Results tagged “Intelligent Design” from onegoodmove

Howard Stern - Evolution and Creationism

This is kind of hilarious. Like often happens on Youtube, I got to this video via the related links. I didn't expect Stern to be so vocal about this.

Richard Dawkins Demonstrates Laryngeal Nerve of the Giraffe

(tip to Pedantsareus)

Mr. Deity And The Equation

Kenneth Miller - Intelligent Design

Kenneth Miller compares advocates of intelligent design to welfare queens waiting for the government to give them a handout.

cdesign proponentsists

The missing link that sealed the case against "Intelligent Design." A clip from the Nova PBS program Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial."

Quicktime Video 9.8 MB | Duration: 06'48
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Intelligent Design on Trial

The problem with Intelligent Design is that it explains nothing. A clip from the Nova PBS program "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial"

Quicktime Video 1 MB | Duration: '38
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.

Links With Your Coffee - Monday

Avoid waiting for your comments to be approved register using TypeKey

A Pair Of Limericks For a Six-Pack Of Generals thanks Mad

'When it comes to facts, and explanations of facts, science is the only game in town'

"That's one of my favourite phrases in the book," says Daniel Dennett, his huge bearded frame snapping out of postprandial languor at the thought of it: "If you have to hoodwink your children to ensure that they confirm their faith when they are adults, your faith ought to go extinct." The 64-year-old Tufts University professor is amiable of aspect, but the reception he has had while in Britain promoting his new book, Breaking the Spell: religion as a natural phenomenon, has not been uniformly friendly. His development of the theory that religion has developed as an evolutionary "meme", a cultural replicator which may or may not have a benign effect on those who transmit it, has drawn attacks, not least in these pages, where John Gray accused him of "a relentless, simple-minded cleverness that precludes anything like profundity".

But Dennett has allies. In recent times he and other non- believers - what one might call a movement of "the New God-less" - have been girding their loins to do battle with the forces of increasingly intolerant and aggressive religions. If anyone doubts the need for combat, evidence is provided by the foothold gained in public discourse by "intelligent design", a dressed-up version of creationism hardly heard of a couple of years ago.

Neighbours: What's The Beef?

I'm not sure why I'm linking to this. Perhaps it's because it affirms the long term benefits of cooperation using the Prisoner's Dilemma. It could also be the introduction of Old Testament prophecies being fullfilled that pulled me along. The cultural reference to Bart Simpson, yes that too. It is just a well written piece on the going-ons in the neighborhood, not my neighborhood mind you, but not one so different from mine.

Theocons and Theocrats

2 Registered Sex Offenders Killed in Maine

We Won

Judge Rules Against Pa. Biology Curriculum
"Intelligent design" cannot be mentioned in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district, a federal judge said Tuesday, ruling in one of the biggest courtroom clashes on evolution since the 1925 Scopes trial.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III said. Several members repeatedly lied to cover their motives, he said.
"We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board's real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom," he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

Said the judge: "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

My God Problem

This makes a point I've been trying to make for a long time and does it well. Scientists have no problem calling the nuts to account when they attack evolution. So why do they have a problem saying there is not evidence for virgin birth or resurrection of the dead. Is there some evidence someone is hiding that supports such super-natural claims. The answer is no, just like there is no evidence for Creationism or the substitute ID.

