Exposing the Junk Science of ‘Intelligent Design’

by

UPDATE: SMU faculty members have written an open letter critical of the Discovery Institute presentation on their campus.

Last week the Seattle-based Discovery Institute descended on the Southern Methodist University campus in Dallas for another of its junk-science forums attempting to debunk evolutionary science. The event, “Four Nails in Darwin’s Coffin,” included a film and presentations by DI staffers pretending to be promoting real science instead of pseudo-scientific nonsense. Fortunately, SMU faculty aren’t letting them get away with it.

Dr. John G. Wise of SMU’s department of biological sciences has published a website that critiques the DI’s arguments: “Big Problems with Intelligent Design.” The website is a fantastic resource for anyone who wants to learn the truth about the arguments of fanatics trying to hijack science to push an ideological agenda.

9 Responses to “Exposing the Junk Science of ‘Intelligent Design’”

  1. Doc Bill Says:

    The Four Nails Hair Care, Tire Repair and Victory Revival circus promised to present NEW EVIDENCE that Disproved Darwinism!

    Much like the claims of the sideshow barker that Snake Woman “crawls on her belly like a snake and will hypnotize you with her gaze!”

    Right.

    In the end what did the rubes see for their 50-cents?

    Oh, it’s complex, therefore God.

    Oh, it’s complex, therefore God.

    And, oh, it’s complex, therefore God.

    There was one more nail, but you get the pattern. New evidence? That was a lie. Nothing “new” was presented. Just the same old whale of a tale, icons of evolution, signature in the cell junk DNA stuff the Disco Tute peddles on a regular basis.

    Did I mention it’s complex, therefore God?

    However, let’s not forget that “it’s complex, therefore God” signature in the cell author, creationist Stephen Meyer is STILL on the Texas science textbook selection committee.

    Somebody tell me I’m wrong! Please!

  2. Cytocop CT(ASCP) Says:

    Complex, therefore God. Yeah. And don’t forget the “God Of The Gaps” theory. That being that since there are gaps in the fossil record, God must be in the gaps. Unfortunately, that Gappy God is getting smaller and smaller the more those gaps get filled in.

    Aw, too bad. Get out yer violins.

  3. Charles Says:

    I choose to believe that God is in it. I am not sure that simple or complex has much to do with it. E=mc2 is very simple, and the universe appears to be founded upon it. For some reason that we may never understand, God put Charles Darwin on the back of a Beagle, floated him to the land of finches and turtles, and opened his eyes to something no one else had ever seen. God can be sneaky and fun like that.

  4. Cytocop CT(ASCP) Says:

    So, Charles, according to what you wrote above, then why would anyone believe God is in the gaps? It’s as if they’re saying He/She/It is nowhere but IN the gaps. Seems to me like it is they, the creationists, who are putting God In A Box, not evolutionists.

  5. Ben Says:

    Seen this bible quiz article on CNN? Pretty funny.

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/28/dont-know-much-about-religion-youre-not-alone-study-finds/?hpt=C1

    Excerpt:

    “For example, it’s not evangelicals or Catholics who did best – it’s atheists and agnostics. It’s not Bible-belt Southerners who scored highest – they came at the bottom. Those who believe the Bible is the literal word of God did slightly worse than average, while those who say it is not the word of God scored slightly better.”

  6. Charles Says:

    Hi y’all. I scored 100 percent correct on the religion quiz. It must mean I am qualified to be here spouting off. How did you score Ben?

  7. Ben Says:

    Charles, are you talking about the ten questions on CNN, or did you find the full quiz on the Pew site?

  8. Ben Says:

    On the Pew site, I got 14 out of 15. On a couple others, I was sort of unsure but guessed correctly.

  9. Cytocop CT(ASCP) Says:

    You know, in fact, I have to wonder how intelligent the Designer REALLY was. If in fact, there is such a critter as “Intelligent Design.” Our bodies are built for the hunter/gatherer and agricultural life. They are not built for being desk jockeys and cubicle monkeys. Had the Designer REALLY been intelligent, He/She/It would have foreseen this and would have caused our anatomies to change appropriately for better environmental adaptation. But has this happened? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: