Save the children and sign the decree
by MikeGeneIt won't be long before the kids start going back to school. This always poses a dilemma for us here at Telic Thoughts, as we openly discuss concepts and ideas that are Dangerous and…some of those kids might find our page! Thus, given the way so many ID critics seem to so thoroughly enjoy signing off on petitions and decrees that condemn ID, I thought it might be helpful if Telic Thoughts came with its very own anti-ID decree. If you are a critic of ID, please consider signing off on the following decree:
Intelligent Design (ID) is nothing more than repackaged creationism (i.e., "Creationism in a Cheap Tuxedo"). Being that it is nothing more than a religiously-motivated movement to insert God into the classroom, the concept of ID is empirically vacuous and pure nonsense. It constitutes a "˜science killer' since it is a purely negative approach that cannot come up with testable hypotheses about the natural world and merely seeks to mask our current ignorance with a statement of religious faith (i.e., "God did it").
If I can get enough signatures (internet handles are fine) in the comments section, I can post this decree when school starts in the fall, so the critics can warn the kids about the dangerous, dishonest, and despicable ideas contained on this blog. I promise not to edit the wording in any way.
Please, won't you take a few seconds of your time to help save the children?
August 6th, 2007 at 10:48 am
I, Richard P. Dawkins, here by sign forth the above mentioned petition, and with all my being, qualia, and position wholeheartedly and honestly sign to teaching our children the truth about reality: Being an ID-iot is a no-no.
Comment by richard dawkins — August 6, 2007 @ 10:48 am
August 6th, 2007 at 11:02 am
I think the role of TT should be to present those "testable hypotheses about the natural world" you mention in your proposed decree, rather than merely collect signatures for or against any proposition, which for reasons you have well-stated is pointless and redundant.
Comment by salimfadhley — August 6, 2007 @ 11:02 am
August 6th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Hi Salim,
Been there, done that. What I have discovered is that when critics want testable hypotheses, they mean proofs that evolution is impossible. That's old stuff that will surely be discussed again.
All I'm looking for in this thread are critics to sign the decree.
Comment by MikeGene — August 6, 2007 @ 11:25 am
August 6th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Hi Mike,
You sure are in a fiesty mood, aren't you? First the crank alert and now this.
I am a critic of the ID MOVEMENT, but I like science. I have a new-found interest in a hypothesis that could be considered teleological and/or front loading. IOW, something that supports the concept of a scientifically detectable "design" in life on Earth (you already know my confusion/frustration on the word "intelligent" which I won't go into here).
Therefore, I would modify your statement to read something like…
Is that close enough?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 6, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Hi TP,
Keep in mind that you are rather unique. Most critics would think that the word 'movement' is redundant, as ID is supposed to be nothing other than a movement (including many critics who are themselves part of an anti-religious movement). Thus, there is no need to insert it.
Won't anyone save the children???
Comment by MikeGene — August 6, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
MikeGene, I BFast, do hereby sign your decree. As my many comments and posts would suggest that I was disingenuous in doing so, I figure that will muddy the waters even further. Hey, why not? What is truth anyway, and why does it matter?
Comment by bFast — August 6, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
No, when the critics want testable hypotheses concerning ID they really are asking you to provide a scientific basis for validating the theory you support.
It's a common misconception amongst ID supporters that one merely has to "disprove" evolution in order to render a satisfactory proof of a rival theory. So many ID texts do little more than offer a critique of evolutionary theory, I think TT needs to rise above this misguided notion - specifically by offering credible, testable claims that support ID.
While you might find a few critics here, dont you think you are looking in the wrong place?
Furthermore, even if I did agree wholeheartedly with the wording of your decree, such documents are not required in order to maintain or overturn a consensus. What relevance would your decree have even if a thousand random ID critics endorsed it?
ID is not rejected because of a lack of decrees supporting it, but because most biologists do not find it's claims scientifically credible.
So in summary, What possible difference would it make if I (a nobody in this field) to sign it, when the majority of IDers already disregard the consensus of the vast majority of life-scientists who really are experts in this topic?
Comment by salimfadhley — August 6, 2007 @ 3:27 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
Signed! (the exceptions are trivial).
Comment by Aagcobb — August 6, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
I must sign quickly to save the children!
(scribble scribble scribble)
Signed! The children are saved!
Wait… what are we saving them from again?
Aw never mind, it must be okay, because somebody who cares about children, especially other people's children, couldn't possibly be lying to me!
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 6, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
The decree itself is the stuff of sitcom. As for the rest:
salimfadhley:
It's the stupidity of ID critics that would lead to such a conclusion. IDists know that even when a theory lacks credible scientific support it is nonetheless considered to be immunized from the possibility of a teleological or intelligently guided alternative. Abiogeneis is a case in point and one I will unceasingly reintroduce each time ID critics raise their arrogant heads.
There have been tests related to a claim that impacts the debate- that of a minimal genome. The fact that critics assume the sufficiency of a level of genomic simplicity that surpasses that of existing unicellular obligate parasites in no way assures the biological viability of such conceptual organisms. The prediction of this IDist: a minimal level exists beyond which cellular life is unviable. It would require some level of DNA repair capacity.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 6:51 pm
Mike's proposed statement is a little to wordy for me, and barely covers the full extent of what is wrong with ID. Plus, I'm not sure I like the tone all that much - it's needlessly combative.
For example to call ID a "Science Killer", is to vastly over-state it's anti-science potential. Sure ID is pathologically misguided, but will it "kill" science? Very unlikely.
I've tried to remove some of the redundant words from the paragraph, plus added the phrase "wholly discredited" - my attempt was to describe ID's current status in the "marketplace of ideas".
The fact that an idea is overwhelmingly rejected by the consensus is another very good reason why children should be discouraged from studying ID outside of comparative theology classes. We might put ID into context for the children - it's acceptance in mainstream science is somewhere on a par with para-psychology and UFO research.
We probably ought to mention to the kiddies that there is a rival theory which has been refined for over 200 years and is considered by experts to have great predictive power and is also fundamental concept in biology. The main reason why ID is often branded "vacuous" is that it purports of offer a "better" however it explains nothing at all and provides no basis for further research.
Lets work together on this - we might get something I can put my name to.
Comment by salimfadhley — August 6, 2007 @ 6:51 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Salim,
I've argued with hundreds of critics as far back as the year 2000. It is experience with their demands that tells me what the critics want. I have indeed offered several "testable hypotheses concerning ID," but none of them are considered "testable hypotheses concerning ID" because they don't function to discredit evolution (remember that most critics believe ID = creationism). In fact, here you are, demanding a testable hypothesis after I just provided a new one not more than 24 hours ago. But I'm sure you wouldn't consider it one.
Anyway, we have a problem here, Salim. When you wanted to complain about lack of testable hypotheses in a thread looking for signatures for a Decree that condemns the lack of testable hypotheses, I informed you, "All I'm looking for in this thread are critics to sign the decree." You decided to ignore me by expanding on the lack of testable hypotheses, so I tossed your comment into the hole. You responded to that by again bringing up the "lack of testable hypotheses." Care to explain your disrepect?
Comment by MikeGene — August 6, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 7:38 pm
Is anyone besides me just a bit curious about that Richard P. Dawkins fellow?
Comment by Bilbo — August 6, 2007 @ 7:38 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
Hi Bilbo,
I checked and its not the real Dawkins.
While I appreciate the humor out there, let's not impersonate people.
Comment by MikeGene — August 6, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 7:45 pm
was it the "no-no" that gave him away?
Comment by Bilbo — August 6, 2007 @ 7:45 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
I hereby decree that this is the real Richard P. Dawkins. I can give undeniable proof that I am who I say I am, unlike you ID-iots, who offer no proof of anything, are not and cannot ever be as skeptical a skeptic as I am.
Comment by richard dawkins — August 6, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Richard P. Dawkins isn't the Richard Dawkins of Oxford (affectionately known as Darwin's Richard).
Darwin's Richard is "CLINTON Richard Dawkins", not Richard P. Dawkins. Accept no imitations.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 6, 2007 @ 8:34 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I am deeply offended by being called an imitation. Do not mistake similarity for imitation. Such a mistake would be a deeply flawed one. I am Richard P. Dawkins. I prefer to be called Dick, and I know more science than the scientific method itself.
Comment by richard dawkins — August 6, 2007 @ 9:04 pm
August 6th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Implicit in this and many other exchanges is the assumption by ID critics that evolution is an intrinsically non-ID process. Yet that is the very thing that a front loading concept would discredit. Unless critics are willing to reliquish the cherished thought that evolution is of necessity an anti-ID concept then their critiques remain sterile.
Comment by Bradford — August 6, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
August 7th, 2007 at 12:13 am
Mike wrote:
Hi Mike,
Since this question comes up over and over, could you provide a list of these hypotheses? You might even want to link to it from TT's home page, so that people stumbling upon TT for the first time can find it easily.
Comment by keiths — August 7, 2007 @ 12:13 am
August 7th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Richard P. Dawkins wrote:
Comment by Bilbo — August 7, 2007 @ 6:42 pm