William Dembski has joined the fray at evolutionnews with the following non-sequitur: Ecstatic because “critical analysis of X” removed from standards Dembski wrote: Question: Is there any other field of inquiry — other than evolutio…

Valerie writes:
“I know of no Darwinians who want to suppress criticism of evolutionary theory out of fear that it will not stand up to informed, honest scientific scrutiny.”
–It does not appear Valerie read the Topic under which she has posted.
From the top:
“The Thumbsmen of Panda are ecstatic that the Ohio State Board of Education has removed “critical analysis of evolution” from its standards. Question: Is there any other field of inquiry — other than evolution, that is — whose advocates become ecstatic when critical analysis of its subject is suppressed?”

….
Valerie writes:
“When ideology trumps objectivity, the results for science are disastrous….”
–I assume this includes the Darwinian a priori ideology that the universe created itself.

….
Valerie writes:
“…when the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document” states that the Wedge strategy’s goal is “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God”, Darwinians take notice.”
See http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....038;id=450
Quote:
“In 1999 someone posted on the internet an early fundraising proposal for Discovery Institute’s Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture. Dubbed the “Wedge Document,” this proposal soon took on a life of its own, popping up in all sorts of places and eventually spawning what can only be called a giant urban legend. Among true-believers on the Darwinist fringe the document came to be viewed as evidence for a secret conspiracy to fuse religion with science and impose a theocracy. These claims were so outlandish that for a long time we simply ignored them. But because some credulous Darwinists seem willing to believe almost anything, we decided we should set the record straight.
“So let us set the record straight. Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture does not support theocracy. We should not have to say this, but apparently we do. Discovery Institute rejects all attempts to impose orthodoxies on the practice of science as contrary to the spirit of the scientific enterprise.”

….
That’s all I have time for.

So far the replies to your question have come from ID supporters. Allow me to answer from the perspective of a Darwinian.

Darwinians are not insecure about the evidential basis of evolutionary theory. We are not surprised that the public, being largely unacquainted with the scientific evidence, is skeptical of evolution. It’s a counter-intuitive concept, and it challenges the religious beliefs of many people. But the evidence is overwhelming, to use the cliche, and I know of no Darwinians who want to suppress criticism of evolutionary theory out of fear that it will not stand up to informed, honest scientific scrutiny.

The nearly universal fear among Darwinians is that most of the criticism (as in the case of the Ohio standards) is motivated by religion and politics, not by genuine scientific skepticism (please note that I said “most”, not “all”). When ideology trumps objectivity, the results for science are disastrous, as illustrated by the Church’s suppression of heliocentrism and the Soviet Union’s dogmatic commitment to Lysenkoism as a genetic theory.

This is not paranoia on the part of Darwinians. When Phillip Johnson, the acknowledged progenitor of the ID movement, speaks of the need for “theistic science”, or when the Discovery Institute’s “Wedge Document” states that the Wedge strategy’s goal is “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God”, Darwinians take notice.

It also definitely gets our attention when people try to prematurely force an idea into public school science curricula, unlike all the other ideas which got there after first being accepted by the wider scientific community.

My hope is that the recent setbacks in Dover, El Tejon and Ohio will cause the ID movement to reconsider its tactics and focus on genuine scientific research rather than politics and propaganda. ID theory will ultimately stand or fall on its scientific merits. Show the scientific community compelling evidence for ID and they will eventually embrace it, as they have embraced other controversial theories. Further show that research becomes more productive when done within an ID paradigm and scientists will embrace it even sooner, being a very pragmatic bunch.

Regards,
Valerie

Valerie: Watch it with the tired references to the “Wedge” document. We have a low tolerance level here when it comes to Darwinian Conspiracy theories. Thank you. – Scott

Dembski and the moderators, which I’m one of, have clearly said from the start we’ll delete any repetitions of the endless, boring arguments that have been answered in the literature or many times before in this blog. Even though we make that quite clear people don’t seem to get the point…though part of it was probably due to the comments policy not being clearly visible until recently. Anyway, other than those oft-refuted arguments we don’t mind constructive criticism.

A slightly different take: Some are not ACTIVE in the debate.

ID is a paradigm shift. Literally a new way of looking at the world.
Some good, honest, skillful and productive scientists simply haven’t found it necessary to consider the alternatives or examine the issues or make a decision….yet.

