Smithsonian Refuses Donation for Intelligent Design Presentation

[wtmusic]

oops...

Email I just received:

Your correspondence of May 28, 2005, regarding the screening of "Privileged
Planet" has been received in the Smithsonian's Public Inquiry Mail
Service for response.

The Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History recently approved a
request by the Discovery Institute to hold a private, invitation only
screening and reception at the Museum on June 23 for the film "The
Privileged Planet." Upon further review we have determined that the content
of the film is not consistent with the mission of the Smithsonian
Institution's scientific research. Neither the Smithsonian Institution nor
the National Museum of Natural History supports or endorses the views of the
Discovery Institute or the film "The Privileged Planet." Given that the
Discovery Institute has already issued invitations, we will honor the
commitment made to provide space for the event, but will not participate or
accept a donation for it.

We appreciate your interest in the Smithsonian Institution.

[unhappycamper]

1. That's good news. This means I can renew my subscription. n/t

[bpilgrim]

74. now they are indirectly endorsing them for FREE

:crazy:

peace

[merwin]

2. Very nice. They keep their dignity and also assert that they don't

believe in the Intelligent Design THEORY.

[KittyWampus]

5. Very Nice? Science Is Supposed To Be Open To Inquiry & Abhor Dogma

Intelligent Design Theory has as much merit as Darwinism in explaining Evolution.

What DU'ers refuse to know about ID is a lot.

Here's a website where all the DU'ers who think they know what they're talking about can go debate ID with the scientists who are at the forefront.

Go to Brainstorms forum and be sure to get back to us over here with a link to your brilliant refutations.. Oh, and it's free, you don't have to donate:

http://www.iscid.org/

[wtmusic]

8. "Intelligent Design Theory" has no merit whatsoever as science

as a pleasant bedtime story, maybe...

[Ediacara]

11. Look hon

I'm a paleontologist, I know what I'm talking about. ID is creationism that uses scientific words to push religious dogma on people. IDers are slightly more sophisticated than traditional creationists, but they are creationists just the same and as a result, lie about science and scientists, and will stop at nothing to destroy scientific education in this country.

You are, by all accounts, not a scientist. I hate to say, "take my argument at face value because I have authoritative knowledge in this field," but sheesh; I do have authoritative knowledge in this field!

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ediacara]

46. Anthropologist? Fat Chance

You are clearly scientifically illiterate. Your continual use of the term "Darwinism" betrays your internet posturing, and shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that you are no scientist.

You can call me close minded if you want, I simply don't like liars.

You can claim that ID doesn't posit a "creator," but this is semantic silliness, as it posits an "intelligent designer," which is nothing more than a two word synonym for "creator." Also, despite what what you claim, ID generally does posit a creator and this universal intelligence stuff is on the fringe of even ID.

You can claim that there is an "inherent intelligence" in the universe, but this is a claim that is totally without data, and is as scientific as me claiming that Bill Clinton has seances with the Urantia Book elders. It could be true, but there is no data supporting it (or falsifying it for that matter).

[NashVegas]

52. Great. Intelligent Design's Right Up There With Stonehenge

Who put them there? We aren't entirely sure.

Why did they put them there? We aren't really sure.

What were they thinking? We don't have a fucking clue.

[Selteri]

22. ID has one problem - No evidence

I personally could beleive that there is some evidence that ID should be further investigated for some repetition in the animals all over the planet. The repetition though doesn't mean that there wasn't evolution and there is evolutionary evidence.

Merely - to me - the way the Golden Number Sequence keeps reappearing I can believe that there might be more than we realize. I just have a huge problem with the lamer version of ID that keeps being pushed forward.

[K-W]

26. Actually it has many problems and that isnt one of them.

It has plenty of evidence, but it makes a completely bogus and intellectually dishonest argument based on that evidence.

[NickB79]

53. It's main problem is that it has no null hypothesis

The hypothesis of ID is that there is some form of intelligence that created the universe, or at least life here on Earth. Thus, their null hypothesis should be that there is no intelligence at work in creating or directing life, at least that is observable to us. If, after substantial testing, they find their hypothesis doesn't hold up to the known data available, they must discard their hypothesis and either create a new hypothesis or accept the null hypothesis.

