Welcome to Factonista.org

Factonista is an online freethought advocacy organization that relies on its users for content. Through international broad-based collaboration with its users, and other groups and organizations, it strives to provide timely and comprehensive news, views, reviews, and creative multimedia on issues at the forefront of everything under the umbrella of freethought

Not a member? Register | Lost your password?
Hi and welcome to Factonista. Please keep in mind we're still in BETA. We'll be fully functional very very soon. In the mean while feel free to browse around, read our articles, and participate in our discussions. If you note any bugs and feel like helping us out, forward a quick message to us here. Thanks! [close]

Posts Tagged ‘uncommon descent’

DaveScot needs to stop failing

Thursday, October 2nd, 2008

Just when we thought that DaveScot may have finally decided to make a teeny bit of sense after all, he ends up crashing our hopes to the ground by posting something so mind-numbingly ridiculous; making us realize that his drama is a train wreck that we simply cannot stop watching. Over at Uncommon Descent, he decides to have a little fun with Google Trends:

He triumphantly posts:

Blue: Intelligent Design
Red: Darwinian Evolution
Orange: Scientific Creationism
Green: Theological Evolution

Any questions?

Yeah, DaveScot. Because, you know, your average Googler would use the term ‘Darwinian Evolution’ when looking up information on evolutionary biology.

Good to know.Looking at the graph, we see ID getting lots of attention in 2005 at the time that the Dover trial was talking place and when the IDists were whining about being trounced in court. However, notice that there apparently has been hardly any interest in ID before Dover, and still hardly any after the dust from Dover settled. For all the books the IDists have been writing, for all the propaganda they have been spewing, for all their bleating over Expelled – people are simply not paying attention. Yes, the scientific community already knew long ago that ID was a crock, but apparently nobody else has been paying attention either. Funny how DaveScot chooses not to mention this (which would have been plainly obvious by even a cursory glance at the graph), don’t you think?

Now, let us use Google Trends to get a graph for people searching for ‘evolution’, which would obviously be the choice for someone looking for information about – gasp – evolution. To be fair, I will also use ‘creationism’ instead of ’scientific creationism’. We get this:

Ouch. That must hurt for DaveScot who just a moment ago was arrogantly asking for questions. When asked why he used the term ‘Darwinian evolution’ instead of just ‘evolution’, he responded:

ID doesn’t dispute all “evolution”. It disputes Darwinian evolution.

Just…wow. Despite the fact that the IDists have never been able to come up with an actual answer to what ID actually is and despite the fact that they have never been able to agree on what part of ‘evolution’ they actually accept (Behe accepts common descent and human evolution, Dembski does not, etc.), DaveScot is now fudging and shifting the goalposts again in an effort to have his cake and eat it too. What makes this whole situation even more hilarious is that based on the very graph that he posted, most people not only do not buy into the ID nonsense, they do not even seem to care! The IDists have failed at convincing the scientific community to give their unscientific dogma the time of the day and they have apparently not made much headway in the court of public opinion as well, even with all this fudging and hedging.

I am really curious as to what ‘evolution’ the IDists accept. The Lamarackian version?

He continues:

When I say Darwinian evolution I mean the term writ large accounting for the entire history of life on earth. Do I really need to tediously qualify it at every mention? I don’t think so. Most of the subscribers and audience here recognize by now that micro-evolution by chance & necessity is not being disputed. We don’t dispute facts. We dispute theory.

Uh…what? ID does not accept evolution that accounts for the history of life on earth but accepts micro-evolution, which somehow does not qualify as ‘Darwinian evolution’? Why wouldn’t micro-evolution qualify as being ‘Darwinian’, but somehow explaining the history of life counts as ‘Darwinian’ evolution? What is the imaginary barrier separating the two? At this point, we can safely say that DaveScot does not have a clue and is making it up and fudging even more in an effort to blunder along.

Maybe, DaveScot, it is time for you and the rest of your ID propagandists to stop failing. Just…stop.

Where is the “theo” in biology textbooks?

Monday, August 25th, 2008

One thing I’ve realized after years of following the ID movement is that William Dembski can best be described as a gift that keeps on giving. Take a look at this, for example:

Here are some quotes from seven of Miller’s biology textbooks, textbooks underwritten with your tax dollars. As you read these quotes, ask yourself where is the “theo” in Miller’s “theoevo.”(1) “[E]volution works without either plan or purpose … Evolution is random and undirected.”
Biology, by Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph S. Levine, pg. 658 (1st edition, Prentice Hall, 1991)

…(6) “Darwin knew that accepting his theory required believing in philosophical materialism, the conviction that matter is the stuff of all existence and that all mental and spiritual phenomena are its by-products. Darwinian evolution was not only purposeless but also heartless–a process in which the rigors of nature ruthlessly eliminate the unfit. Suddenly, humanity was reduced to just one more species in a world that cared nothing for us. The great human mind was no more than a mass of evolving neurons. Worst of all, there was no divine plan to guide us.”
Biology: Discovering Life, by Joseph S. Levine & Kenneth R. Miller (1st edition, D.C. Heath and Co., 1992), pg. 152

Dembski is terribly wrong on so many counts that he has to be either terribly ignorant or is simply obfuscating the facts to pander to his religious base. By asking where is the “god speak” in a biology textbook, Dembski has shown us (yes, old news) that ID is all about shoving god into science and down the throats of children, destroying science education in the process. What Dembski did not realize is that there is no “god talk” nor “atheist talk” in the theory of evolution itself because  the theory does not make any claim whatsoever about the existence or non-existence of a god. God isn’t mentioned in the description of the theory of gravitation, yet we don’t see IDists demanding to know where the “theo” is in gravity. There is no mention of religion in the weather forecast either and no ID creationist so far has claimed that god should be involved in the description of weather cycles.

Although Miller is a devout Catholic, he keeps his personal religious views out of the way in a scientific textbook. This has nothing to do with Miller accepting or rejecting the theistic god. He is merely writing about the theory of evolution the same way that someone would write about the theory of gravitation. Religion simply has nothing to do with it, and this is the very idea that Dembski refuses to comprehend. The IDists want to shove their narrow, fundamentalist version of religion into science, and they do not understand why current science textbooks do not read like the Bible. Once god is pushed into science, what next? Oh, and which god? Whose interpretation of what holy book? Fred Phelps’ version? Will kids be forced to learn about Yahweh creating man from dust? Will they also learn about Zeus shooting thunderbolts from the sky? Where are we to draw the line?

Of course, Miller is free to talk about his religious beliefs and publish popular books about what he thinks the role of his religion plays in science, the same way Richard Dawkins can promote the idea that evolution is incompatible with theistic belief. No matter how much Ben Stein would like you to think otherwise, nobody is trying to persecute and ‘expel’ Miller for his theistic evolutionary views. Evolutionary theory is discussed in science textbooks without “god-speak” because there is no need to invoke a supernatural being to explain scientific concepts. If Dembski wants Miller to include the “theo” in evolution, he should push for “theo” to be introduced in every scientific field and in every other area of study as well, to replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.

Wait – that is the Wedge Strategy. The IDists actually do want to do that after all.

Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.