Posted by Timothy Sandefur on December 24, 2004 | Comments (24) | TrackBack (1)

Thanks to Ed Brayton, here's an excellent article by Michael Dorf, a leading legal thinker, on why teaching ID is unconstitutional.

Posted by Ian Musgrave on December 23, 2004 | Comments (9) | TrackBack (0)

In the spirit of the season, Tom Lehrer, Weird Al Yankovic and overwhelming evidence,  the Panda’s Thumb Offensive Morris Dancing Troop and Precision Yodelling Team bring you …
The Twelve days of DISCO

Continue reading  “TheTwelve Days of Disco”

Posted by Nick Matzke on December 22, 2004 | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

The Michael Medved show did a show on “intelligent design” today, and against my better judgement, I was on it, due to some rather smooth cajoling from the show’s producer.  As it turned out, it was great fun, although during the show I felt a bit like a hobbit in the Mines of Moria scenes from the movie the Fellowship of the Ring: Look out, Medved’s first move is flagrant baiting! [octopus monster]  Uh-oh, here comes the bacterial fla[g]ellum [big goblin], and on its heels the Second Law of Thermodynamics! [little goblin].  Then, the Discovery Institute list of 300 [“They have a Cave Troll.”]  After that, pile on a classic Darwin quote mine, the where-does-information-come-from argument, evolution is random, you want to ban God and Apple Pie, and lots and lots of “random evolution,” “explain the origin of life in 2 seconds,” and “why won’t you debate Jonathan Wells?”  [the goblin hoard].  Then, just when you think you’ve defeated all comers, Medved comes back with a shot at his invited guest’s qualifications, as if he’d been forced at gunpoint to invite someone without a Ph.D., and as if the opinion of the entire scientific community were pointless [a roaring giant flaming Balrog]. 

However, with science as my trusty sword Sting, and Project Steve as my mithril armor, I think I got through it alright.  I’ll quote an email I just received from a listener and then review a few of the highlights.  The show is theoretically archived in a repeating loop until Wednesday, and you can check out the opinions of listeners on the Michael Medved blog.

Continue reading  “Mopping up on the Medved show”

Posted by Ed Brayton on December 21, 2004 | Comments (27) | TrackBack (0)

Dean Esmay, a blogger I respect, has a post about ID that might surprise some folks. Dean is an atheist, you see, but he doesn’t think it’s a bad idea to teach ID in schools, or at least to bring it up in biology classes and mention that there are some smart people who advocate it. The question he wants answered is essentially this: what would the negative consequences be of taking time in science classrooms to discuss intelligent design? So far all he has heard are vague slippery slope arguments (which he appears to erroneously believe is always a logical fallacy; it is not) and arguments to the effect that ID isn’t science and therefore doesn’t belong there. It’s a fair question, of course, and it deserves a serious answer. As someone who is involved in the day to day battle against the movement to put ID into public school science classrooms, I hope to provide that answer here, but first I feel I need to correct some of Dean’s misconceptions about ID and those who advocate it. For instance, in answer to a comment he says:

Continue Reading Answering Dean Esmay on ID in Science Classrooms at Dispatches from the Culture Wars.

Posted by Matt Young on December 21, 2004 | Comments (35) | TrackBack (0)

The prominent philosopher, Antony Flew, has famously converted to deism (Flew and Habermas, 2005).

Professor Flew was, also famously, a participant in a debate (reprinted, for example, in (Pojman, 1987)), wherein he argued that nothing can falsify a firmly held religious belief.  Professor Flew, who claims never to have “attacked belief,” (Ostling, 2005) has evidently changed his mind and is now a deist. (No, he did not convert to theism, and he rejects the Abrahamic God; his belief is far closer to deism, however much Gary Habermas stresses theism in the interview.)

Professor Flew’s religious belief is his own concern and is unobjectionable inasmuch as it does not require denial of established facts.  It is a pity, though, that Professor Flew, who admits he is “unable to keep up with the [scientific] literature,” has based his change of heart in large measure on the writing of Gerald Schroeder and on the concept of intelligent design (Wavell, 2004).

Intelligent design theory is not testable and is based on very dubious propositions (Young and Edis, 2004).  I will not discuss it here.

Gerald Schroeder’s works are beyond dubious: they are wholly unscientific and distort both science and scripture to support a preconceived old-earth creationism.  My colleague, Mark Perakh, and I have independently discussed various of Mr. Schroeder’s opuses and found them wholly without merit.  I will not repeat those discussions but rather will provide references below.

I wish that Professor Flew had read Mr. Schroeder’s work more carefully or had consulted critical references to Mr. Schroeder’s work before pronouncing Mr. Schroeder kosher.

Continue reading  “Antony Flew's Conversion to Deism”

Posted by PZ Myers on December 21, 2004 | Comments (10) | TrackBack (0)

What really bugs me about creationists is that often they seem to be unconstrained by any respect for honesty. It's more than presenting a different side to a story; it's flagrant misrepresentation of the position of evolutionary biology, coupled to self-serving praise for their own unsupported position. There's a creationist site that carries prevarication to an extreme, called "Truth for Youth", which peddles online comic books that have unbelievably dishonest distortions of the facts about abortion, homosexuality, and of course, evolution. I've dissected their "Truth About Evolution" comic book, but man, the others are ripe for a good flaying.

The "Truth for Youth" stuff exemplifies the "Lying for Jesus" strategy of too many creationists. I should think Christians would be ashamed and appalled at this dishonest propaganda skulking under the banner of their faith.

Posted by Nick Matzke on December 21, 2004 | Comments (26) | TrackBack (4)

Over on Evangelical Outpost, Joe Carter just posted the following shocking passage that pretty clearly associates:

1. The statistically lower average qualifications of black students applying to law school, with
2. Natural “ability or aptitude.”

Since I’ve read Stephen Jay Gould’s Mismeasure of Man, this kind of thing really bugs me (and gives us the connection of this topic to The Panda’s Thumb).

Read it for yourself:

Continue reading  “Mismeasures on Evangelical Outpost”

Posted by Nick Matzke on December 21, 2004 | Comments (12) | TrackBack (4)

This just in:

DOVER, Pa. - A school board that is requiring students to learn about alternatives to the theory of evolution voted to retain legal counsel for its defense against a federal lawsuit filed by eight families who oppose a new “intelligent design” mandate.

Seven members of the Dover Area School District board voted unanimously to retain a nonprofit law center that describes itself as a defender of Christians’ religious beliefs, the Thomas More Law Center of Ann Arbor, Mich., despite the objections of most of the community members who spoke at the meeting. The board did not issue a comment on its decision.

(Martha Raffaele, Associated Press story)

Continue reading  “More Dover”

Posted by Timothy Sandefur on December 20, 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

Just thought I'd steal the microphone for a personal shout-out. Happy birthday to my grandmother, Dr. Elsie Sandefur, founder of the U.C.L.A. Zooarchaeology Bone Lab!