In Debate Over Evolution and Intelligent Design, Hypocrisy Knows No Bounds Posted by Robert Crowther on November 10, 2008 With the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth looming, lecture halls are booked up with Darwinist celebrations and attacks on intelligent design. A couple of the usual suspects on the Darwin birthday circuit are Jerry Coyne and Eugenie Scott. Recently, I saw that they would both be speaking at the University of Central Florida, at the behest of the university's biology department. The topic? For Coyne it was intelligent design, and for Scott it was academic freedom (seriously). So, I thought I'd inquire as to whether or not UCF would be balancing these anti-ID lectures with views from the other side. Here's the response I got: Dear Mr. Crowther, I have read the letter you sent University of Central Florida President John C. Hitt in regard to UCFâs Department of Biologyâs âDarwin Bicentennial Seminar Series.â As one of the seminarâs organizers, President Hitt has asked me to reply to your letter. This seminar series seeks to bring outstanding scientists to UCF to discuss how Darwin and evolution have influenced our understanding of nature. As have many other academic institutions, UCF has organized a series of lectures during the Darwin bicentennial as an opportunity to provide public education on evolution as the foundation of the biological sciences. Scientists at UCF agree with the position expressed in the National Academy of Sciences publication, Science, Evolution, and Creationism, that there is no scientific controversy about the basic facts of evolution. Therefore, the Biology Department will not include a discussion about intelligent design in this series. Although I understand your passion about this subject, I hope you understand the position taken by the UCF scientists who have organized this seminar series. Sincerely, Christopher L. Parkinson, Ph.D Not including a discussion about intelligent design? How then do you explain the title, and entire subject, of Coyne's lecture? According the UCF newsroom, Jerry Coyne of the University of Chicago will speak about âIntelligent Design Versus Evolution.â And, Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, who will speak about âFloridaâs Academic Freedom Bills: Creationism du jour?â Scott and the NCSE are one of the biggest opponents of intelligent design being taught in a science classroom and she has written several books, including âNot in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design is Wrong for Our Schools.â Contrary to Parkinson's assertion that intelligent design is not part of the discussion, in these two talks it is clearly the entire discussion. As usual, in academia it's okay to talk about ID if you want to attack it. But if you want to provide a different view and advocate for ID ... sorry they don't want students to hear anything like that. This isnât unusual. Academic freedom legislation in six states last year â legislation meant to foster a civil discourse about the case for and against Darwinian evolution in classrooms â was opposed by Darwinists who continually seek to stifle scientific inquiry and censor the flow of information to students. Currently in Texas there is a move afoot to remove from the stateâs science standards a statement reading: "The student is expected to: analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information." Darwinists simply donât want students to be able to learn about both the strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution, whether it be in a lecture at university that alleges it wants to be âmore inclusive and diverseâ or in science standards guiding the flow of information to our students.
Why is this a bad thing? How science responds to anti-intellectual pseudo-scientific, and I am sorry, but fraudulent and dishonest attacks is very much a hot topic for discussion within the scientific community. Put it another way: should geologists have to invite flat-earthers to their conferences when they discuss their views and the scientific response? Should a historian be denied the right to speak about holocaust denial-ism unless and until he can find a denier to present? If so, than I respectfully request you cease and desist all ID/Creationist talks, lectures and Sunday school until you have obtained a qualified evolutionary biologist to adequately represent the other side. "Academic freedom legislation" is meant to do no such thing. It is meant to counter legal findings that ID, creation science and creationism have no place in the public classroom. There is no scientific debate going on between ID and Evolution because ID is non-scientific. Full stop. This would be fine, except you know what they intend to proffer to students as "scientific evidence and information"? You guessed it- unscientific nonsense and bad analogies dressed up in the language of science. Of course, your average k-12er doesn't posses the critical thinking skills to pick up on the bait-and-switch, but that's what IDiots are counting on. How about this- when your "theory" makes its way through the scientific community and becomes an established body of scientific research, then we can figure out what parts of it are digestible at the K-12 level. That's how it works for every other science. Why should your "science" be any different? Oh that's right- its sham science that cant pass academic muster and needs to be strong armed into the classroom by the law. Again, this would be fine if you wanted to teach the actual weaknesses of ToE, but as demonstrated time and time again, all you have is misinformed or (worse) long discredited diatribes and really shakey analogies to "design."
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Talk/talk.atheism/2008-05/msg00084.html http://www.intelligent-design-evidence.com/origins.html http://www.icr.org/articles/print/89/ British Astronomer Sir Fredrick Hoyle places the odds of spontaneous life at 1 in 10 followed by 40,000 zeros Mathematical odds greater then 1 in 10 to the 50th are deemed impossible.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/addendaB.html Addendum B: Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept?
Ah! Yes! The Great Richard Carrier, I believe this field title is Historian. The facts, Abiogenesis.......scientists all over trying to duplicate that spontaneous spark of life, yet will all their knowledge and technology, given the best scientific labortory.........nada, zilch, can not even make a simple cell......a theory. Yet here we are................ the way I see it. God............................................. 6.7B last time I checked the earths pop. All the scientists together............... 0
exactly what evidence is there that bible god created life? there is even less evidence than science has. other than a book of fables written by primitive men you have zero evidence. It is always amusing to hear theists proclaim that they dont believe in evolution because it sounds too complicated yet they will readily believe that some grey haired old deity in the sky just spoke and everything we see today popped up from nothing
Apparently my post failed to voice my thought. Science in all it's grandeur, combined intelligence and effort cannot even produce a single simple living cell let alone the complexity of life as we know it. I'd say that leaves Intelligent Design, namely God as the author of life. Tired of this subject. Merry Christmas. w
what makes you jump to majic,ie god, as an explaination. there is no evidence that points to any god?
...and thereby God breaks down as explanation for anything, yet again confined to the gaps that lie between incomplete scientific accounts of nature .