You are here

Editor Explains Reasons for 'Intelligent Design' Article

Topic: 

GregS* writes "By way of SecondHand Smoke comes this article in the Washington Post. A peer-reviewed article on Intelligent Design appearing in "Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington", a publication by the Smithsonian Society, has cost the editor who included it much:

Sternberg has seen stress piled upon stress in the past year. His marriage has dissolved, and he no longer comes into the Smithsonian. When the biological society issued a statement disavowing Meyer's article, Sternberg was advised not to attend. "I was told that feelings were running so high, they could not guarantee me that they could keep order," Sternberg said."

Comments

And check out The Onion's uncanny anticipation of where things are headed in their recent article, , "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory."

At least we still have the Theory of Gravity. We do get to keep that, right?

From the article: "When the article appeared, the reaction was near instantaneous and furious. Within days, detailed scientific critiques of Meyer's article appeared on pro-evolution Web sites."

There's something of a difference between "detailed scientific critiques" and the Inquisition threatening to burn Gallileo at the stake.

Note also the credentials of the original article's author: "philosopher of science". Not an expert in evolution, not even a biologist.

"Whoops, sorry, I meant "unfalsifiable," not "unverfiable." It sounds a bit strange, but science is built upon what can be falsified; any statement which cannot be disproven by any concievable fact or observation ("God exists," "aborton is wrong," etc.) is unscientific. "

I don't know how abortion got into this but saying "the death penalty is wrong" seems just as suitable. For that matter so is "man evolved from apes".

Whoops, sorry, I meant "unfalsifiable," not "unverfiable." It sounds a bit strange, but science is built upon what can be falsified; any statement which cannot be disproven by any concievable fact or observation ("God exists," "aborton is wrong," etc.) is unscientific.

"The way science reacts to being challenged by unscientific dogma (an unparsimonious, unverifiable, argument from ignorance is *not* a scientific challenge) has very little to do with how institutions founded on such dogmas enforce their beliefs."

It was a peer reviewed article by scientists making a case for ID, not someone ranting about floating pasta.

Btw, evolution of man? Not verifiable.

What are you doing here?!! You're on vacation, remember?

I too have decided Pastafarianism has more to offer than ID.

The way science reacts to being challenged by unscientific dogma (an unparsimonious, unverifiable, argument from ignorance is *not* a scientific challenge) has very little to do with how institutions founded on such dogmas enforce their beliefs.

Or have any ID proponents been burned at the stake, boiled alive, murdered to save their souls, etc. that I haven't heard about?

I never know whether to be amazed or amused the way the scientific establishment reacts to be challenged: pretty much like the Catholic Church at the height of the Inquisition

Hey cool, the Edge of The Wedge has reached Lisnews. Thankfully the FSM will save us all. We are blessed in His Noodly Appendage.

I'm kidding, of course, everyone knows the earth was created from the body of the giant Ymir, after he was slain by Lord Óðinn the High-Father.

"And check out The Onion's uncanny anticipation of where things are headed in their recent article, "Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory."
"

Yes, because as we all know its not possible to have an honest conversation about the nature of our existence without all becoming members of the Flat-Earth Society.