Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Feeding frenzy at the PT

William Dembski
August 26, 2006
Darwinism, Evolution, Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

[From a colleague who sometimes posts here in the comments:] Like fresh meat tossed into a pit of jackels, Jonathan Wells’ newest book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design has sent the Panda’s Thumb crowd into a feeding frenzy. Right now there are at least 4 opening posts devoted to taking the book, apparently, chapter by chapter, and “demolishing” (or is it “destroying” or perhaps “eviscerating”) nearly every sentence Jonathan wrote (or so it seems). I find it very telling that they attribute so much power and influence to Jonathan that nearly every sentence in his book simply must be shown to be wrong.

To join the fun, go here: http://www.pandasthumb.org and see for yourself. Simply amazing.

Comments
I find it more than a little ironic that Jack Krebs is complaining about your moderation of this forum, when he ROUTINELY deep sixes comments over at KCFS and has banned every single member of our group. In fact, it has gotten so bad over there that any new poster is grilled immediately and if they don't pass muster labeled a troll and banned.Goldstein
September 1, 2006
September
09
Sep
1
01
2006
03:49 PM
3
03
49
PM
PDT
Gil, I'm in agreement with Jack, that teacher was WAY out of line. Regardless of how you feel about the evidence for evolution, do you agree that within the scientific community, there is almost universal consensus that evolution is the best scientific explanation for our origins? And again, regardless of how you feel about the strength of the evidence for ID, or the bias of the scientific community, can you agree that ID has failed to make an impact on the scientific community? My personal view, which I think many on the pro-evolution side share, is that public schools should teach the best science available. If the scientific community doesn't think that ID is science, then why should it be taught in a high school science class?minlay
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
“Mainstream science” doesn’t even know what makes an organism what it is. What do you mean? Therefore evolutionism is unscientific as it cannot be objectively tested. All its proponents EVER do is throw Father Time at some alleged obstacle and call it “problem solved”. Again that is un-scientific. What aspects of evolutionary theory cannot be objectively tested? Common descent? And Jack- 500 years ago Creation was “top dog”. So I take it we should teach Creation in schools- by your words. I don't see where Mr. Krebs has said any such thing...franky172
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
Jack, "Mainstream science" doesn't even know what makes an organism what it is. Therefore evolutionism is unscientific as it cannot be objectively tested. All its proponents EVER do is throw Father Time at some alleged obstacle and call it "problem solved". Again that is un-scientific. And Jack- 500 years ago Creation was "top dog". So I take it we should teach Creation in schools- by your words. Tell you what JK- watch the videos "Unlocking the Mystery of Life" and "The Privileged Planet"- then, if you can, tell us why ID is NOT based on scientific findings but instead is based on religious doctrine. Jack Krebbs: Given that the issues raised by IDists are not established in substantial in the scientific world,... That is because those issues are dismissed without reason or ignored because no one can deal with them scientifically. Your words go one way but your actions go the other...Joseph
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
Jack Krebs An excellent summaryfranky172
August 29, 2006
August
08
Aug
29
29
2006
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Gil, if the story you tell about your daughter's science teacher is true, that teacher needs to be disciplined. If that teacher persists in such behavior, he or she should be sued. I am positive that the vast majority of science would not answer as that teacher did. As for the "suppression of evidence" in schools, here are two points: In Kansas, the issue is science standards, which are a summary of core mainstream science. They are not an entire curriculum, and they definitely do not prohibit discussion of anything. From a practical point of view, science classes teach, again, what is widely accepted as established science throughout the world. They can barely scratch the surface of all the content that needs to be taught. Given that the issues raised by IDists are not established in substantial in the scientific world, they don't deserve much time if any in public schools - we have too much to do as it is. IDists or others who have doubts about soem aspects of evolution need to concentrate on making their case to the world of science. If the evidence for a different perspective is convincing and leads to productive new understanding, then science will change, and eventually that will be taught in school. But classrooms where school children who are just learning biology are not the proper place for trying to establish new ideas.Jack Krebs
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
08:47 PM
8
08
47
PM
PDT
Jack, Thanks for your comments and I hope we can discuss this further. I am a former intellectual atheist (for 43 years), but now a Christian. My daughter, in seventh grade, was introduced to Darwinian evolution in a basic science class. She asked the teacher, "Does this mean God doesn't exist?" She was told by this public school teacher, "Yes, it does." I looked at her science textbook. It was full of the classic icons: Peppered moths, Haeckel's embryos, finch beaks, and, yes indeed, the long-sought missing link that finally proved whales evolved by Darwinian gradualism and mechanisms from land mammals. There was no mention of the Cambrian explosion or the problems it presents for Darwinian theory. There was a brief mention that life spontaneously originated from non-living chemicals, but no substantive evidence was given. Jack: "KCFS is not for the suppression of discussion. KCFS has a discussion forum..." This is irrelevant. The suppression of discussion is in publicly funded education, where it really matters, and this is being imposed with the iron fist of the legal system. Statistically speaking, no one cares about you, me, your blog or this one. Jack: "We are also not for the suppression of evidence..." Of course you are, at least in the public schools. Your respectful and worthy opponent, GilGilDodgen
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
07:12 PM
7
07
12
PM
PDT
jodyw1, Debating isn't science either... However, I agree with your sentiments. I'd like to see some of our more knowledable contributors here respond to Wells' critics.dodgingcars
