imaginative fairytales that I know of is coming from the Darwinians.
Is Evolution the Best Explanation or Just another Fairytale?
Bad Speculations and Bad Interpretations
My challenge to Darwinian Evolutionists is to produce a single sliver of empirical evidence that demonstrates macroevolution. Despite the priesthood of PhDs all Darwinism can produce are imaginative stories. That is why there is still a controversy my dear Brockman.

There are examples in history of the collapse of great civilizations. There is no particular reason that the United States should be exempt from historical forces The Visigoths are at the gates. Will we let them in?

Too late, the barbarians are already inside the gates and they have replaced true science with their pseudoscience for over 150 years. It is nigh for the call to arm and purge the barbarians and their cultic religion from science. Restore the empirical quest for knowledge and advancement.

  2 Responses to “Science versus the Intelligent Design Movement by John Brockman”

  1. The fact that books like this are being written is a clear sign that ID is winning. If Darwinism were so transparently true, based on the evidence, ID could just be ignored and it would die a quiet death.

  2. Thanks for the comment Gil. I don’t know if ID is winning but ID is making progress. Whether it wins at the end, only time will tell. Darwinism has a stranglehold on science. One of them have to die in order for the other to survive.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.