Has anyone ever heard of a creationist or ID theorist who is willing to discard their hypothesis? I haven't. There is no scientific research if the researchers aren't willing to accept that they may be wrong and their hypothesis needs change.

[alarimer]

69. right

The problem with any "creationist" theory is that it is not falsifiable- you can't disprove that there is a creator (or prove that there is one I guess). So it doesn't fall into the realm of science at all.

[K-W]

25. ID is an attempt to smuggle religious dogma into science...

with a rhetorically tricky argument that combines the age old, and many times over falsified proof of god and modern psuedo-scientific blather.

ID does not have any merit, and there is no such thing as Darwinism.

[struggle4progress]

50. Whatcha got? Ya say ya got evidence of a designer. Let's see it.

Whatchagot got? Ya got old blueprints? Ya got abandoned prototypes? Ya find the old workshop? Ya got the tools this designer used?

Waddaya actually know? How big is the designer? What's the designer made from? Which direction did the designer come from? Which way diddy go?

Exactly when and where did all this designing take place?

I don't want no philosophical arguments: they're too easy to make, too hard to check, and too frequently wrong. I wants some good concrete measurements: ya gotta show me yer "designer detector" and explain just how kryptonite or whatnot makes the dial spin.

Just cuz yer website has stuck in some links to stuff like IEEE Conference on Computational Complexity: June 12th - 15th, 2005, San Jose, California don't mean diddly-squat, and in fact I'm purty goldurn sure that the IEEE ain't gonna be taking no stand on "intelligent design" at its complexity theory conference ...

[symbolman]

67. What about

Slartibarfarst?

He created the freaking FIORDS in NOrway.. those were all HIS Baby :)

(Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy for those not in the know)

[struggle4progress]

85. Slartibarfarst! ... Rats! You've completely crushed me!

:D

[indigo]

57. What does ISCID have to do with Intelligent Design?

See post 37.

[KittyWampus]

3. Too Bad, They Could Use The Money. Censorship Is Alive & Well On The Left

Pathetic.

[BlueEyedSon]

4. Exsqeeze me? Taking money to present ID as science is moronic.

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[wtmusic]

10. ID is nothing more than a last feeble attempt at rationalizing

an irrational belief

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050530fa_fact

[KittyWampus]

13. ID Is Certainly Not. The Fact You Can't Even Debate In Your Own Terms

says rather a lot.

[Ediacara]

21. The fact that you can't even debate says a lot too

All your posts thus-far have been "IS NOT IS NOT IS NOT!"

[KittyWampus]

30. As Have Yours. And I Just Replied To Your Post Above.

I had to cook dinner for my family.

[Ediacara]

49. LOL

Have fun with dinner, off to dinner myself, but rest assured, my posts have data and yours do not.

[shrike]

16. Interesting site

Can't understand half of it. Doesn't seem to be particularly religious in nature, either.

[indigo]

58. Right

You're the first person to get it. See post 37.

[BlueEyedSon]

17. Apparently, the Smithsonian agrees with me.

Pretty much every important biologist is content with evolution (mutation & natural selection) as the explanation for species.

[KittyWampus]

31. Every "Important" Biologist? You Mean Every Biologist Scared Of Loosing

authority and funding.

And belonging to the Scientific Industrial Complex is nothing to be proud of at this point.

And there are PLENTY of 'important' qualified biologists, physicists etc who are on the cutting edge which leads AWAY from Reductionism, Materialism and the corpse of Darwin.

[K-W]

33. That just isnt true.

The cutting edge of biology has nothing to do with questioning Darwin.

[Ediacara]

42. Actually there are none

The standard M.O. of the ID-Creationists: lie and distort.

[supernova]

43. "The corpse of Darwin"?

That's just ugly.

What have you got against a fellow believer? :shrug:


I am a believer and I have no problem with "The Origin of Species" or the scientific theory of evolution as it has been applied.

[BlueEyedSon]

54. Where did you get your PhD..... Liberty U?

Sorry, Darwin was CORRECT.

[alarimer]

70. Every single biologist on the face of the Earth

Except those ignoramuses assciated with the "Discovery" Institute. Morons who don't know shit about what constitutes scientifc evidence. Instead they simply manufacture their evidence out of thin air. They are scientific frauds (which ought to be punishable by jail time in my opinion).

