Kangaroo Court
Consider Judge John Jones—exalted as one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People of the Year—who unbelievably revealed that he wanted to see the movie Inherit the Wind a second time in preparation for the famous 2005 Dover case, over which he presided, because, after all, the film puts the origins debate into its proper “historical context.”
That is shocking.
Jones had been so indoctrinated by the Warfare Thesis that he actually believed the evolutionary propaganda to be historically accurate. What an incredible misconception.
Jones later reminisced about the trial, explaining that “I understood the general theme. I’d seen Inherit the Wind.”
If ever there was an example of judicial bias and a predetermined verdict, this is it.
It hardly matters though. Intelligent Design has actually thrived since the Dover case. The woefully incompetent judge actually caused ID advocates to up their game.
ReplyDeleteThe trial was in 2005:-)
ReplyDeleteCarbon dating error.
DeleteTruth: "Intelligent Design has actually thrived since the Dover case."
ReplyDeleteWhat would you say is the primary evidence that ID has been thriving?
The fact that UD is talking about all of the cutting edge ID research and not wasting time on the morality of same sex marriage, objective vs subjective morality and arguing that one document saying that there were 500 witnesses to Jesus' resurrection is the same as saying that there were 500 recorded witnesses.
DeleteOh, wait. Never mind.
Oh, wait. Never mind.
DeleteUncommon Descent does not represent the ID movement. UD has become essentially a mouthpiece for the Catholic Church whose leaders have been flirting with BioLogos-type doctrine. Vincent Torley's latest defence of common descent is a case in point. His views are based on flimsy evidence and weak arguments. Anybody who worships medieval Catholic thinkers is suspect, in my view. This is a sign that something is seriously wrong with UD.
Kairofocus, too, is an embarrassment to ID, what with his strange, hard-to-read prose that go on forever and his obsession with subjects that have nothing to do with ID.
In my opinion, UD's editors and management, with the possible exception of Denyse (she's a journalist and, even though she is Catholic, I'm sure she disagrees with Torley's latest nonsense) should resign and let new people at the wheel, preferably people with a scientific background and fresh ideas.
I agree with some of the critics that the ID movement is not progressing. It is stagnant. There are no new interesting ideas. They need to move on from the old irreducible complexity ideas. They need to start talking about the intelligent designers, their intentions, their methods, etc. There is a lot that can be gleaned about the designers by analysing the things that they have designed.
One avenue that should be explored, IMO, is the ubiquitous use of hierarchical structures in both human designs and living organisms. This can be used to make predictions about such things as the genome (the real tree of life) and the brain (tree of knowledge), both of which have a hierarchical organization.
One man's opinion.
CaroleTim: I first became aware of the ID movement in 2009 when a friend asked me to read a recently published book, Signature in the Cell, by Stephen Meyer. That was four years after the Dover case. That book led me to Michael Behe's, The Edge of Evolution (2007); William Dembski's, The Design of Life (2007); and many other ID books, including Stephen Meyer's, Darwin's Doubt (2013). In addition to books, I found that there are numerous websites and blogs dedicated to discussing, researching, and promoting ID. Since learning about the ID in 2009 I have only seen it grow and become more powerful as a movement. It sure seems to be thriving to me.
Delete"Uncommon Descent does not represent the ID movement."
DeleteStill bitter about being banned?
"Kairofocus, too, is an embarrassment to ID, what with his strange, hard-to-read prose that go on forever and his obsession with subjects that have nothing to do with ID."
Damn, we finally agree on something.
"They need to start talking about the intelligent designers, their intentions, their methods, etc. "
Again, something we agree on. If you keep this up, we might become friends.
Still bitter about being banned?
DeleteAre you still a Christophobic, atheist, dirt-worshipping, closet homosexual?
Damn, we finally agree on something.
I don't care.
ahahaha...AHAHAHAHA...ahahahaha...
Ah, there's the Mapou that we have all come to know and love.
DeleteTruth: Thanks for your reply. I think I'm more inclined to accept Louis's assessment that ID, at best is stagnant, and not thriving. Yes, there may be books and blogs and from your perspective that may be a healthy sign. On the other hand, how many new papers are written on ID, how many professional scientists have been influenced, how many secular universities or conferences include ID as part of their curriculums? Perhaps a more disturbing sign of ID's stagnation is that William Dembski, arguably one of the prime thinkers in the ID movement has largely abandoned ID for other pastures. That's kind of like Einstein losing interest in relativity isn't it?