My wife, for example, is a physician. She understands Darwinian evolution and believes it to be a fact. She hasn’t read Denton’s book. She hasn’t read Behe’s book. She hasn’t read Dembski’s books (sorry Dr. D!) I’ve offered them to her and asked her to read them. She said she would, but hasn’t. Too many other things demand her attention. The ID/Darwinism debate not an issue. Moreover, she really doesn’t care one way or another. None of the issues are relevant to her practice. Or to the practices of her colleagues. It doesn’t affect her patients. The debate hasn’t touched her…as far as she knows.

In her personal life: She is active in her church. We are active socially. NONE of the people at our church or in our social circle have been touched by the debate…that they know of.

I know this sounds incredible. It sounds incredible to me!

In fact, in my opinion, this debate is touching ALL our lives. Most just don’t see it…yet. I don’t want to go into all that right now. But Dr. D often posts on “the Culture Wars”, enough said for now.

In summary, the vast majority of scientists (as well as ordinary people) don’t see the importance or the relevance of the debate or how it affects them.

But it cannot stay that way and isn’t. ID is a part of what is happening in the world. The effects of the Darwinianistic-way-of-looking-at-the-world have been devastating to the people of our nation, if not the whole world.

On the Theory of Evolution
(115 min. | #6465 | 4/22/2002) Watch Now
On the Origin of Life
(58 min. | #6464 | 4/15/2002) Watch Now
The Retinal Blind Spot in the Scientific Vision of our Origins
(89 min. | #6442 | 4/8/2002) Watch Now
Darwinism: Science of Philosophy?
(58 min. | #6293 | 4/1/2002) Watch Now
The Blind Watchmaker
(58 min. | #6292 | 3/25/2002) Watch Now
Can Science Know the Mind of God?
(58 min. | #6290 | 3/18/2002) Watch Now
On Darwinism
(57 min. | #6289 | 2/11/2002) Watch Now
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy
(89 min. | #6287 | 2/4/2002) Watch Now
The Journey: Searching For Our Origins Part 1
(57 min. | #5433 | 12/19/2000) Watch Now
Convergent Evolution
(56 min. | #9364 | ) Watch Now
Raising Questions About Evolution in the Schools
(87 min. | #8546 | ) Watch Now
How Darwinists Think
(87 min. | #8561 | ) Watch Now
Darwinism on Trial
(89 min. | #6444 | ) Watch Now
On the Origin and Design of the Cosmos
(86 min. | #8560 | ) Watch Now
Paradigm of Design: The Bacterial Flagellum
(83 min. | #8547 | ) Watch Now
Should Intelligent Design Be Taught in Schools?
(118 min. | #11294 | ) Watch Now
On the Origin of Phyla
(59 min. | #6440 | ) Watch Now

Charlie

From what I gather, the Intelligent Design community believes that evolutionists suppress criticism not in defense of evolution itself, but in defense of the underlying atheistic/materialistic worldview that evolutionary theory shields and justifies. It is their philosophy, rather than science, that is really at the core of the issue.

Well, I can tell you that the thought of “Evolution: The Atheist Avatar” is disturbing. It certainly is a frightening notion that the majority of scientists (like Dawkins, as Tina mentioned) subscribe to this worldview and use evolutionary theory to perpetuate it–that they have some kind of long-term vested interest in bolstering their ideology and would go so far as to bumble the science itself (by not subjecting their theory to the necessary critical analysis, or adapting to new evidence) to do so.

I’ll say the obvious: A good scientist will separate his personal beliefs from his work and carry on indifferently. We expect that those involved in researching and applying evolutionary theory would eagerly accept criticism and new information and modify their science accordingly, and that whatever philisophical convictions they have would remain irrelevant.

But humans will be humans, I suppose.

If the scientific community truly is driven by deep-seated materialistic beliefs to the extent that the scientific process itself has become disfunctional, then IDers have nothing to worry about. Evolutionary theory as we know it will eventually collapse and give way to all due critical analysis and reconfiguring. It’s only a matter of time.

I am a big fan of Phillip Johnson, who is now known as the father of ID. As a professor of law with a specialty in the logic of argumentation, when it came to the Darwinism debate, he immediately detected the rhetorical and manipulative devices employed by attorneys to influence people, and to divert attention from evidence.

I was once a devout Darwinist. When it became apparent that everything I believed about everything that mattered was wrong, it totally shattered my world and I had to start over. I also knew that I would be rejected and vilified by the people who knew me in my former life. This is a hard thing to do. Peer pressure is a big thing, especially in academia.

Check out Phillip Johnson’s “Darwinism on Trial” lecture on the University of California TV Website:

http://www.uctv.tv/library-hum.....on_Origins