Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist, has been the director of the National Center for Science Education for nearly 20 years. A former president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, she is one of the nationÌs leading defenders of the theory of evolution, and a vocal critic of creationism and Intelligent Design theory. She is the author of the widely used and comprehensive textbook Evolution Vs. Creationism.
In this interview, she recounts events in the recent Dover, PA Intelligent Design case, and discusses why ID fails as a scientific theory.
Also in this episode, Tom Flynn presents Did You Know? sharing facts and figures on church-state separation, and the Discovery Institute, a leading think-tank responsible for the promotion of Intelligent Design theory. Benjamin Radford, in his regular segment, Media Mythmakers, comments on social myths regarding disaster relief, and in the third of a three part series Can You Be Good Without God? Paul Kurtz explores the specific ethical ideals secular humanists cherish.
Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist, has been the director of the National Center for Science Education for nearly 20 years. A former president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, she is one of the nation’s leading defenders of the theory of evolution, and a vocal critic of creationism and Intelligent Design theory. She is the author of the widely used and comprehensive textbook Evolution Vs. Creationism.
In this interview, she recounts events in the recent Dover, PA Intelligent Design case, and discusses why ID fails as a scientific theory.
Also in this episode, Tom Flynn presents Did You Know? sharing facts and figures on church-state separation, and the Discovery Institute, a leading think-tank responsible for the promotion of Intelligent Design theory. Benjamin Radford, in his regular segment, Media Mythmakers, comments on social myths regarding disaster relief, and in the third of a three part series Can You Be Good Without God? Paul Kurtz explores the specific ethical ideals secular humanists cherish.
I down loaded the Point of Inquiry 01-20-06 MP3 and
enjoyed it. Dr. Scott did a great job of summarizing
the case and supporting science. I read some of
the transcripts of the trial and read the ruling.
I also wanted to see what the other side was saying
and I found one article criticizing that Judge Jones’
decision was too far reaching and therefore activist.
Dr. Scott quickly addressed the charges of activism
asserted against Judge Jones and dismissed it during
the Point of Inquiry interview, but I doubt that
the ID Movement (IDM) is convinced. I wonder how
Judge Jones’ strong language will be viewed by other
Judges who will be ruling on the future ID cases?
Language such as writing that the Dover Area School
District promotion of ID and the subsequent trial were
an, “utter waste of monetary and personal resources”
and that the members of the Board, “who so staunchly
and proudly touted their religious convictions in
public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks
and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.”
Will future Judges take that as a warning when they
see a case against ID being taught in public schools
or a case against the IDM taking shots against
Evolution in public schools?
I found Dr. Scott’s comments about encouraging the
religionists who believe that there is no conflict
between evolution and Christianity compelling.
Dr. Kurtz’ comments were poignant and uplifting,
he does so well when speaking.
Overall I thought that this Point of Inquiry was
a good episode, although I had some trouble with
the sound quality. Dr. Scott’s voice was clipping
especially badly, I could reduce the clipping by
lowering the equalizer settings for 1KHz and 14KHz
in my MP3 player software in case any of you have
the same problem.
I posted some comments about why ID was a product of the limits of reductionist/mechanist science in another place: something about talking to creationists. Please look at that for I think you will find it very relevant to refuting the assertions the proponents of ID are making.
Reductionist science has gotten itself in a lot of trouble. That is why “Intelligent Design” has had the success it has lately. When scientists begin to behave just like any religious zealot they open themselves up to losing all their credibility. I have no problem with entering these scuffles by calling evolutionary theory another creation myth. After all, humans have been trying to understand where they come from for as long as we know. Creation myths have evolved with human progress. Evolutionary theory gives us a creation myth that is designed to be compatable with science. In that respect it is unique. No matter that it is flawed as any other scientific theory, it still is the creation myth that scientists can claim as their own. ID, on the other hand, tries to compete for this role. The problem is that it attacks the weakest aspects of evolutionary theory and ignores the rest. The notion of “irreducable complexity” is stolen from the complexity theory I work with and it distorts the entire meaning of complexity. In reality the ID proponents are attacking the archaic notions of mechanistic/reductionist science. Complexity theory has taken us well beyond these straw men. The machine metaphor is useless in biology. Attack it all you want. Complexity theory demonstrates that ONLY machines need a designer. Complexity theory demonstrates that living organisms are closed to efficient cause and therefore have a complexity that is totally independent from the need for a designer. That should end the charade, but it doesn’t because within the ranks of scientists there are true believers who are totally reductionist and believe in the machine metaphor. These are the allies of the ID proponents, unwittingly, but oh so completely. Stephen Jay Gould called them the “Darwinian fundamentalists”. That is the problem as I see it from my vantage point as a complexity scientist.