ReplyDeleteAnd take this blog - how many actual scientists are really engaged here in the discussions, or are they mostly interested amateurs? And how often are ID topics even discussed. The proprietor of this blog seems curiously uninterested in even talking about ID and seems more concerned in critiquing evolution. Sure, there's a place of that but Cornelius seems oddly uninterested in ID itself (even odder then that he is a Fellow of the very institute that promotes ID). But as Louis says if there are no new ideas or concepts being promoted around ID that certainly gives one pause to ponder about the overall health of ID.
Keep in mind that the mantra "evolution is the foundation of modern biology" is a myth. For example: "Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
Deletehttp://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/16649/title/Why-Do-We-Invoke-Darwin-/
Sure, but what about ID? What about Irreducible Complexity, what about CSI? Why no interest in these things? I'm interested but these are topics that never appear on this pages (I guess this really isn't an ID blog?). Ultimately if ID is going to thrive (succeed) there needs to be a positive focus on alternative ideas. I am going to be much more persuaded by a positive case for ID than just only tearing down evolution. Sure, I get that this approach has its place but ultimately how successful is it? Are you going to be posting the same kind of blog posts like this in 10 years to the same limited audience while the mainstream scientific community just shrugs? At least try and right some real papers to get some better exposure and attention of actual scientists.
DeleteI don't think either irreducible complexity or complex specified information are what's needed to make progress in ID. They are not needed to prove that the "random mutations + natural selection" narrative is pure hogwash. The combinatorial explosion alone kills that narrative dead before it's even born. ID has won this phase of the battle, IMO, and we should not waste time arguing ad eternam with with a bunch of stupid dirt worshippers over whether or not Darwinism is a science. It's obviously not a science. It's crap.
DeleteIt's time to move on. What's keeping ID stagnant, IMO, is all the religious baggage and the politics behind it. The politics are well-known. ID supporters would like to see ID taught in the schools without appearing to be bringing religion into the classroom. This is the wrong approach because they are on the defensive. It's a sign of weakness We should instead be on the attack. We should come up with strong leagal and scientific arguments to demonstrate that it is the dirt worshippers who have brought their chicken feather voodoo religion in the classroom under the guise of teaching science. They must be thrown out.
ID is funded mostly by various religious groups with their own agendas and doctrines. This is a formula for failure, IMO. Religion is notoriously corrupt, hopelessly sectarian in nature and bogged down by many ancient dogmas that are wrong on the face of it. And I say this as a Christian. We need to start moving away from this. The best hope for the ID movement is computational biology, especially the comparative study of various genomes are the sequence level. This is where the breakthroughs will be coming from, IMO.
First, we must put on our intelligent designer caps and ask ourselves, how would we go about designing or organizing the genome of living organisms if we were the designers? I have always maintained that the way forward is to think hierarchically. The genome is, without a doubt, strictly organized as a tree. As a software designer, I know this is how I would approach the problem and there is every reason to suppose that the designers of life on earth used the same approach. Why? Because it's the intelligent thing to do. This should be our main focus. We need to raise money for this kind of research.
Just saying.
Louis, I used IC and CSI just as examples of potentially positive ID arguments. THe point is there has to be a better argument than ID other than evolution is just crap. And you allude to this yourself by referring to the need for breakthroughs in computational biology. Yes, if ID is to succeed it will be through investment of research, not quasi-religious arguments. Which is my point, that this blog and others do not seem to focus on any positive argument for ID or suggest where research should be focused in the future. Until they do ID will continue to stagnant, if not fade away.
DeleteCarole,
DeleteThe argument against evolution is a necessary part of the process of promoting ID because Darwinism is a powerful political movement that must be put in its place. Why? Because Darwinists are impostors and crooks who steal the taxpayer's money to promote their little chicken shit religion while pretending to do science. This shit has to go.
ID will succeed because it is the truth. We cannot count on the government to fund ID research because the atheist Big Brother machine that controls the purse strings will not let it happen. But the funding for ID research will come. And it will come sooner than the dirt worshippers expect. And from an unexpected place to boot. Wait for it.
