Since many ID critics not only think that science can be used to address the existence of God, but has actually discredited the existence of God, I thought I would check to see what science they are talking about. So I went over to PubMed, a database that includes over 17 million citations, and used the search string, "detect God," figuring that some scientist must have developed a method or instrument that attempted to detect the existence of God. I got six hits and here they are:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Panda's Thumb proudly quotes the following from Wired:

Apparently feeling pressured by Tux, supporters of Darwin, an open-source version of the Mac OS, decided they needed their own mascot. The result is Hexley, a curious platypus who in some images is portrayed with horns and a pitchfork – enough evidence for several intelligent design theorists to offer him as proof of the satanic origins of evolutionary biology.

No evidence of these "several" intelligent design theorists is presented. So I did a little digging. I managed to find only a single website using Hexley as proof of the satanic roots of evolution. What's worse, the page is an obvious parody. The short Wikipedia entry specifically mentions the Hexley hoax, which was featured in other medias back in 2001.

A little tip, Panda-bloggers: If you didn't spend so much time taking pictures of yourself sticking your hands up the butt of a panda puppet, you might have time to figure stuff like this out for yourselves.

In our comments section I am encouraged to add Christopher Hitchens to “TT's list of official bogeymen.” Of course, there is no such list at Telic Thoughts, as this is just a way to frame valid criticisms of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins. But, since I’m the type who is often willing to play along, I checked out a review of Hitchens’s new anti-religion book.

Read the rest of this entry »

What's this?

Look closely:

Damn chickens!

Biologist PZ Myers accuses the theistic evolutionists of being creationists:

Read the rest of this entry »

Okay, this has nothing to do with ID or anything; it’s just a bit of hilariously ironic news to me. Christopher Hitchens is asked:

Has anyone in the Bush administration confided in you about being an atheist?

His reply?

Well, I don’t talk that much to them—maybe people think I do. I know something which is known to few but is not a secret. Karl Rove is not a believer, and he doesn’t shout it from the rooftops, but when asked, he answers quite honestly. I think the way he puts it is, “I’m not fortunate enough to be a person of faith.”

Something one of our critics said in a post to the Sam Harris vs. Andrew Sullivan, Part II thread is worth exploring for what it tells us about believers-in scientism, and how science so easily takes the place in their minds/lives of that ever so 'irrational' God they claim so stridently doesn't exist.

Read the rest of this entry »

In the comments section of a previous thread, I noted, “Yet if I were to abandon my hobby and rely on the experts, I’d find little more than screaming that ID = Creationism while arguing for the existence of evolution and demands to see the designer-in-action. It doesn’t begin to address the really interesting stuff. So I am left with my hobby.” This led fellow TT member, Aagcobb, to reply as follows:

What is the really interesting stuff to you, Mike? I thought that ID ended with the inference that a particular biological structure was designed. To me, the interesting stuff would be when, how, why and of course who designed the structure, but as I understand it all of that is outside the scope of ID.

Of course, what is deemed “interesting” is often dependent on the person. Thus, let me answer Aagcobb’s question and lay out what I consider to be “the really interesting stuff.”

Read the rest of this entry »

So, apparently, some people aren't so happy with Mooney and Nisbet and their articles about framing.  So unhappy that it has been suggested that they may be (gasp) creationists.  Not directly stated, of course, just a wink, wink, nudge, nudge, sort of thing.  If you've ever read anything by them, you know that calling them (gasp) creationists is only slightly more ridiculous than calling Ken Miller a (gasp) creationist. But the word does generally gain for its user a lot of rhetorical miles … it's a nice word to have in one's arsenal.  It still doesn't come close to words like "Nazi" or "fascist" or "mama's boy," but it's up there.  Laden apologized to them for calling them (gasp) creationists, explaining:

I don’t think you are a creationist. I really don’t. I don’t think Matt is either.

No, wait, that is not really the way I want to say it. I KNOW you and Matt are not creationists. I know it. I also know you are trying to do good things.

I have to admit that there was a moment when I was worried about this, with you and Matt. I don’t know you guys at all. I saw some stuff you are saying and I was worried.

So the reason he suggested they may be (gasp) creationists, was because he was worried.  He didn't like the ideas they were talking about and thought that people who say the types of things that Mooney and Nisbet were saying were exactly the types of things that "deep cover operatives" of the Discovery Institute might say.  So, he's "worried" and he's "scared."  And because of this, instead of merely arguing against Mooney and Nisbet's ideas about framing, he drops the (gasp) C-word.  Gee, that tactic seems so familiar.  I wonder where I've seen it before …