I am fairly confused as to how you can possibly say it’s one sided either. I don’t understand what, exactly, it is that you expect a science department of a university to have seminars on if it isn’t science. And they have bothered to cover quite a few fields and not just centred in Zoology. I must say I’ve been surprised to find out that they even bothered to have a talk refering to intelligent design. Frankly, Prof. Allen Orr’s talk on genetics of speciation sounds brilliant. It’s a shame I couldn’t go.

I will follow your advice letting them know what I think of their choice of talks.

Thank you for the invitation to reevaluate my critique.

I agree that the point of the opening paragraph of the OU Department of Zoology Statement on Evolution is merely to provide a general treatise on science education. As you say, simple.

Oh, and I apologize for “cherry picking the data,” in spite of the fact that you’ve got access to the original and in your turn, quoted just about as much as I did. But I’m sure my methodology is a clear indication of bias.

You’re also right that I’ve always been “generally frustrated with inductive reasoning.” But you’ve helped me get past this, and now I see that variation within species is all the evidence that any smart person needs to sign on to Darwin’s big idea.

Finally, I agree that sprinkling water on a window is analogous both in scope and complexity to the work that the scientists did when they, according to the article, “created new species using the same mechanisms that produce species naturally.”

Thanks for setting me straight.

-sb

Your insistence on legitimizing the use of the word “Stalinist” keeps our discussion centered around a moot and ludicrous point.

This, in conjunction with a glaring lack of an original retort to the more substantive parts of my argument, leads me to believe that you are unfamiliar with the concept of a gravamen in general.

SteveB: “I’m inclined to agree with you [smander] that labels like “Stalinist” are uncalled for, as they typically add heat but no light.”

Your responses to my use of the “S-word” have me wondering if you even grasp the gravamen of this discussion. I refer you to Chapter 16 of Jonathan Wells’ book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.

You managed to prove my point all by yourself. If Kenny G’s novice music theory fails to put the saxophonist in the category of “music theorist,” then anyone who does not specialize in the study of zoology is not a “zoologist.” By your own logic, your PhD in music theory may place you over Kenny G in a discussion on Schenkerian analysis, but it does not make you a relevant authority on zoological lines of inquiry.

SteveB, thank you for acknowledging that inflammatory diction has no legitimate use in our debate.

The opening paragraph does not equate safety from certain doom to teaching evolution in public schools. It simply states that kids need “the best possible science education.” I am uncertain as to how prescribing a superb science education is fear-mongering.

As far as supporting broad claims with specific evidence, I can see how you are generally frustrated with inductive reasoning. If you had cited the entire paragraph rather than cherry-picking your data, you could not have avoided:
“Furthermore, the evidence based on facts from molecular biology and geology (i.e. gene sequences, dated fossils) clearly indicates that all living species, including our own, share a common ancestor that is over 3 billion years old.”
I would say that is a generalized example.
I am unsure how a human, intelligent replication of a process automatically makes the original process intelligently governed. I could conceivably replicate the pattern of raindrops on my window, but that does not mean each raindrop had a preordained destination.
Those things being said, I invite you to reevaluate your critique.

I’m inclined to agree with you that labels like “Stalinist” are uncalled for, as they typically add heat but no light.

Having said that, I did read the statement published by OU Zoology, which I frankly was not impressed by. Leaving out the things that have already been mentioned, the writers:

• Start by making an appeal to fear, with vague references to impending medical and environmental consequences that our children will be “hobbled by” if evolution doesn’t get more attention in public schools.

• Supply a very broad definition of evolution (evolution is said to explain how organisms “diversify into new species,” among other things), while supporting it with very narrow examples. In this case, the irrefutable “observable fact” that insects and viruses are known to evolve into… insects and viruses, respectively.

• Contradict their own most cherished maxim—probably without even realizing it. Consider the claim, “humans have created new species using the same mechanisms that produce species naturally.” If humans have created new species, this only happened through the use of the very intelligent agency which evolutionary theory expressly denies.

In the end, that reasoning of this quality is trotted out to support the “central unifying theory of biology” is disturbing, to say the least. While I applaud OU’s desire to promote K-12 education, the institution would do well to start by devoting more of their energies to ensuring that students–and maybe even faculty–can think critically.

Imagine that the OU music theory department published a statement that promoted one theory over another. Further, the statement went on to say that the department will brook no competing theories.

A statement of this nature would affect all areas of the department: hiring of faculty, guest lectures, graduate student applications, course content, etc. In essence, the statement would rail against every plank of academic freedom. Smander, is this the sort of situation you desire in colleges and universities?

By the way, nice try, but J.S. Bach and Kenny G are composers and performers, not theorists.

“You ID people are wrong because today we don’t follow darwinism, but NEO-darwinism!”

Anyone with a Ph.D. in music theory can’t be all bad. You might enjoy my piano albums (Rachmaninoff, Chopin, Liszt, Gershwin), available for free download here.