Intelligent design expert (and opponent) speaks at SMU

Telemachus, says:

Greetings,

Intelligent design/creationism is not only cherry-picked science, it is faulty theology as well. Startling as it may seem, by continually protesting that “blind” chance could only lead to “accidental evolution”, all denialist forms of creationism contradict the Bible's clear teachings that chance occurrence in the universe (randomness), is always under God's direct control!...Oops! How long will it take proponents to realize they are pushing what they themselves would call heresy? Try this:

http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid...

It's called: "Intelligent Design Rules Out God's Sovereignty Over Chance"

island, says:

Ain't that the truth? For all her bla bla bla about how academic freedom is ID in disguise, the good politicians of Barbara's own home state of Louisiana overwhelmingly approved the bill by a vote of 94-3 in the House of Representatives, and 35-0 in the Senate.

Both sides either preach to the choir or against it, but nobody ever changes their mind. Barbara is only interested in furthering her career and science has absolutely nothing to do with what motivates her ideologically distorted hype.

Same can be said for her "(and opponent)", but I note that they don't even get their name mentioned by the "unbiased" reporter who wrote this article.

What a surprise...

island, says:

Sorry John, and thanks for the clarification.

PS: I'm an atheist, and Darwinist, and a materialist, but these neodarwinian fanatics are not any more honest nor scientific than the worst of the worst of young earth creationists.

island, says:

I'm a "Darwinist" like Lynn Margulis is a Darwinist, and I am not a "neodarwinian bully" as Lynn referred to them as the honored guest speaker at the last evolution conference.

But my own ideas are more in line with her and Carl Sagan's son, Dorion:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edito...

Creationists use the term in a somewhat different context than Lynn or I would, although, not completely differently... more of a compromise that gets destroyed by this freaking debate.

"The problem with neo-Darwinism is that Random changes in DNA alone do not lead to speciation. It was like confessing a murder when I discovered I was not a neo-Darwinist. I am definitely a Darwinist though. I think we are missing important information about the origins of variation. I differ from the neo-Darwinian bullies on this point." -Lynn Margulis

regnvejr, says:

It is still not clear what is meant with "neo-Darwinism" in Island's post. Certainly, Darwin's original hypothesis has been adjusted and modified by much more than a century of research, so trying to use Darwin rather than current science is bogus and casts doubt on Island's post.

Likewise, the Scientific Theory of Evolution does not talk only about mutations; that is a terribly simplistic outlook. Many things tie together for Evolution to occur, including a constant genetic variability available in a population as well as access to niches where unique alleles of the population's genetic makeup can adapt to (ie. Natural Selection).

Finally, I have a lot of problem with Island's use of terminology and assumptions regarding Evolution. Again, "Darwinism" is an irrelevant and undefined term that may or may not have anything to do with the current, Scientific Theory of Evolution. Secondly, one's religious persuasion (or lack thereof) is irrelevant to the scientific data. Science doesn't say anything significant about the presence of deities or not. It is irrelevant, and the inclusion of this has me puzzled.

Island, your posts are very vague and seemingly hit irrelevant and non-scientific points. What exactly is it you are saying about the SCIENTIFIC Theory of Evolution?

island, says:

I said that Barbara Forest is an ideological motivated hack, and that neodarwinian fanatics, (take that and stick it wherever you want to), are not any more honest nor scientific than the worst of the worst of young earth creationists.

What part of "dishonest losers" didn't you get?

DC, says:

I like where this is going. Maybe those philosophy club telepaths can put down there scones long enough to start insulting people, too.

Grock, says:

A Critique of Barbara Forrest Speaking at Southern Methodist Video found at Littlegreenfootballs.com

7:33 – 7:37

Here is the set-up by Ms. Forrest. Her claim is that the proponents of I.D. are trying to -

“…wedge into the public mind that science requires a supernatural designer, that it requires God.”

She has skewed the argument from the very outset. It is not “science” but life that requires a supernatural designer. That she would say this makes sense as the notion that “evolution is science” is often expressed by adherents to Darwinism – and it is simply wrong. This tactic, equating evolution with science, is understandable – if one dares to dissent from Darwin, then it follows: he is antiscience and his arguments can be dismissed as a religious zealotry. This tactic provides for the end of all dialogue and any further serious consideration of your opponent’s position.

Ms. Forrest makes it clear: those questioning and critiquing the claims of Naturalism are engaged in “Stealth Creationism.” Ms. Forrest, however, then goes on a lengthy critique of the ideas she opposes and the message is clear: Critique of Darwin is inherently sinister, based on “stealth” (secret and subversive) motives. Extensive critiquing (her words) of Intelligent Design Theory (or any other theory) is fair play. Questions can be asked in one direction but not the other.

Is this how science works? Sadly, yes – this is a common attitude and approach among Naturalists.

