Home » Intelligent Design » Project Strawman Steve

Project Strawman Steve

Project Strawman Steve is nearing its 700th Steve and the Thumbsters are ecstatic.

Unfortunately Project Steve is really Project Strawman. It is aimed to show by way of the logical fallacy argumentum ad populum that the 400+ scientists on the Dissent From Darwinism statement are wrong. It’s supposed be a parody of Dissent From Darwinism.

Well, they can’t even get that right because, as they do with everything else about ID, they’re using the logical fallacy of the strawman argument before even asking for signatures.

Check it out. The Dissent From Darwinism statement is skepticism of random mutation and natural selection’s ability to account for the complexity of life. The Project Steve statement doesn’t refute that. Indeed it acknowledges that there’s controversy about the processes underlying evolution. The only place the two statements really differ is that Dissent encourages teaching young adults about the controversy over evolutionary mechanisms and the Steve statement wants to treat 10th grade biology students like mushrooms when it comes to legitimate debate over evolutionary mechanisms i.e. keep ‘em in the dark feed ‘em manure. And with all the religious fervor and zeal of St. Charles Darwin they’ll sue anyone that even hints in public school that there’s controversy surrounding evolutionary mechanisms.

A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
“We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

Project Steve
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to “intelligent design,” to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation’s public schools.

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

9 Responses to Project Strawman Steve

  1. “there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred”

    Umm… then why the project?

  2. What is the process by which someone gets on the Dissent from Darwin list maintained by the Discovery Institute?

    http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/

    Finally, if you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged,” then please contact us at [email protected].

  3. Natural selection had absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution. Today it continues to do what it always did which is to preserve the status quo as long as possible. That is why, armed with a simple binary key or even just a bunch of decent photographs or even line drawings, one can invaribly identify any living creature that has ever been found and recorded. That is why every chickadee looks like every other chickadee, sounds like every other chickadee and produces offspring all the survivors of which are exactly like its parents. Nature not only abhors a vacuum. She hates any deviation from the norm. The simnple truth is that evolution, which is now finished anyway for all practical purposes, proceeded driven entirely from within those increasingly few forms capable of producing products different from themselves. Such forms apparently no longer exist or if they do we have misunderstood the origin of their products because there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that sexual reproduction ever was able to transcend the species barrier. It was a devout Darwinian, Theodosius Dobzhansky, that laid that myth to rest years ago. Like every other critic of Darwimpianism, you homozygous Darwimps have conveniently decided that he too never exusted. You all make me sick to my stomach.

    The entire Darwinian edifice is a house of cards based on the unjustified assumption that evolution ever had an exogenous identifiable cause. It most certainly did not any more than does the development of any adult organism have now or ever have such a cause.

    How do all you Darwimpian, groupthinking, illiterate, intellectually hamstrung “prescribed” retards out there in cyberspace like all the realities which are now being revealed every day in the experimental laboratories of the world? It must really be awful for you. How can you continue to ignore the thoroughly confirmed, undeniable, bench confirmed proof that there is absolutely nothing in your infantile dogma that has ever had any substance whatsoever? Nada, zilch, zero. You can and do because you haven’t the courage to admit that you have dedicated your entire existence to a transparent fairy tale. You were natural born losers. It is as simple as that.

    It is hard to believe isn’t it?

    Who is next?

    I love it so!

    “Since God found it necessary to limit man’s intelligence, why didn’t He also limit his stupidity?”
    Konrad Adenauer

  4. NCSE’s 700 club

    You too can join. If your name is Steve, Stephany, Stephan, or any other variant of Steve. February 16, 2006, is the third anniversary of the public unveiling of NCSE’s Project Steve, so it seems like a good time…

  5. There is another major element of nonsense surrounding Project Steve. Those who sign the Steve list don’t have to worry about their lives and careers being destroyed, as do those who sign the Dissent From Darwinism list. This renders Project Steve utterly meaningless at best, and totally hypocritical at worst.

    That was on my mind when I wrote the article but I forgot to work it in. Thanks for bringing it up. We should have a project to turn “Sternberg” into a verb. As in, if you sign the Scientific Dissent From Darwinism you risk being sternberged. No offense to Professor Davison who was sternberged 20 years ago. “Davisoned” doesn’t roll off the tongue as well IMO. One might also wonder if there’s a reverse-sternberg effect in signing Project Steve. You know, like being an atheist gets you in good with the National Academy membership, does signing Project Steve help on your CV? -ds

  6. The “trick” would be to get one of the 700 (+/-) “Steves” to actually substantiate the claims made by evolutionists.

    For example they could tell us how they determined the observed design in nature was found to be illusory. Then we could compare that criteria to the criteria Wm. Dembski. Mike Behe, et al., have put forward for inferring design.

    Then they could tell us how to falsify the premise that some particular biochemical system arose via some blind watchmaker-type process.

    Other than that- I agree with JD…

  7. Darwinian logic never ceases to amaze me

    I think that project Steve should be renamed project “I Don’t Have Any Evidence For Darwinism So I Will Build Strawman And Hope No One Notices That I Have No Evidence”.

  8. If the price of getting on the Dissent list is exposing oneself to possible professional “shunning”, job loss, loss of tenure, becoming the target of disinformation campaigns, and having one’s views distorted in the press, the courts, and the Internet, then should it surprise anyone that few people volunteer to be on that list? What is the professional cost of being a “Steve” on “Steve’s List”?

  9. ANTI-SCIENTIFIC DISSENT FROM DARWINISM

    “We are NOT skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should NOT be encouraged.”

    If you have a Ph.D. in engineering, mathematics, computer science, biology, chemistry, or one of the other natural sciences, and you agree with the following statement, “We are NOT skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should NOT be encouraged,” then please contact us at http://www.blogger.com/comment.....Popup=true

    Good one! :-)

Leave a Reply