|February 18, 2006||Posted by Dave S. under Intelligent Design|
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.”
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 Ã¢â‚¬Å“intelligent design,Ã¢â‚¬Â to be introduced into the science curricula of our nationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s public schools.