[geckosfeet]

19. The ISCID put a lot of lipstick on that pig,, but you know what,,,,

its still a pig.

[indigo]

37. What are you talking about????

The science of complexity and emergent phenomena predates "Intelligent Design". The ISCID mission describes the former. This is an area of active research funded by the NSF and other agencies.

See, for example:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0200500

[BlueEyedSon]

56. The head dude at that site is a self declared expert on ID.

[indigo]

62. So?

http://www.iscid.org/complex-systems.php

Some example problems for complex systems research:

3. How non-life gives rise to the first living system

OK, now here is a link for a debate where the "head dude" and Stuart Kauffman debate theories concerning the origin of life:

http://www.science.tamu.edu/story3.asp?storyID=465

This is an issue that has engrossed scientists, philosophers (to name a few) of all stripes for hundreds of years. Complexity theory is a interdisciplinary branch of science that has had some success in modelling how order is derived from disorder/chaos. It has impacted fields like nanotechnology in the design of self-organized structures, such as quantum dot arrays on semiconducters. It has spurred research in the dynamics of non-linear systems. There are applications in business for predicative modelling (forecasting) as well as in understanding weather patterns.

These are practical extensions of complexity research. However, what is not well understood (obviously) is: what are the conditions that bring about the perturbation/fluctuation/nucleation event that initiate spontaneous patterning/assembly/order? That different scientists hold different views is not something that bothers me. What does bother me is how everyone has jumped on a bandwagon to slam this web site and the field of complexity. It is not a political web site (note that the forums prohibit political arguments) but a collection of practitioners in the field who are discussing their views.

I rather doubt that you'd find consensus among scientists in academia or in the government on their views on the origin of life -- and that's the way it should be.

[BlueEyedSon]

63. Yeah, maybe there should be no consensus on gravity, or Newton's

Laws of motion....

[indigo]

64. In fact,

If you look in this month's issue of Scientific American (June 2005), you'll find that the the physical constants (Newton's gravitational, speed of light, etc) are perhaps not constant and are being called into question.

From SA:

" Meanwhile, physicists have also come to appreciate that the values of so many of the constants may be the result of mere happenstance, acquired during random events and elementary particle processes early in the history of the universe. In fact, string theory allows for a vast number - 10^500 - of possible "worlds" with different self-consistent sets of laws and constants. So far, researchers have no idea why are combination was selected. Continued study may reduce the number of logically possible worlds to one, but we have to remain open to the unnerving possibility that our known universe is but one of many." (p.58)

Real consensus there.

[BlueEyedSon]

65. Um, no, that's not what that paragraph means. Unless the physicists

in question are from another universe.

[indigo]

66. Sorry,

I don't understand what you mean by "that's not what that paragraph means" although I do find your remark funny, as I know many physicists from (sometimes) another universe.

The only thing on which we have consensus is a limited set of rules that work for us "today" in understanding and harnessing some of the mechanisms of nature for our use.

We have a very limited understanding, and certainly no consensus on loftier matters such as the origin of life or the universe (or whether there's one or many, or whether the fundmental constants are actually constant or time-changing, and so on). My opinion is that it is this "failure", if you will, of science in answering these questions that has left us a vacuum that certain political factions now intend to fill with theological underpinnings.

The key phrase is "certain political factions." In the interest of full disclosure -- I am a scientist, and I am also an atheist. Ten years ago, I might have been sitting with other scientists having a heated argument on the origin of life, that, at the end of the day, would get filed under "intellectual masturbation". No side would be able to "prove" their position because we just don't know and there is no consensus.

But -- it wouldn't have mattered then. We'd go back to work, doing whatever it is we do, which is trying to expand on our understanding of the mechanisms of nature for our contemporary use.

*Now* it matters because how life is defined and defining the conditions that constitute the beginning of life has political ramifications -- an obvious example being the funding of stem cell research.

It also matters because the Supreme Court decided that life is patentable. Human genetic materials have been privatized with no consideration for tradition, human values or human dignity. My opinion is that the theocrats are making inroads with the "culture of life" and "sanctity of life" talk in part because there has been a failure by materialists (science/industrial) in respecting the basic integrity of human life.

[BlueEyedSon]

77. Maybe I am missing your point(s). Maybe I am sensing disagreement

where there is none.

