03.27.07
More propaganda from Darwin gang
Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism
A spectacular new anthology edited by Andrew J. Petto and Laurie R. Godfrey, Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism (W. W. Norton, 2007), described by Publishers Weekly as “[a] serious, comprehensive collection of new and revised essays from some of the biggest names in the anti-creationism field,” is now available. In a press release, the publisher writes:
Why does “creation science” keep finding an audience, over and over, since the time of Darwin? Is there anything different about the “intelligent design” movement? Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism presents a defense of evolution that is accessible but not simplistic, scientifically sound but not ignorant of sociopolitical reality, and rational without condescension. Moreover, in a time when creationist textbooks continue to appear in classrooms and the president encourages educators to “teach both sides” of the argument, the book presents a blueprint for improving science education in this country to ensure that every student understands the science that grounds our understanding of evolution.
Since science itself makes a point of including minority views, it is not surprising that anti-evolutionists try to cast their ideas as “scientific alternatives.” Intelligent design is not science but it is a socially, politically, and rhetorically persistent idea. All sixteen contributors to this collection — from fields as diverse as atmospheric science, biology, and evolutionary genetics — have a second specialty. They have spent decades closely observing and advocating for science in society, particularly in education. Their dual perspective makes them uniquely qualified to debunk this latest guise of the anti-evolution movement.
The book’s first section traces the historical development of creationism, with special attention toward recent developments in religious fundamentalism that have burst on the scene since an earlier edition of this book was published in 1983. Anthropologist John R. Cole dissects a founding manifesto of intelligent design, which has driven a wedge between scientists and non-scientists. Next, experts zero in on the “scientific” arguments put forward by the creationists, to wit: “Some creatures are so complex that they couldn’t have developed from a series of simple adaptations.” Biologist Robert Dorit gives us the ant colony, an efficient system of defense, reproduction, and labor — all conducted by creatures with tiny brains. With enough simple interactions, complexity, which Darwin called “extreme perfection,” arises all the time.
Finally, the editors address the public misconceptions about science itself that are brought to light by the controversy. Here, distinguished professionals deliver an impassioned primer on the scientific method. According to philosopher Helen Longino, science owes its long-term objectivity to two facts: the scientific community is a culturally and ideologically diverse group of people; and sooner or later every scientific theory will be tested against the real world. Intelligent design is neither broad-based nor answerable to the world, but Scientists Confront Intelligent Design and Creationism is both. As long as science requires public advocacy, this highly intelligent treasury of scholarship will remain an essential resource for students, teachers, and open-minded citizens.
Andrew J. Petto is a member of NCSE’s board of directors, the editor of Reports of the National Center for Science Education, and lecturer in anatomy and physiology at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; Laurie R. Godfrey is a Supporter of NCSE, professor of anthropology at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and the editor of Scientists Confront Creationism (W. W. Norton, 1984).
March 26, 2007
Dan said,
March 28, 2007 at 12:37 pm
You speak of “Darwinists” a lot here on your blog, yet you cite arguments from scientists. I find that funny - a bit of creationist propaganda if you will - because it pigeonholes scientists into a strawman. Take me for instance, I’m a biologist, and while yes I agree that Charles Darwin made one very big contribution to science, that was only one contribution, that has long been superceded by new knowledge (e.g. genetics, developmental biology, etc.). It’s a bit like calling geographers Copernicans for thinking that the world is round - of course it’s true in literal sense, but it’s narrow-minded and archaic.
Why don’t you just call these “Darwinists” what they are? (i.e. scientists) Conversely, why don’t you just call Intelligent Design advocates what they are? (i.e. creationists and/or theocrats) It would be honest, for a change.
nemo said,
March 28, 2007 at 8:44 pm
There is nonetheless a consistent strain of thought to the whole history since Darwin, and it is therefore not inappropriate at all to speak of Darwinism/Darwinists: it’s really the issue of natural selection and its supposed consequences that is the common denominator.
Dan said,
March 29, 2007 at 8:26 am
And what consequences might those be?
The only immediate consequences that I’m aware of are the formulation of a mechanism by which change occurs. I suspect, however, that by “consequences,” you are referring to philosophical implications of the fact that natural selection occurs, which don’t sit well with you. Well, tough. For most people, we derive our philosophies from observations of the real world, not fabricate our world to match our ideologies.
alec said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:32 pm
We should make a new USA, one nation, Under God, not under make believe science. And leave the homos, the jews, and the liberals to their wizardry.
God Loves Ignorance and Starbucks | Sexy and Disgraceful said,
March 29, 2007 at 2:42 pm
[…] The fact that we are born babies and evolve into people is evidence enough to dispel the myth of evolution. If we were born monkeys, then there would be billions of monkeys in the world as there are billions of people. This does not equate. People have called me stupid for expressing my facts, but I am far from stupid. I took an IQ test at my church school, and I scored 95. You cannot get more than 100% and so I am in the top 5% of the smartest people in the world. chew on that disbelievers. […]
Fox Starling said,
May 6, 2007 at 11:08 pm
What kind of cheap IQ test are you taking? IQ test scores range from eg. 90-160+ … I guess I understand why people call you stupid