Home » Biology, Intelligent Design » ID guys greeted at biology meeting with “friendly, open-ended questions, curiosity, and meaningful exchanges”?

ID guys greeted at biology meeting with “friendly, open-ended questions, curiosity, and meaningful exchanges”?

Wells at SBD meeting 2011.JPG

That's him ... Wells

ID guys greeted at biology meeting with “friendly, open-ended questions, curiosity, and meaningful exchanges”?

From Paul Nelson’s “Jonathan and Paul’s Excellent Adventure at the Society for Developmental Biology Annual Meeting” (Evolution News & Views, July 25, 2011), we learn that ID guys Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson got a friendly reception:

Neither of us faced any hostility, which (for Jonathan) was a refreshing change of atmosphere from the angry reception he received during his poster presentation at the 2005 annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology. In fact, we met with friendly, open-ended questions, curiosity, and meaningful exchanges. One biologist at Jonathan’s session carefully read the main panels, then said to Jonathan, “Are you serious?” He and Jonathan then spent a long time going over the arguments and data in the poster — the opening question was an invitation for a detailed explanation.

It wasn’t always like that for Jonathan Wells.

The rumour that scientific curiosity is dead and only trolls live could well be false.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

8 Responses to ID guys greeted at biology meeting with “friendly, open-ended questions, curiosity, and meaningful exchanges”?

  1. 1
    Elizabeth Liddle

    It is false.

    Glad that is now sorted :)

  2. 2

    There is a subtle shift in thought going on. ID is not hep-c on a napkin anymore. Not all people are fleeing from it. They are paying attention to the arguments, and many have teeth. But ID needs to be ready for the next stage. Like Nelson said, many people were saying, OK. But now what? What do you propose?

  3. One of the ways ID can start making positive arguments is by not regarding evolution and design as mutually exclusive.

  4. “One of the ways ID can start making positive arguments is by not regarding evolution and design as mutually exclusive.”

    As far as I am aware, non of the major ID players does. One of the interesting open questions is determining exactly what evolution can do and what its limits are. This is very much in the forefront of the minds of Behe, Wells, Nelson, and others.

    Of course, at the outset one has to define “evolution,” which is one of the slipperiest words in the English language, before having a rational discussion about what role it plays.

  5. I haven’t read them fully but it looks to me like Wells’s and Nelson’s posters are aimed squarely at arguing against evolution:

    Conclusions
    There is no evidence that the process of natural selection caused the origin of primary embryonic characters in the Bilateria.

    Data from the model systems of evodevo, and expectations based on the theory of common descent, are
    frequently in conflict.

  6. Wow! Pretty floored by Wells’ presentation. Very cool!

  7. Starbuck:….it looks to me like Wells’s and Nelson’s posters are aimed squarely at arguing against evolution:

    Maybe they are not. Perhaps, they are only arguing against “settled science” in saying, 1) something is taken as true without evidence, 2) people gloss over where two models conflict.

  8. 8

    I’m a religious person, but I think ID would benefit if it and religion stayed at opposite corners of the room and acted like they didn’t know each other.
    I don’t mean to be critical – I’m just a guest visiting this excellent site – but I wonder how many curious people visit and see an article about theology or God and immediately think, ‘Yeah, it is just creationism.’

Leave a Reply