Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back

["Robert Cohen" <Robert.Cohen@po-box.esu.edu>]

So, too, has the creation science argument evolved.

My guess is that the argument will evolve further from "equal time for
intelligent design and evolution" to "equal time for and against
evolution" and thus avoid religious issues.  The idea of irreducible
complexity (intelligent design is so pre-Dover...) is being used to
argue that the process of evolution, as it is currently understood, is
statistically unlikely to result in many of the organisms we currently
observe.  This will allow ID-proponents (IC-proponents) to avoid saying
that a "better" explanation is intelligent design.  Though that may
seem, to many people, a logical conclusion to make, it is not required
(just a "feature", so to speak).

I am not saying that that is a valid argument.  

Rather, I am saying, as I think Bob is saying, that repeating the
argument that such an idea is hogwash (though it might be) or that it is
just a plan to get religion into the schools (though it might be) is not
going to sway a significant number of non-scientists.  And, saying
"evolution is fact and that is all there is to it" will only reinforce
the notion that scientists are hiding something.

What would you think if I told you something was too hard to explain --
just trust that I was right?  Or that I was tired of repeating the same
arguments?

----------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Cohen, Department of Physics, East Stroudsburg University 
570.422.3428   rcohen@po-box.esu.edu    http://www.esu.edu/~bbq 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu 
> [mailto:phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf 
> Of LaMontagne, Bob
> Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 6:31 PM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Intelligent designists fight back
>
> I would suggest that you read these postings more carefully. 
> I am definitely not an advocate for ID. I am firmly in the 
> Evolution camp. My comments were related to how I can 
> understand how intelligent people, like Ben Stein, could ask 
> that we look at ID more closely. His point is that ID people 
> appear to the layman to follow the same investigational 
> processes as Darwinists but are shunned and ridiculed by 
> mainstream science because they are not part of the "club". 
> My point was that we scientists have fed the public a lot of 
> crap in the past (Global Cooling, anti-DDT, creating the Atom 
> Bomb, etc.) so the public should not be blamed for not 
> accepting everything we say without skepticism. We have done 
> a lousy job of being believable to the layperson.
>
> The complexity issue is a non-starter. It can be shown (say 
> for the flagella on one celled organisms) that the precursors 
> for the complex rotary drive of the flagella show up in 
> earlier organisms serving different purposes.
>
> The analogy to a mechanical pocket watch being "too complex" 
> to have appeared without an intelligent designer is also 
> bogus. The mechanical pocket watch evolved like any organism. 
> Each part (like gears, springs, pointers, etc.) were first 
> used for other purposes. The first clunky mechanical clocks 
> slowly evolved as various craftsmen improved the designs. 
> Smaller clocks were created for the wealthy. Eventually, the 
> miniaturization led someone to conceive of a "pocket" watch 
> using all the refinements that had evolved through the years. 
> Instead of being an example to be used to beat Darwinism over 
> the head with - the pocket watch is an excellent example of 
> how evolution can result in a pocket watch without the need 
> for an "Intelligent Designer" to dream the whole device up 
> all at once.
>
> I hope this has redeemed my reputation among those of you who 
> did not read my postings carefully enough. But actually, I 
> really don't care :-)
>
> Bob at PC