Category Intelligent Design

Smurfette Explains ID

Smurfette Explains ID

Customer: Hello. I wish to complain about this so-called 'scientific theory'
what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very establishment.

Salesman: Oh yes, 'Intelligent Design'. What, uh... what's wrong with it?

Customer: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. Its vacuous, that's
what's wrong with it!

Salesman: No, no, uh... what we need now is to 'teach the controversy'...

Customer: Look matey, I know an empty 'argument from incredulity' when I see
one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Salesman: No, no, it's not empty: it's just being elaborated. Remarkable
theory, 'Intelligent Design', innit, eh? I mean, just look at all these
books and articles: millions and millions of words...!

Customer: The verbiage don't enter into it, my lad. It's stone dead. It's a
non-starter. Empirically untestable, it belongs in metaphysics. This
'theory' makes no predictions; has no contribution to make beyond extended
polemics; and can't even be honest about who it thinks the 'Designer' was.
Bereft of all logical and epistemological credibility, it has no scientific
status! If certain right-wing and fundamentalist pressure-groups hadn't hit
upon it as a way of opposing decades of uncomfortable scientific and social
progress, it'd be pushing up daisies! It's off the table. It's kicked the
waste-paper bucket. THIS IS A NON-THEORY!

Salesman: Well, I'd better replace it then. [takes a quick peek around]
Sorry, squire: looks like that's all we've got...

Customer: I see, I see. I get the picture.

Salesman: I've got a piece of coal that looks quite a bit like a human
tibia, if you squint at it...

Customer: Pray, is it part of a theory that unifies the paleontological and
biological sciences and leads to a powerful understanding of observed
homologies and the nested hierarchy of life?

Salesman: Not really.

Customer: WELL IT'S HARDLY A BLOODY REPLACEMENT FOR DARWINISM THEN, IS IT?
The Daily Show on Dover, Part 2

From today’s York Daily Record:

The satirical news program “The Daily Show With Jon Stewart” came to town Monday to, once again, make fun of Dover.

Correspondent Samantha Bee spent the day in the area reporting on what it’s like to live in a town that, according to televangelist Pat Robertson, has been forsaken by God for voting out school board members who supported including intelligent design in the high school biology curriculum, said Matt Polidoro, a producer with the show.

The piece is expected to air next week.

I’m looking forward to it.

What’s the Difference Between Bill Dembski and An Apple?

The apple has a much thicker skin.

I refer you to this series of comments in Bill’s weblog: Read More

Intelligent Design, Restated

The central tenet of Intelligent Design is usually stated as “certain features of living organisms are too complex to be the result of natural processes, therefore they were designed.”

But as Michael Behe explained at length on the stand in the Dover Panda Trial, what he objects to (at least, when he’s on the stand) is the notion that these features could have been formed by natural selection. He also made it clear that as far as he’s concerned, the designer is God.

So really, the central tenet of ID should be restated as, “certain features of living organisms are too complex to be the result of natural selection, therefore they are the result of a powerful, intelligent, probably supernatural, entity.”

Read More

Behe Disproves Irreducible Complexity

Ed at Dispatches from the Culture Wars has an article ponting out how Behe’s one and only published research article on ID shows that IC isn’t all that improbable at all.

I read that testimony, but somehow never connected the dots as Ed did.

A Handy Reference Chart

I just ran across a weblog article that complains about the media confusing creationists and intelligent design advocates, so I thought I’d present a handy-dandy chart to clear up any confusion:
Read More

What Planet Does Behe Live On?

Michael Behe has written a weblog entry about his experience testifying at the Dover Panda trial, and I just have to ask: what’s the weather like in Bizarro World?

The cross examination was fun too, and showed that the other side really does have only rhetoric and bluster.

Read More

Discovery Institute Tries to Weasel Out of Dover

The Discovery Institute, the think tank behind Intelligent Design, has a piece on their weblog in which they try to disassociate themselves from the creationist clusterfuck that the Dover Panda Trial has become.

Read More

Speculation on the Panda Trial

The Dover Panda Trial is expected to end tomorrow. So it’s about time for some barely-informed speculation about what presents Hizzoner Judge Jones will bring the good girls and boys (aren’t you glad I didn’t say anything about jonesin’ for a decision?).

Read More

Behe Part 3: The Big Flop

Under cross-examination, Michael Behe continued denying that Pandas means what it so clearly says, e.g.:

Q And that s the text that says, “Intelligent design means that various forms of life began abruptly through an intelligent agency.” Correct?
A Yes.
Q It talks about the life beginning abruptly, not just appearing abruptly, correct?
A Well, that s certainly the word it used, but we can ask, how do we know it began abruptly? The only way that we know it began abruptly is through the fossil record.
Q But beginning is different than appearances in the fossil record, correct, Professor Behe?
A I don t take it to mean that way, no.

Read More