15:30 In her critique of Behe’s irreducible complexity, Ms. Forrest says dismissively that he presents in “stylized fashion” the flagellum as a little outboard motor, but then goes on to concede that he draws the information from a “legitimate science textbook.” She then condescendingly remarks “he just kind of adopted it” and “the bacterial flagellum is not really a motor.” No kidding? It’s not really a motor, Ms. Forrest? To quote someone famous, it is obvious she is “…straining at a gnat…”

16:17 She shows a clip “from a legitimate scientific organization.” One has to ask - What legitimizes a scientific organization, their adherence to accepted conclusions? Recall that she admitted Behe used illustrations from a legitimate science textbook – though he just “adopted them.” While the video from the “legitimate” Protonic Nanomachine Project shows a flagellum, that, good golly gosh, they have illustrated to look like a motor, with gears and such, Ms. Forrest then says -

16:30 “I’m just showing it to you because I think it’s just really pretty.”

She is showing it to us because she thinks it’s pretty? This is a woman who authored a book on a subject about which she testified in a court of law, a woman from the scientific community who is attempting to persuade her audience to her position, and she is showing us this video clip because she thinks it’s pretty?

17:20 After stating Behe’s position on irreducible complexity using the mousetrap metaphor, she then draws from Kenneth Miller’s material to refute Behe.

Miller’s “research” consisted of him asking his students to come up with all the things they could do with a mousetrap if they began removing parts, and they arrived at the following: – nose ring, fish hook, toothpick, tie-clip, refrigerator clip, clipboard holder, doorknocker, paperweight, kindling block, catapult, and nutcracker.

Noticeably missing from this list is MOUSETRAP. How does this fact escape an educated person involved in a scientific critique of an idea? The argument from Behe was if you take away the parts, you do not have a functioning whole…which is what Miller’s “research” proves. This is a perfect example of dogma getting in the way of common sense and clear thinking. The statement on the slide says:

“Individual parts of a supposedly irreducible (sic) complex machine are fully functional for different purposes.”

Who would begin to argue that a functioning, purposeful object would still serve as a functioning, purposeful object after it has been stripped of its parts? Ms. Forrest does! -

17:43 – 17:53 What Miller’s “research” shows is that - “Even Dr. Behe’s analogy doesn’t work.”

“I mean, you know, you can take parts off a mousetrap and it still works. Some (stammering speech) you (stammering speech) could work as a mousetrap, or it could work as something else, like a tie-clip.”

As at the outset, a false argument is being attacked. The argument is not that individual parts can’t be used for something else, but that the whole has a specific purpose and does not work without the parts. Let’s be clear, this is no refutation of Behe. To simply state that parts of a mousetrap can be fashioned for some other purpose is no refutation of irreducible complexity, and it certainly is no proof of Naturalism! Intelligence (the students) were sought to determine FUNCTION and PURPOSE for the parts, just as intelligence and design was needed for the mousetrap itself. There was nothing “random” about it!

To finish the quote from someone famous, Ms. Forrest has “…swallowed a camel.”

Moving on to her critique of Dembski, Ms. Forrest is even less persuasive. She states her opponent’s position, remarks that the position has been critiqued by so and so, and then shows pictures of some plants.

21:31- “…but, this (Dembski’s argument) has been scrutinized by many, many capable people...”

How do we know that the people are capable? What are the criteria? It is important to ask these things!

As the slides of flora are shown, the only thing offered is the names of the people who looked at it, found it in a grocery store, and the names of the plants. No evidence or explanation is offered of how Natural processes alone brought these organisms about; just the statement from Ms. Forrest that it happened! The only thing proven is that Ms. Forrest believes that Naturalism can explain what only has “appearance of design.” 22:28

22:30 “…so, Dembski, of course, has been shown to be wrong…”

If he was, it was not in her presentation.

After dismissing Dembski for the same (21:42), Ms. Forrest simply applied her own preferred “conceptual framework” to get the result she wanted. Without any evidence or explanation to the contrary, just on her word alone and those of other “capable people,” we are to believe her.

Folks, this is not science.

I watched this video until the 35 minute mark and had to leave it alone due to time constraints. It became clear to me what Ms. Forrest’s real argument is, and it is not science. This debate is about the influence of Religion in our educational system with the “foothold” being the open critique of the Naturalist/Materialist view of life.

Many, like Ms. Forrest, have accepted a view of science which has left them incapable of free inquiry. A Naturalistic/Materialistic view of life does not open people to new avenues to discovery – to the degree that these views are held dogmatically - it limits them.

The powers that be have declared the acceptable view of Reality. All who dare to question or interpret differently are branded “heretic,” or worse.

Galileo, anyone?

regnvejr, says:

Grock, the Scientific Theory of Evolution is developed through the application of the Scientific Method. As such, claiming that it is not science is either stark ignorance or deliberate deception.

Why is it that creationists can never be honest?