Re: Eugenie Scott - The Dover Trial: Evolution vs. ID
[quote author=“Thomas”]Point of Inquiry for 1/20/05
Eugenie Scott, a physical anthropologist, has been the director of the National Center for Science Education for nearly 20 years. A former president of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, and a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, she is one of the nation’s leading defenders of the theory of evolution, and a vocal critic of creationism and Intelligent Design theory. She is the author of the widely used and comprehensive textbook Evolution Vs. Creationism.
In this interview, she recounts events in the recent Dover, PA Intelligent Design case, and discusses why ID fails as a scientific theory.
Also in this episode, Tom Flynn presents Did You Know? sharing facts and figures on church-state separation, and the Discovery Institute, a leading think-tank responsible for the promotion of Intelligent Design theory. Benjamin Radford, in his regular segment, Media Mythmakers, comments on social myths regarding disaster relief, and in the third of a three part series Can You Be Good Without God? Paul Kurtz explores the specific ethical ideals secular humanists cherish.
1. As a conclusion that if things are incredibly complex then they must have been designed by an “intelligence” of some sort.
2. If things were designed by an intelligence then it must have been “God.”
The first part could almost pass a scientifict theory, but even that falls short because there is still no evidence which conclusively proves that things we can’t yet explain can only come about by an “intelligence” greater than our own.
The second part is not even remotely scientific and is merely religious conjecture based on the first flawed premise. Because even if intelligent design was true, then the “Designer” could be another sophisticated alien race or something like that. Nothing says it would HAVE to be a deity.
[quote author=“rogerflat”]
The first part could almost pass a scientifict theory, but even that falls short because there is still no evidence which conclusively proves that things we can’t yet explain can only come about by an “intelligence” greater than our own.
Yes, well, this is the old “god of the gaps” argument: that god comes in any time we can’t explain anything. The problem is that that “something” changes all the time with the advancement of science. Centuries ago we couldn’t explain lightning and thunder, so that was something done by the gods. Then we couldn’t understand the motions of the planets, so that was chalked up to divine causes. Now we are missing a few links in a long biological chain ... so those must show where god intervened ...
It’s a long story of bad arguments repeated over and over again.
[quote author=“dougsmith”][quote author=“rogerflat”]
The first part could almost pass a scientifict theory, but even that falls short because there is still no evidence which conclusively proves that things we can’t yet explain can only come about by an “intelligence” greater than our own.
Yes, well, this is the old “god of the gaps” argument: that god comes in any time we can’t explain anything. The problem is that that “something” changes all the time with the advancement of science. Centuries ago we couldn’t explain lightning and thunder, so that was something done by the gods. Then we couldn’t understand the motions of the planets, so that was chalked up to divine causes. Now we are missing a few links in a long biological chain ... so those must show where god intervened ...
It’s a long story of bad arguments repeated over and over again.
———
doug,
I’d like to share something humorous with you. One of my cousins recently told me that when she was very young she asked her father what caused thunder. Her father told her it was the angels bowling.
Bob
They are catching up with Genie on what the next thing Intelligent Design has up its sleeve.
She explains that laws like the recent one in Louisiana which promote “academic freedom” and “critical thinking” and frame the discussion as an issue of open scientific inquiry are the next stage, and that because they don’t explicitly promote religion they are difficult to confront.