"And it will come sooner than the dirt worshippers expect. And from an unexpected place to boot. Wait for it".
DeleteSounds like you have some special insight/knowledge of some future impending event, or you believe you do. How did you come by this knowledge?
Cornelius Hunter (quoting): "I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss."
DeleteSaid the chemist.
Sounds like you have some special insight/knowledge of some future impending event, or you believe you do. How did you come by this knowledge?
DeleteI do know something but I can't talk about it at this time. All I can say is that there is a major revolution coming, or rather, an upheaval. It will affect everything: science, religion, politics, government, economy, society, etc.
We live in interesting times.
"I do know something but I can't talk about it at this time. "
DeleteSounds very clandestine! But I'm sure you are a great prophet and have it all figured out.
I'm not a prophet and I haven't figured it all out. There is plenty of work left to be done. I'm just an internet nutjob who has stumbled on some secret scientific knowledge that has been hidden in plain sight of everyone for a couple of millenia (take it or leave it).
DeleteI don't think there is any danger in my talking about it because nobody will believe it until it happens. I just don't feel comfortable using someone else's blog for my own purposes. As I understand it, Cornelius uses his blog to unmask the religious basis of Darwinist philosophy. It's a good thing, IMO. It takes guts to go against the Big Brother atheist machine.
I wouldn't blame the atheists for this.
DeleteWho do you have in mind?
DeleteWell the religious basis for evolution comes from, well, religious people. Like the ones I have covered, from the Epicureans to the Anglicans, Lutherans, and even a few Catholics (well a lot these days).
DeleteCaroleTim:
DeleteSure, but what about ID? What about Irreducible Complexity, what about CSI? Why no interest in these things? I'm interested but these are topics that never appear on this pages (I guess this really isn't an ID blog?). Ultimately if ID is going to thrive (succeed) there needs to be a positive focus on alternative ideas.
Well your premise seems to be that ID hasn't done anything, but we've got centuries of fruitful science from people with that perspective. Meanwhile evolution has been a hindrance.
Cornelius:
DeleteWell the religious basis for evolution comes from, well, religious people. Like the ones I have covered, from the Epicureans to the Anglicans, Lutherans, and even a few Catholics (well a lot these days).
I agree. It's just that I include the atheists in the same group of religious people. Heck, they may even be more religious than the others. They all make the same religious arguments about what God would or would not do. Even all the recent arguments against free will and for the illusion of consciousness are all religious in nature.
Still, I think that the atheists are the ones pulling the strings in the scientific community and elsewhere. They are the ones who have, more than the others, used Darwinian evolution and materialism to further their cause. By cleverly inserting evolution into mainstream science, they have managed to appropriate the taxpayer's money to support their religion while excluding the others. It's devious, to say the least.
"I'm just an internet nutjob who has stumbled on some secret scientific knowledge that has been hidden in plain sight of everyone for a couple of millenia (take it or leave it)."
DeleteGood grief Louis there are at least two of us.
cv5:
DeleteGood grief Louis there are at least two of us.
Well, I'm sure there many nutjobs like me everywhere but I haven't yet found one who is saying what I've been saying.
CaroleTim, I have to agree. Even the other ID sites post very few, if any, articles about ID. UD appears to be nothing more than News railing against science in general, and everyone else navel gazing about OUGHT/IS, objective vs subjective morality, Christianity and homosexuality. Even Cornelius has chosen (or been forced) to no longer cross-posts his OPs at UD. That should tell you something about ID when the leading blog about ID, isn't.
ReplyDeleteCH: "Well your premise seems to be that ID hasn't done anything, but we've got centuries of fruitful science from people with that perspective. Meanwhile evolution has been a hindrance."
ReplyDeleteSure. Maybe you and Louis should team up (after all Louis has "special knowledge" which is going to change history) and together you can save Science from the Evil Atheists.
Science does not need to be saved and the problem is not atheists per se but bad religion. The truth is always out there. And it's not just about science. We just need to kick out the crooks and the liars from positions of authority. It will happen sooner or later, special knowledge or not. Otherwise, we're doomed as a species.
Delete