My position:

1. If the ISCID website does indeed support ID (and it's hard to tell because it suffers from its own complexity problem), it is lipstick on the ID pig. Muddy the waters of an argument enough, and everything becomes a matter of opinion (Swift boat vets, WMDs in Iraq, etc). The following is from http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Intelligent_Design

The two most prominent intelligent design theorists are William Dembski and Michael Behe. Dembski has developed a rigorous mathematical method using the criterion of specified complexity for inferring design. Behe's major contribution has been the notion of irreducible complexity and the hurdle that irreducibly complex systems pose for Darwinian evolution.

FYI: William Dembski is the Executive Director of ISCID.

As a scientist you know it's OK to put the question of "how did first life form?" in a box by itself, separate from "once the first living organisms existed, how did all the others arise over billions of years?" Not having an answer to the first does not invalidate the 99.9% truth we have uncovered about the second. In other words, Darwinian evolution is proven, but does not address the origin of life... that is what should be printed in textbooks. The great thing about our relationship to the universe is that we can (scientifically) understand PARTS of it without understanding ALL of it. If that were not true we would still be living in trees.

2 No matter how you cut it, ID requires an extraterrestrial intelligence, a creator, a god. Breaking down and saying that something is too hard to understand, to conceive of the origins of, or the mechanisms behind, is the OPPOSITE of science. Primitive man needed a thunder god, all we need is an understanding of weather & electrostatics. Is thunder still amazing? Yup. Is it still incomprehensibly powerful when you are close to the strike? You betcha. ID will never be provable or yield testable predictions whereas scientific theories are and/or will. Starting out with an unprovable premise (a "creator") is a building a castle on quicksand.

3. "Why?" is not a scientific question, but a philosophical one. So leave the "why" of the initial conditions of the universe out of the discussion.

4. According to inflation, there may be other universes. Also, it may be chance that this universe has the finely "dialed in" physical constants that it does. No sane physicist argues what these constants are or what their current values are. The "why this universe?" question is just a slightly more grandiose version of "why wasn't I born a Martian?" The answer is "because conditions SUCK there."

5. Your issues with turning life (or any of "gods creation") into property should not be limited to DNA/IP problems. Add despoiling the environment, war, poverty, etc, etc. The cause is always greed. I argue that the solution(s) will not be theologically based. Those "culture of life" idiots are hypocrites of the first order, anyway (see "The President of Good and Evil" by Peter Singer). In fact they ALWAYS couch what they do in "gods laws/will/mandate" crap. All the species, land, air, water of the earth are man's to use - and USE UP - so sayeth the bible. Kill the infidels, yadda, yadda.

[geckosfeet]

72. NEWS FLASH! COMPLEX UNIVERSE DISCOVERED BY ISCID!!

I suppose,, if I have to spell it out for you,, that what I am talking about, is how ludicrous I feel the whole idea of an International Society for Complexity Information and Design is. What the hell does that mean anyway ??? It seems like so much obfuscation to me.

The whole mission of the ISCID seems to state that "the universe is really really complex man,,, like mind bogglingly intricate!" Well holy shit! Thanks for the scoop ISCID.

A complex universe ?!?! To have to state such an obvious fact in that endless mind numbing ISCID drone is beyond doltish. To what end must we obsess of the complexity we observe around us? Where does this exercise in tail chasing lead us? My sense is that it leads us to the un-escapable conclusion that,,,,, things are really complex !! Oh wait,,, thats what the ISCID is there for,, to explain to me how complex thing are. How utterly validating.

The premise of the ISCID is simply intellectual masturbation with a fancy name. And,,, in that sense, it is much the same as intelligent design/creationism.

If you want to discover complexity,,, do some scientific research.

[indigo]

73. whither complexity

<i>how ludicrous I feel the whole idea of an International Society for Complexity Information and Design is. What the hell does that mean anyway ??? It seems like so much obfuscation to me.</i>

Re: The 'hoity-toity' sound of it all.

I'm sure you know that most scientific professional organizations have an 'International' or 'American' and are often chartered as "societies" (American Physical/Chemical Society). I'm guessing "International" was chosen due to perhaps initial membership composition and the fact that most of the early work was really outside the US (mainly in Russia).