My God Problem by Natalie Angier
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 24, Number 5. In the course of reporting a book on the scientific canon and pestering hundreds of researchers at the nation's great universities about what they see as the essential vitamins and minerals of literacy in their particular disciplines, I have been hammered into a kind of twinkle-eyed cartoon coma by one recurring message. Whether they are biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, astronomers, or engineers, virtually all my sources topped their list of what they wish people understood about science with a plug for Darwin's dandy idea. Would you please tell the public, they implored, that evolution is for real? Would you please explain that the evidence for it is overwhelming and that an appreciation of evolution serves as the bedrock of our understanding of all life on this planet?
In other words, the scientists wanted me to do my bit to help fix the terrible little statistic they keep hearing about, the one indicating that many more Americans believe in angels, devils, and poltergeists than in evolution. According to recent polls, about 82 percent are convinced of the reality of heaven (and 63 percent think they're headed there after death); 51 percent believe in ghosts; but only 28 percent are swayed by the theory of evolution.
Scientists think this is terrible—the public's bizarre underappreciation of one of science's great and unshakable discoveries, how we and all we see came to be—and they're right. Yet I can't help feeling tetchy about the limits most of them put on their complaints. You see, they want to augment this particular figure—the number of people who believe in evolution—without bothering to confront a few other salient statistics that pollsters have revealed about America's religious cosmogony. Few scientists, for example, worry about the 77 percent of Americans who insist that Jesus was born to a virgin, an act of parthenogenesis that defies everything we know about mammalian genetics and reproduction. Nor do the researchers wring their hands over the 80 percent who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, the laws of thermodynamics be damned.

Continue reading "My God Problem" »

Teach The Right Controversy

Learn More About Evolution Here

One side can be wrong
Accepting 'intelligent design' in science classrooms would have disastrous consequences, warn Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne

Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne
Thursday September 1, 2005

It sounds so reasonable, doesn't it? Such a modest proposal. Why not teach "both sides" and let the children decide for themselves? As President Bush said, "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes." At first hearing, everything about the phrase "both sides" warms the hearts of educators like ourselves.
One of us spent years as an Oxford tutor and it was his habit to choose controversial topics for the students' weekly essays. They were required to go to the library, read about both sides of an argument, give a fair account of both, and then come to a balanced judgment in their essay. The call for balance, by the way, was always tempered by the maxim, "When two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly half way between. It is possible for one side simply to be wrong."

Continue reading "Teach The Right Controversy" »

You, sir, are an ignorant bigot

The atheist

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins explains why God is a delusion, religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the Dark Ages.

By Gordy Slack

Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous out-of-the-closet living atheist. He is also the world's most controversial evolutionary biologist. Publication of his 1976 book, "The Selfish Gene," thrust Dawkins into the limelight as the handsome, irascible, human face of scientific reductionism. The book provoked everything from outrage to glee by arguing that natural selection worked its creative powers only through genes, not species or individuals. Humans are merely "gene survival machines," he asserted in the book.

Dawkins stuck to his theme but expanded his territory in such subsequent books as "The Blind Watchmaker," "Unweaving the Rainbow" and "Climbing Mount Improbable." His recent work, "The Ancestor's Tale," traces human lineage back through time, stopping to ponder important forks in the evolutionary road.

Given his outspoken defense of Darwin, and natural selection as the force of life, Dawkins has assumed a new role: the religious right's Public Enemy No. 1. Yet Dawkins doesn't shy from controversy, nor does he suffer fools gladly. He recently met a minister who was on the opposite side of a British political debate. When the minister put out his hand, Dawkins kept his hands at his side and said, "You, sir, are an ignorant bigot."

Continue reading "You, sir, are an ignorant bigot" »

Links With Your Coffee - Wednesday

On Being Fired Again via riley dog

Ode to DeLay from Mad Kane

Cops with Six Legs

Not Intelligent, and Surely Not Science LA Times (free reg required)

The term "intelligent design" is nothing more than a linguistic place-filler for something unexplained by science. It is saying, in essence, that if there is no natural explanation for X, then the explanation must be a supernatural one. Proponents of intelligent design cannot imagine, for example, how the bacterial flagellum (such as the little tail that propels sperm cells) could have evolved; ergo, they conclude, it was intelligently designed. But saying "intelligent design did it" does not explain anything. Scientists would want to know how and when ID did it, and what forces ID used.

Joe Scarborough gets his ass handed to him by Dr. Ronald Cranford one of the neurologists that examined Terri Schiavo (video)

A Living Will or Bobby's Law. Robert Freidman St Petersburg Times wrote a rant that does justice to the farce taking place in Pinellas Park.