02.28.06
Dialectical snafu
The IDM has made life difficult for critics of Darwin. Talk about snafus.
The evolution community needs to wake up in a hurry to the hole into which fundamentalists have driven them, guaranteeing their paradigm deep freeze in a state of error. General culture has to move on from Darwinism sometime, it would be nice for science, if that can from the inner resources of science.
Don’t believe the hype, attacking Darwinism doesn’t help intelligent design
In the comfort of his peers, retired professor of psychology Leonard Magruder paraded a series of news articles in front of a small crowd at the Signs of Life bookstore Thursday, making sarcastic jabs at any evolutionists’ expense. He used terms like “evolution thought-police” and referred to any anti-intelligent design article as “bad and very sad news.” His mantra was, “There are huge gaps in evolution.” I found gaps somewhere else, however: in Magruder’s speech.
Magruder continuously used information to his advantage, without providing the whole picture. For example, he gave out an entire list of names of scientists and Nobel Prize winners who had raised questions about evolution. He failed, however, to say that these people do not, in fact, support intelligent design. Apparently, Magruder does not understand the difference. Some of the scientists on Magruder’s list have even spoken out against it.
In a 2000 conference debating evolution and design “science,” Nobel laureate Christian de Duve said “the discoveries of molecular biology concur with Darwinism” and that he believes “life descended from one common ancestor.” Another scientist on the list, physicist Alan Guth, said at the same conference that “there is no need to invoke supernatural forces to explain the universe or even its origin.” There are other instances of people on Magruder’s list that completely discredit intelligent design. I don’t understand why he would use them as examples.
Another point of Magruder’s speech was that intelligent design was not the new creation science. He maintained that “creation scientists had an agenda, which was to defend the literal meaning of the Bible. But that is not what I.D. is about.” Intelligent design is a theory raised from inside the scientific community, he said. Magruder claimed that intelligent design “is totally free from any religious entanglements;” it merely points out the gaps in evolution and allows students to “make their own inferences” about who the intelligent designer is.
Come on. Obviously, there is only one real inference to be made, unless kids believe that Santa Claus created life.
If you listen to Magruder, you would think the world is a conspiracy against intelligent design. He said that “Intelligent design supporters are scientists, but the media and KU don’t want us to know that.” He also maintains that “KU refuses to talk about intelligent design because they say there is nothing to debate.”
I hate to tell you, Magruder, but we have discussed intelligent design in three of my classes. Apparently Magruder does not understand that no one wants to discuss intelligent design because it’s not worth the time and effort.
All in all, Magruder’s speech shed an unforgiving light on intelligent design and its supporters. His quotes were taken out of context; his inference method is a desperate masquerade; and his conspiracy theories seemed ridiculous. Thank you, Magruder, for reminding me why I think intelligent design is useless and ludicrous.