Complexity. I remember in the old days of 'Spy' magazine, there was an advertisement for a mug with a guy called "Mr. Science". He wore a lab coat and the speech bubble said: "I know more than you do." It sounds to me like you think researchers in this fields are saying that to laypersons by using the descriptor "complexity".

I'll try to give a shortish version on where the name comes from, and why it's not as obnoxious as it sounds when placed in historical context.

Until relatively recently, the physical models used to understand the world around us were 'simple' because physics used linear models, which are mathematically easy to understand and yield simple-to-understand solutions. Of course physicists have always known that 'real life' is more complicated than simple linear models, but complications were usually ignored.

For example, if you do the "pendulum experiment" in a high school physics lab, there's a simple linear equation that describes the amplitude of motion. But, if you want agreement between the model & the nice,easy equation, you have to make sure that you keep the initial amplitude to 10 degrees or less, so that it's a well-behaved, stable pendulum. If you bring the pendulum up to a large starting angle, the simple model isn't going to work out.

Advances in engineering and technology has made it necessary to consider nonlinear models and the associated mathematics. It's a real step up in complexity. It's not possible to design structures so that only small amplitude oscillations occur. Here's a neat example you may have heard of: the Tacoma Narrows Bridge:

http://www.ketchum.org/bridgecollapse.html

Another example: Turing introduced a model a model for morphogenesis (theory on the origin or order and life) based on coupled non-linear chemical rate equations. See:

http://www.faidherbe.org/site/cours/dupuis/oscil.htm

where the question is how do you get these patterns by mixing chemicals together -- and how is this related to the development of embryos, which, from the point-of-view of complexity theory is the self-organization of a large number of atoms and molecules.

So, the rationale for "complexity theory"?

(1) uses nonlinear theory/mathematics, often coupled equations, which leads to complicated solutions and suprising behaviors. It's a significant (and complex) shift from traditional physics, and,

(2) describes many-body systems made of many interacting components. (A significant shift in complexity as Newtonian dynamics is basically a 2-body problem).

"Information and Design" -- when you have identified systems that lead to self-organized patterns, you'd like to use these discoveries to "assist" in designing other things -- For example, if you know that molecule A arranges itself in a very ordered way on material B, and if you know that molecule C "likes", or has an affinity for molecule A, then you can attach molecule C in a regular way on B, by C interacting with A. This may sound like a whole lot of trouble, but we don't have tweezers yet to attach "C" to "B" in a regular fashion if the spacing between C molecules is expected to be very small.

Finally, I'm not vouching for the viability of some of these design ideas. There is a great deal of pressure these days to make all research sound cutting edge with 'killer app' commercial prospects.

[geckosfeet]

83. thank you my friend, but you are speaking to someone who

designed and manufactured high frequency quartz crystal resonators for years. Believe me, I know that design theory diverges from real the world. Any harmonic system (or any system for that matter) can be modeled taking into account all kinds of external and boundary conditions. You name it,, just throw it into the model. Massage the calculations and it works well in simulation.

Maybe we just need to set the real world straight. Do you think thats it?? Do not let "simple complexity" frighten you from seeing the real world and its teachings.

BTW, the ISCID's condescending use of the term "linear" with reference to "traditional physics and mathematics" is just plain wrong. Non-linear thought has been part of physics, engineering and mathematics for many many years. But go out and try to build a car or computer or calculator or a plastic comb or pencil for gods sake, without a simple model and ideal boundary conditions. How do you put a manufacturing spec on a part with a non-linear system? And,, BTW,, when you couple pair of non-linear systems or equations,,, you have now introduced a linear dependency or component to your model.

I once had a physics instructor of mine, Dr. James Wells at Buffalo State College, sit me down and tell me something very simple but very true. He said something along these lines: "These are just models. Its our way of describing and understanding the world. So we can work with it and build things and have some reasonable expectation of success. But its not reality."

Like that beautiful bridge. It was in fact a sound bridge in a wind free environment. But the engineering model forgot to take into account the possibility of billions of sustained small amplitude vibrations caused by the wind falling into phase over an extended period of time.

I feel like making such a big deal out something as obvious as complexity (ie: the ISCID) is dishonest. As you say,, a way to (mis)represent your knowledge (or lack of it) to those who neither care or have the time or resources to learn more about the nature of the universe around them.

It is obnoxious. Its obnoxious and condescending and misleading.

[musette_sf]

24. Oh yeah, "big boys",

mmm-hmmmm. Computery-looking font... circuit board graphics and background with dizzily spiraling binaries... lotsa BIG words...

Blinded with science, or baffled by bullsh!t? We'll make the call.

At least Carl Baugh is much more entertaining about slinging ID crap. I laughed my ass off watching him last night.

[KittyWampus]

32. Funny, Did You Go To The Brainstorm Forum & Debate? No, All You Can Do

is post a snotty comment here.

Congratulations.

[K-W]

38. Perhaps you should stop assuming you are right,

and demonstrate that open mind you pretend to have.

I suppose its ok to write off the vast majority of scientists and people who disagree with you as 'darwinists' and that demonstrates just how open your mind is, while if someone makes fun of your beliefs you can lord it over them as a proof they are wrong.

[musette_sf]

47. Okay.

You're in here, defending what is in my opinion an indefensible theory, and your only ammo is a psuedo-scientific web site. And spending time debating in the "Brainstorm Forum" of a psuedo-scientific website, just doesn't seem like it would be awfully productive.

I see in another thread on a similar subject, that a poster asked you for a reference to a book to read on ID. You didn't respond. I'll ask again, since if your theory holds any water, there must be plenty of stuff to read to explain it and back it up. I'm not plowing through the psuedo-scientific website - tell us the equivalent of "ID for Dummies", and I'll be glad to give it a go.

[Gelliebeans]

76. i thought the same thing

computery font :rofl: as if that gives credibility

[K-W]

27. ID is just fancy packaging around a old and bogus proof of God. nt

[n2doc]

40. One cannot debate matters of absolute faith with true believers

And ID is based on faith. Frankly their website is all about one thing, that we humans are too stupid to figure out how we evolved, so we must invoke the involvement of a higher being. It is a simple failure of imagination. At least, that is the less charitable way to put their assertion that life is too "complex" to be explained by something as "simple" as evolution. Why, oh why, can't the religious folks go by the maxim "God works in mysterious ways" when they can't /won't bother to try and understand the world we live in?

And before one accuses science of being closed minded and "true believers", consider that scientists are constantly testing evolution, constantly trying to find holes, inconsistencies, weaknesses, etc. One's whole career as a scientist can be made by finding a new process/pathway in how genetic material is expressed and how those modifications are reflected in the way an organism interacts with its environment.

How limited the ID folks view of God is. He couldn't possibly have worked through evolutionary processes to create the world as we know it, right? I mean, it would be way beyond his powers to have set up the world and let it evolve and could not have possibly known how it would turn out!:sarcasm:

[mondo joe]

7. Sorry but ID is not science.

Smithsonian isn't there to show this crap.

[KittyWampus]

12. It Is As Much 'Scientific' Theory As Darwinism. See Following Website

Denyse O'Leary (Canadian Journalist) follows debates and isn't so much an ID proponent as someone who sees the holes in Darwinism but isn't willing to pretend they're not there.

http://post-darwinist.blogspot.com/

[wtmusic]

14. Oh good, another journalist-cum-scientist

:eyes:

[KittyWampus]

34. You Must Have Spent A Whole MINUTE Reading What Was Posted.

Impressive attempt at honest investigation.

Yeah, that's what being openminded is all about... NOT.

[wtmusic]

41. Sorry, no time

WADR, there are two people with any cred that are backing this stuff (who incidentally have a religious agenda) and thousands upon thousands who say it's bunk.

I'm as open-minded as the next guy, but I don't have the time or will to investigate "theories" which are not based on scientific method but on conjecture. It is pointless.

[Ediacara]

20. HOW is it scientific?

You keep saying it's just as much science as Darwinism (as an aside, no one actually IN science says "Darwinism," they say "evolution"), yet you have never demonstrated as such.

Scientific theories make predictions, and are therefore testable. Here is a challenge for you: Find one prediction that ID theory has about the natural world. As an example, evolution predicts that animals living in isolated places like lakes or islands will evolve from ancestors that may also be trapped in those places. As a result, animals living on islands or in lakes, will be more similar to other animals living in the same places (and nearby), than animals living in similar ecosystems on the other side of the planet. This prediction has been verified numerous times (Galapagos finches, African Great Lakes fish, Australian mammals, etc).

