Agylen

Scott Adams: “To me, the most fascinating aspect of the debate over Darwinism versus Intelligent Design is that neither side understands the other side’s argument. Better yet, no one seems to understand their own side’s argument. But that doesn’t stop anyone from having a passionate opinion.”

Scott’s blog entry exemplifies some of the most common misconceptions people have regarding the Intelligent Design vs. Evolution debate.

First misconception: ID and Evolution are somewhat equivalent as “theories” since both have plenty of “holes” in them, so we cannot really decide which one is better at explaining reality and we’d be better teaching them both. There are two errors here. The first one is that ID really has no holes: Whenever someone points out a hole in it, the obvious response is “Someone did it!”, where “someone” is an unnamed, all-powerful designer which the ID-ers, were they not the bunch of hypocritical liars they are, would call “God”.

Second: Of course Evolution theory does not explain everything regarding evolution with 100% certainty. This does not make it less of a scientific theory. All scientific knowledge is tentative, partial and provisional. When a scientist has not enough data to provide a probable explanation, he might put forth a testable hypothesis. An ID-er will just say: “Since my limited imagination cannot understand how this came to being, I will simply postulate that someone did it.” This is not science.

Second misconception: “The Creationists and the Intelligent Design folks have the same target (Darwin), but they don’t have the same argument. The average person who has a strong opinion on this topic doesn’t understand that distinction because the political agenda of the creationists makes things murky.”

Intelligent Design is just creationism in disguise. Maybe not of the young-earth, noah-flood-did-really-happen kind but creationism it is. The political agenda is the same: Discredit Evolution and put back religion in the science classrooms and books. It is just so evident.

In the end, the deciding factor between ID and Evolution is not whether one is “truer” than the other one. For all we know, the truth might be that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world last Thursday, with the appearance of an old, evolved world. You simply cannot test this hypothesis, just like you cannot test ID’s designer. Therefore, it is not science and shouldn’t be taught in a science classroom. Is this so hard to understand?

Update: PZ Myers (a scientist) chides Adams much better than I could ever hope to.

Vatican wants to end battle with science - Science - MSNBC.com: “A Vatican cardinal said Thursday that the faithful should listen to what secular modern science has to offer, warning that religion risks turning into ‘fundamentalism’ if it ignores scientific reason.”

This is a nice endorsement of Evolution — and the scientific method in general, if you disregard the nonsense about “proof” — coming from a high ranking catholic priest. Maybe we can put to rest our fears of the Catholic Church turning to creationism, after all.

Coming Soon!

For all the Pastafarians out there! Molded black plastic, 5′ long, raised chrome, adhesive strip.

(Via Skeptico.)

Dan Gillmor reinforces the point I made here: You cannot raise a new generation of knowledge workers if you teach them bullshit like intelligent design.

I asked Benhamou, one of Silicon Valley’s more distinguished people, whether it was the duty of executives to speak out when the president of the United States suggests that science classes be required to teach ‘intelligent design’ — basically creationism in new clothing — as an equally valid alternative to evolution.

They absolutely should speak out, he said. It’s a fact, he observed, that today’s knowledge-based companies need people ‘whose minds are trained on knowledge and scientific fact, and not mixed up with this creationism bullshit.’

The Holy Inquisition was evil, but it wasn’t probably stupid. Its successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was lead by Card. Joseph Ratzinger until he became Pope. He’s no Torquemada, apparently. By the way, someone should tell the Vatican’s webmaster that Ratzinger is not heading the congregation aymore.

Anyhow, when he was still there, having no heretics to burn at the stake, he contented himself with attacking Harry Potter’s novels for “eroding Christianity in the soul of young people” and blurring the boundaries between good and evil. Talk about lameness!

If that’s true, I’m going to recommend the reading of Harry Potter to my daughter when she is old enough. Nothing like a good erosion of Xian beliefs, lest she starts having trouble distinguishing between fact and fiction (like turning water into wine, walking on the waters and resurrecting the dead).

Or worse, lending credit to bullshit like “immanent design evident in nature is real.”

(Via Skeptico)

A lot has been said and written in the last days about the reasons pro and con the referendums that are being held right now in Italy. Unfortunately, voter turnout seems to be a record low, so it’s improbable that we will reach the necessary 50% plus one quorum.

That is, unless everybody who cares about the issue gets their asses up and go vote. Or would you prefer that choices about your freedom and your health be taken by a congregation of males who obey no one else but a foreigner head of a foreign state?

Come on, let’s stick it to the pope!

The Eight Skeptics’ Circle is on display at Pharyingula’s and this time they were so kind as to link to a post of mine. While you’re there, don’t forget to check all the goodies about quackery, creationism, religion, and pseudoscience.

The Eighth Skeptics’ Circle: Must be Malebolge!: “This is the Skeptics’ Circle, the place where we praise science and reason, and smirk and mock the gullible and credulous. This is also the eighth edition, and for something that is so new, we sure are getting a lot of submissions: the rational side must be strong in the blogosphere. Just for your reference, the Eighth Circle of Hell is also the place to find Panderers, Seducers, Flatterers, Simoniacs, Astrologers, Barrators, Hypocrites, Thieves, Sowers of Scandal and Schism, and Falsifiers. Here among the skeptics you’ll find the demons who torment them.”

Once more, I have to fully agree with Doc. I did it before and I do it again now.

IQ is a head trip. There’s something misleading, even delusional, about it.

No doubt those who score well are smart. But average or low IQ scores are often meaningless, except to the degree that they fortify our belief that intelligence is a fixed value, like height or weight, and as easy to measure. The whole culture we’ve built around IQ tests serves to legitimize a creepy form of elitism. Worse, it substantiates our need to treat individuals always as members of populations. As typicalities. Nowhere is this more apparent, and obsolete, than in corporate org charts. Yes, hierachies are useful. But so are human beings that like working, and advancing, in companies that value their unique gifts.

Here’s a very interesting interview with Richard Dawkins on the subjects of evolution and religion:

Still, so many people resist believing in evolution. Where does the resistance come from?

It comes, I’m sorry to say, from religion. And from bad religion. You won’t find any opposition to the idea of evolution among sophisticated, educated theologians. It comes from an exceedingly retarded, primitive version of religion, which unfortunately is at present undergoing an epidemic in the United States. Not in Europe, not in Britain, but in the United States.

Let’s just hope the new Pope isn’t helping to spread the epidemic to Europe.

(Via Pharyngula .)