Advice to ID critics: Act like politicians
by KrauzeAt The Panda's Thumb, there's a report of the Geological Society of America's meeting on evolution and creation. Here's University of Massachusetts Amherst geologist Don Wise on using catchy tunes and sound bites to combat intelligent design:
Don Wise stood up and the first slide was a photo of cow dung on the white-line of the road that had been run over by a car. He pointed out it's relevance for being able to decipher the relative sequence of events and also his attitude about Intelligent Design. The punch line is that we need to clean up the dung and make the white line pristine again. He then made usual points about incompetent design (using the back, the eye etc). What made it special was that he used a song "Incompetent Design" to make his point. He also noted that we should take our cues from politics. We live in an age of sound bites and using words like "incompetent design" can be more effective than trying to explain in scientific detail why it's bad science. Wise encourages geologists to take lessons from politics; (1) don't be defensive (2) keep your points simple and easy to remember (3) use humor to make your points (4) aim your points at the voters.
Ah yes, the politicized scientist. Who better to perform an objective and openminded investigation? We've already heard the sound bites "pseudo-science" and "God of the gaps". Now, get ready for the refrain (pun intended) of "incompetent design".
October 19th, 2005 at 9:39 pm
Ah yes, the voice of "peer review."
Comment by MikeGene — October 19, 2005 @ 9:39 pm
October 21st, 2005 at 7:03 am
Wise is well named. ID vs Evolution is not a scientific debate. ID has presented no scientific evidence or arguments, their side of the debate is entirely emotional: "It looks like design to me."
Scientific evidence is useless against an emotional argument. Therefore, ID should be fought on its own terms: "He also noted that we should take our cues from politics. We live in an age of sound bites and using words like "incompetent design" can be more effective than trying to explain in scientific detail why it's bad science. Wise encourages geologists to take lessons from politics; (1) don't be defensive (2) keep your points simple and easy to remember (3) use humor to make your points (4) aim your points at the voters."
Wise is just saying to use ID's tactics against ID. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Comment by DataDoc — October 21, 2005 @ 7:03 am
October 21st, 2005 at 8:18 am
DataDoc:
ID has presented no scientific evidence or arguments,
How would you know? It is obvious you don't have a clue as to what ID is and what it isn't.
I will take on a dsebate against you or Wise as to why ID is scientific any day.
DataDoc:
their side of the debate is entirely emotional: "It looks like design to me."
How is that emotional? And why, if something looks designed. are we not allowed to find out if it was designed?
Seeing that no one else has been able to answer the following question perhaps you would ante up:
What is the criteria used to determine that blindwatchmaker-type processes were responsible for life arising from non-living matter and then giving rise to the diversity we observe today?
Comment by Joe G — October 21, 2005 @ 8:18 am
October 21st, 2005 at 8:51 am
Hi DataDoc,
"ID has presented no scientific evidence or arguments, their side of the debate is entirely emotional: "It looks like design to me.""
To demonstrate the level of evidence that you think ID should live up to, perhaps you could point to the evidence that was used to determine that life arose by non-teleological processes?
"Wise is just saying to use ID's tactics against ID. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander."
So ID critics are no better than IDists?
Comment by Krauze — October 21, 2005 @ 8:51 am
October 21st, 2005 at 11:31 am
If Freud deserves enduring credit for one thing, it is for pointing out to us how common projection is.
Comment by onething — October 21, 2005 @ 11:31 am
October 21st, 2005 at 11:32 am
And Datadoc, you are not well named. Or perhaps you are. Perhaps there is so much data in your head that no more can be added.
Comment by onething — October 21, 2005 @ 11:32 am