So does ID have any predictions that can be tested?

[KittyWampus]

36. The Finches? LOL! That's Like Saying Blonds & Brunettes Prove Darwinism

No, Dinoboy, you go first.

Since you seem to think Darwinism is credible please prove that Consiousness/Intelligence arises from Physical Matter.

You do that and then I'll provide YOUR proof.

[K-W]

39. Bring me a cup of intelligence please.

Until you prove something exists, I dont think anyone has to explain it.

[Ediacara]

45. Darwinism? You mean evolution?

So, instead of answering the question I asked, the question when answered, would demonstrate that ID could be even a little scientific, you divert, and ask me an unrelated and silly question that doesn't have anything to do with evolution.

So I ask again, what is a prediction that ID makes about the natural world that can be tested?

[alarimer]

71. They don't bother to read the Origin of Species

So they don't know about the finches or any of the other numerous examples darwin cites. Actually I suppose that book might be a little "difficult" for these people to read, so they might want to try "Evolution for Dummies".

[K-W]

28. Since Darwinism doesnt exist, I think you are right.

It is not a scientific theory, neither is ID.

Perhaps you should learn what makes a theory scientific before making such rediculous claims.

[Ediacara]

15. What you call censorship, I call pointing lies out

IDers are nothing more than sophisticated, scientific-sounding creationists. Don't let the scientific vocabulary trick you though, they do not practice science, never have practiced science, and never will practice science. What they do however, is lie about science and scientists, and have a lazy worldview where we simply can't figure things out and inject God... sorry "The Designer," into things that they have predetermined to be too tough to figure out.

[TankLV]

Just because you and the right wingers try to peddle fairy tales as fact

when in fact they are just fairy tales, doesn't make it any less nonsense.

Just because most of the scientific evidence and logical thought supports what the left is saying is not because it is from the left, it is just because the left bases it's stances on logic and truth.

You may not like it or you may disagree with it, but it it is what it is - the simple facts and truth.

THAT is why the right wing nut cases have their panties in such a wad.

The truth is simply the truth.

You can choose to embrace it or ignore it at your peril.

It's your choice.

And there is nothing wrong with "censoring" fallacies masquerading as fact.

[hatrack]

51. Sorry. "Open-minded" and "abandoning critical thinking" are not the same

If ID has the goods, then let them offer them up for scientific debate in public scientific forums.

Instead, what do they have?

Instead of fossils, they offer an absence of fossils, since (surprise!) the fossil record recovered by humans to date contains gaps.

Instead of radioactive decay rates that allows geologists to date the age of rocks, they offer stunned recapitulations of just how astonishingly complex life is (well, yeah, it is).

Instead of the back-dating service which distant stars make available to us to reveal the age of our cosmos, they flail around the margins of teleology, searching for a lifeline of purpose for all that DNA and all those years.

And when confounded by the complexity and mystery of life, they propose an even more complex and mysterious intelligence or force beyond physical observation powering the whole shebang.

"Entities are not multiplied beyond need" - William of Ockham.

[Deja Q]

81. It's always about the money. And he who has the money has the choice.

Pathetic.

[formerrepuke]

9. Hurrah for the folks at the Smithsonian.. though its just a matter of

time before The Smithsonian and the NMNH are considered to be 'too liberal' ..prompting staff changes at the higher levels.

[Erika]

68. They can promote the right wing all they want

but cultural causes are generally supported in the majority by liberals. Republicans have better things to do with money (lattes and escalades).

[Gothmog]

18. Yeah. Intelligent Design is a joke

There is no scientific basis for intelligent design and I am glad that the Smithsonian is not supporting this program.

[formercia]

23. I agree, Creationism is not Science

and the National Museum of Natural Science is just that.

A stealth Creationism organization trying to link the Smithsonian with their agenda is bogus.

[supernova]

35. Hooray for the Smithsonian!

I was really worried that they would accept the $$ from this bogus organization.

ID is really just a more PR-friendly creationism and needs to be stopped.

edit: Next time I'm in DC, I'll put in an extra donation and let them know it was specifically for this reason.