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT
Why is it that no one here has tackled the substance of the critique at PT? Whether it's a pack of jackals looking for food or just a crew of people with too much time on their hands is irrelevant. Where is the response to the point by point criticism of chapters in Wells book? Either they're getting it right, or not. If the critics are wrong, it should be fairly easy to refute the work they're doing. Laughing that it's being done? That isn't science.jodyw1
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
Gil writes, "The claim of Kansas Citizens for Science, that it is a defender of science, is preposterous. This organization is a defender of doctrine and the suppression of evidence and discussion that might call the doctrine into question." Obviously, I disagree, but let's see if we can discuss the issues: 1. KCFS is not for the suppression of discussion. KCFS has a discussion forum that is more open than this one in terms of moderation. I, as president, am quite active in discussing the issues and am willing to discuss ways for us all to discuss better. We are also not for the suppression of evidence. People are quite free to present evidence and draw conclusions from that evidence, although doing so is no guarantee that others will agree with the conclusion. There is a large difference between "censoring evidence" and rejecting a conclusion, and I think that confusion should be cleared up. And we are not a defender of doctrine, although we are a defender of mainstream science and the principles of scientific inquiry that have been found to be useful over the last 500 years. I would be glad to discuss all this. I will point out that since my comments are held up for moderations here, it is difficult for me to participate in real-time discussions. Perhaps the new moderators would be willing to take me off the moderated list of forum participants and allow my comments to go through when I post them. ThanksJack Krebs
August 28, 2006
August
08
Aug
28
28
2006
04:25 AM
4
04
25
AM
PDT
To Jack Krebs and Kansas Citizens for Science: It is precisely because of my interest in, broad education in, and extensive experience in a wide variety of scientific, engineering, and mathematical disciplines that I became skeptical of the claims of neo-Darwinian theory. The claim of Kansas Citizens for Science, that it is a defender of science, is preposterous. This organization is a defender of doctrine and the suppression of evidence and discussion that might call the doctrine into question. This is the antithesis of what real science is all about, and these tactics won't be effective much longer.GilDodgen
August 27, 2006
August
08
Aug
27
27
2006
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
Oh, come on Sal, the PT crowd doesn’t actually have to buy and read a pro-ID book to smash it. Comment by DonaldM — August 26, 2006 @ 9:34 pm Quite right. All that’s necessary is to read the user reviews on Amazon, written by other reviewers who haven’t read the book. Comment by russ — August 27, 2006 @ 7:40 am
Bingo. And on that note, who's for a game of Count The Strawmen? I'm sure there will be plenty of watered down and incorrect versions of Wells's arguments presented at PT and then conveniently "demolished".Scott
August 27, 2006
August
08
Aug
27
27
2006
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT
I think if you read PZ Myers review of Chapter 3, you will see that he did indeed read the chapter, and that he has some quite substantial things to say, backed up with evidence, about ways in which Wells is wrong in that chapter.Jack Krebs
August 27, 2006
August
08
Aug
27
27
2006
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
Oh, come on Sal, the PT crowd doesn’t actually have to buy and read a pro-ID book to smash it. Comment by DonaldM — August 26, 2006 @ 9:34 pm Quite right. All that's necessary is to read the user reviews on Amazon, written by other reviewers who haven't read the book.russ
August 27, 2006
August
08
Aug
27
27
2006
05:40 AM
5
05
40
AM
PDT
Sal writes:
I’d like to thak PT for buying Jonathan’s book, and I invite the commenters over yonder to get copies for themselves so they can participate in an intelligent discussion over the material (cough).
Oh, come on Sal, the PT crowd doesn't actually have to buy and read a pro-ID book to smash it.DonaldM
August 26, 2006
August
08
Aug
26
26
2006
07:34 PM
7
07
34
PM
PDT
~"a feeding frenzy"~ That's a hilarious description of what is going on over there and so very accurate. Unfortunately for them, I don’t believe many discerning folks would concur that they are “demolishing” the book in any way, shape, or form. Wells did an outstanding job with this one. It’s the perfect book for getting a good handle on the issues of this debate and the lengths that Darwinists will go to stop the ID movement. I had it with me at the library the other day, and someone actually stopped me and asked about it after getting a glimpse of the catchy cover. We talked a bit and she took down the name and was planning to purchase it herself. She wasn’t terribly familiar with all the controversial issues of this debate, but was interested in learning more. I think I’ll carry it with me everywhere I go!! LOL... We need more ways to get the public interested in this debate, and I think this book is perfect for that. I’m thinkin’ that the folks over at PT are afraid of that as well, and that’s why we are watching them go completely nuclear.Forthekids
August 26, 2006
August
08
Aug
26
26
2006
06:38 PM
6
06
38
PM
PDT
I wonder if some idiot will start a skeptics annotated The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, like the moronic skeptics annotated bible.jwrennie
August 26, 2006
August
08
Aug
26
26
2006
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
4 threads at PT at the same time! Well, I'd like to thank the PT authors for buying copies of Wells book. I'm ashamed to say I have done so yet, but will today. I will get my copy from ARN as it will also help support ARN. I point the readers to ARN bookstore: The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. I'd like to thak PT for buying Jonathan's book, and I invite the commenters over yonder to get copies for themselves so they can participate in an intelligent discussion over the material (cough). Well's book hit an amazon sales rank of about 350 recently, which probably sets the record for a pro-ID book by a Discovery Institute fellow. I think he breaks the old record set by Nancy Pearcey's Total Truth in 2004-2005. Oddly, Dawkins book Blindwatchmaker has been making a comeback at rank 1,876 with all the recent attention ID has been drawing to the issue.scordova
August 26, 2006
August
08
Aug
26
26
2006
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply