Wednesday, September 30, 2009

The College Student’s Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design Creationism

 
The Evolution News website is run by the Discovery Institute in Seattle, Washington USA. In spite of the title, their goal is not to inform you about evolution. Instead, their goal is to promote anti-evolution thinking and Intelligent Design Creationism.

I'm in the middle of teaching a course about evolution and creationism so the latest posting on their website caught my eye. I urge my students to read the latest posting: Introducing The College Student’s Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design. They have lots of helpful hints about how to deal with evil Professors who oppose intelligent design. Not only that, they have a book for sale called "The College Student’s Back to School Guide to Intelligent Design." It's sort of like "Evolution for Dummies."

The main part of the book is about dealing with your Professor's "misinformed" opinions about Intelligent Design Creationism. Here's a list of nine such opinions. I better read up on how students are going to refute these arguments—at least the ones that aren't farcical or obvious strawmen.

  1. Intelligent Design Is Not Science
  2. Intelligent Design Rejects All of Evolutionary Biology
  3. Intelligent Design Has Been Banned From Public Schools by the Federal Courts
  4. Intelligent Design Is Just Politics
  5. Intelligent Design Is a Science Stopper
  6. Intelligent Design Is “Creationism” and Based on Religion
  7. Intelligent Design Is Religiously Motivated
  8. Intelligent Design Proponents Don’t Conduct or Publish Scientific
    Research
  9. Intelligent Design Has Been Refuted by the Overwhelming Evidence for Neo-Darwinian Evolution
Hmmm ... on second thought, I hope my students don't see this. It looks like a pretty devastating attack on everything I've been saying in class. I'm shaking in my boots.


14 comments:

  1. It's sort of like "Evolution for Dummies."


    Literally.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ObQuoteMine: "I hope my students don't see this. It looks like a pretty devastating attack on everything I've been saying in class." -- Larry Moran, Evolutionist Professor

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Intelligent Design Is Not Science"
    "Intelligent Design Is “Creationism” and Based on Religion"
    "Intelligent Design Is Religiously Motivated"


    How absurd! Who could believe these false charges? Whoever it is, they should attend this talk on Intelligent Design by Dr. Don Bierle of FaithSearch International, which is being sponsored by Campus Crusade for Christ. That would surely convince them that ID is science and not religion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's sort of like "Evolution for Dummies."

    More like "Evolution for Dummies, by Dummies"

    Interestingly, they are now officially conceding common descent. Will ID eventually end up as theistic evolution?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Divalent: Interestingly, they are now officially conceding common descent."

    Are they actually "conceding," or simply "not contesting"? It's remarkable that such a scientifically involved group as the proponents of ID seem to have no curiosity whatsoever about such important scientific issues as the age of the Universe.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interestingly, they are now officially conceding common descent. Will ID eventually end up as theistic evolution?

    ID has always been officially non-commital on common descent (read Behe). It's part of a Big Tent strategy that embraces everyone from YECs to almost-theistic-evolutionists. But I wouldn't be surprised to see the movement fragment into conservative and liberal factions in the next few years, as they continue to get nowhere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Theyre not 'introducing' anything. Theyve had this same handout forever. I debunked basically the same thing in 2007. God, they dont have any original thoughts...

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Interestingly, they are now officially conceding common descent. Will ID eventually end up as theistic evolution?"

    And will Dumbski get a new domain name for uncommondescent.com?

    ReplyDelete
  9. So here's what they state on page 7: "Intelligent design does not reject all of evolutionary biology. ID “does not challenge the idea of ‘evolution’ defined as either change over time or common ancestry ..." (mostly a quote from Stephen Meyer)

    So, they do imply that they accept what they don't reject, but OTOH they don't actually come right out and say they accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "So, they do imply that they accept what they don't reject, but OTOH they don't actually come right out and say they accept it."
    The are an umbrella organization for theistic anti-evolutionary thought. They have no choice but to embrace mutually contradictory notions such as 7 day creationism of Paul Nelson and the the interventionist heavy theistic evolution of Michael Behe.
    Behe's official position is FAR closer to standard evolutionary biology than Nelsons but that is one controversy they don't wish to teach.

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. As I understand it, both ID and creationism stand and fall on the existence of god, this being the intelligence doing the designing.

    Being unable to prove the basic premiss, i.e. existence of god, there is no basis of fact - the minimal requirement for any theory.

    So what is the argument about?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Why not address what may possibly be the oldest question about creationism/design?

    What is the theory of creationism?

    Also phrased as: What happened and when? Give a creationist/design explanation for something. Name something that creationism/design does not explain (whether real or not, or hypothetical, or whatever), and tell us why it does not. Who, What, Where, When, Why, How? etc.

    TomS

    ReplyDelete
  14. Please, please tell me that the incision-free lobotomy isn't making in-roads in Canada!
    IDiocy is of course very tempting when you're none too bright, but how the hell did they make it into uni in the first place?

    ReplyDelete