[DCSteve]

44. Yea!

[supernova]

48. Welcome to DU, DCSteve!

:hi:

Welcome to this very addictive place. :-)

[Coexist]

55. So, I visited the ID website that someone posted here...

and I went to their list of fellows.
http://www.iscid.org/fellows.php

I randomly chose 1 and googled him (Martin Poenie).
http://www.texscience.org/files/ut-austin-profs2.htm
<snip>
"We are two biologists at the University of Texas at Austin, in the sections of Integrative Biology (Hillis) and Molecular Cell and Developmental Biology (Poenie). We have been portrayed (by others) as being on opposite sides of the debates about biology textbooks that are up for adoption in the state of Texas. One of us (Hillis) testified in July at the SBOE hearings on textbooks, in favor of strong biology textbooks with thorough coverage of evolutionary biology, and against the inclusion of "intelligent design" ideas (and other ideas not supported by scientific evidence and analysis) in the textbooks. The other of us (Poenie) was listed by the Discovery Institute as one of the Texas scientists on their "40 Texas Scientists Skeptical of Darwin" list (although he did not authorize the DI to include him on this list). Poenie did write a letter to the state board arguing that Darwinian (hyperdarwinian) mechanisms are not the only ones molding the evolutionary history of life and that we should be free to consider alternative non-darwinian mechanisms of change. However, that letter was not intended to oppose basic evolutionary biology or to support poor teaching or coverage of that topic."

Anyone else care to join in the fun? I wonder how many of them are scientists who don't really appear to be fully behind ID.

[indigo]

59. Congratulations

The site has nothing to do with ID as discussed in this thread. See post 37. Complexity theory has a long history that predates ID.

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

60. Interesting.

So they misrepresent REAL scientists as supporters of the Discovery Institute and this ID silliness. A nice little 'cease and desist' letter to the flat earthers should solve that problem.

[alarcojon]

79. Fantastic work!

This is why I love DU!

Though I find it hard to believe we spent this much effort on this pseudoscience. The place to fight it is in the real world, not here on DU.

[Chauga]

61. Link to article in today's New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/national/03smithsonian.html

[Tansy_Gold]

84. Link to article in Wichita Eagle

Yeah, as in Wichita "The Earth is Flat and was made in six days in October 4004 BC" Kansas. ;-)

A friend in Wichita sent it to me with the disclaimer "Not all Kansans are knotheads."



http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/11803233.htm

<snip>

For Mike Everhart, old bones aren't just proof of ancient life

Mike Everhart hunted sea monsters two or three times a month. He drove from Derby to western Kansas carrying water, sunglasses and sandwiches. He needed the water most; it grew hot in the chalk beds.

On weekdays he worked for Boeing; on weekends he walked ravines as the sun beat down. He poked a butcher knife into the yellow faces of chalk cliffs, pried sea monster skeletons and shark teeth out of rock, and wrote down what he found. Some of the fish heads he found were big enough to cover pizza pans.

. . . . . .

Some people go to church.

Everhart took a knife blade into the chalk hills, and dug into rock, year after weary year.

There, kneeling in the dirt, sweating under the sun, he found something unlooked for:

Awe.

<end snip>

[Mythsaje]

75. It's just as easy to assume

that life on Earth originated with some extra-terrestrial science experiment as to assume that it originated at the behest of some deity.

Should we start arguing this theory as being equal to the Christian-based "Intelligent Design" theory? After all, it's equally impossible to prove or disprove. And hardly any more ludicrous on the face of it.

It may be possible that life on earth orginated and developed through the intervention of some outside agency. But there's no evidence to support this--and, even if there were--there's no evidence to suggest any particular outside agency.

So evolution has a few holes...Some things don't quite add up sometimes.

Big deal...that's why science evolves as new research delves into the unanswered questions. That's the point of it.

[bobbieinok]

78. eg, 'Chariot of the Gods'

[Mythsaje]

80. They consider him a crank

yet his theories are no less outlandish than those put forth by the ID people.

Personally, I reserve judgement. I don't know, and either does anyone else.

The theory of evolution's the best game in town, in my opinion, but I'm still willing to say--maybe, maybe not.

[ooglymoogly]

82. watch out we are all going to be turned into pillars of salt. eom