http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box

I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change 
to read it... don't bother. Seriously.

While reading this book, I was actually astonished that somebody could 
seriously present such obvious nonesense as "fact". I was simply amazed 
that anybody would agree to print such lies. Furthermore, the author is 
apparently paid to work as a "scientist", yet he seems to not comprehend 
the simple definition of what "science" actually is.

Seriously... I wasted a week of my life! >_<

(Although some of the stuff was interesting... Inbetween the 
thinly-disguised religious rantings, there was some interesting science. 
Like the cascade of chemical reactions that turn a photon impact into an 
electric potential.)

Post a reply to this message

Personally, I wouldn't have been able to get past the name of the author and 
what I already know about him.

-- 

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box
> 
> I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change 
> to read it... don't bother. Seriously.

Why subject yourself to such horror?

-- 
~Mike

Post a reply to this message

Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change
> to read it... don't bother. Seriously.

Too late for me, but to help recoup your losses, there's some information on the
subject that is worth reading/watching.  In 2005, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area
School District trial in Pennsylvania ruled on whether a statement providing ID
as an alternative to evolution should be read in science classes.  For whatever
it's worth (and the value is debatable), they determined that, legally
speaking, ID is not science.  There's even a great NOVA special, complete with
reenactments!  It's actually quite remarkable how they uncovered the motives
behind textbook editing and donations.  Behe was a witness at the trial, and,
well, the judge says it best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/2:Context#Page_28_of_139
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_79_of_139

I'll go with my judgement and avoid saying anything too pungent on the issue,
but I think it's safe to say that now, thirteen years after he wrote the book,
the ID movement seems to have been exposed as a thinly disguised rehashing of
creationism.  I'll let you draw your own conclusions regarding the Discovery
Institute's leaked "Wedge Document."

http://ncseweb.org/creationism/general/wedge-document

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

From the wiki article: Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are 
no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design 
supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed 
rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system 
occurred"

That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental 
or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point 
out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to 
dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific 
community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The only 
logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.


"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message 
news:49870bfd$1@news.povray.org...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin%27s_Black_Box
>
> I wasted about a week reading this book. If any of you have the change to 
> read it... don't bother. Seriously.
>
> While reading this book, I was actually astonished that somebody could 
> seriously present such obvious nonesense as "fact". I was simply amazed 
> that anybody would agree to print such lies. Furthermore, the author is 
> apparently paid to work as a "scientist", yet he seems to not comprehend 
> the simple definition of what "science" actually is.
>
> Seriously... I wasted a week of my life! >_<
>
> (Although some of the stuff was interesting... Inbetween the 
> thinly-disguised religious rantings, there was some interesting science. 
> Like the cascade of chemical reactions that turn a photon impact into an 
> electric potential.)

Post a reply to this message

Mike Hough wrote:
> From the wiki article: Behe eventually testified under oath that "There are 
> no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design 
> supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed 
> rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system 
> occurred"
> 
> That says it all, really. While scientists must provide sound experimental 
> or empirical evidence to support a hypothesis, ID proponents merely point 
> out the things that scientist do not know for certain and use that to 
> dismiss everything else. Something you often hear in the scientific 
> community is "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The only 
> logical conclusion one can make is that ID is not a science.

Reading the judge's summing up made for interesting reading... It's 
heartening to hear that somebody is still sane. So often in this world 
court rulings seem to produce absurd results.

The response was equally insane: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an 
activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even 
to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed 
censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated 

he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the 
scientists who research it."

What. The. Hell.

Seriously, how can people actually be allowed to utter such outragous 
lies?! o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> The response was equally insane: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an
> activist federal judge

Make that conservative activist judge, appointed by George W. Bush.  His
decision was a knife in the back of the evangelical Christians who got him
there, was it?  He's an activist judge because he DIDN'T rule based on his
preconceptions and a political agenda?  A ruling based on precedent, evidence,
and testimony?  Sounds like a horrible guy.  I need a walk.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

"triple_r" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> For whatever
> it's worth (and the value is debatable), they determined that, legally
> speaking, ID is not science.

Forgive me for talking to myself, but before I start problems I should emphasize
that I really don't mind whether you fall into one camp or the other.  What I
despise is the dishonesty--the disingenuous claims by groups like the Discovery
Institute that they're trying to uncover objective truth without any religious
motives.

 - Ricky

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:

> Forgive me for talking to myself, but before I start problems I should emphasize
> that I really don't mind whether you fall into one camp or the other.  What I
> despise is the dishonesty--the disingenuous claims by groups like the Discovery
> Institute that they're trying to uncover objective truth without any religious
> motives.

Sure. If people want to believe that God created the universe, they're 
entitled. Heck, maybe they're *right*. But either way,

1. The question is not science.

2. Don't force other people to believe something just because you want 
them to.

3. Stop lying and trying to cheat the system to get your own way.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Mike Raiford wrote:

> Why subject yourself to such horror?

My mum was in a bookshop, saw a book about science and thought I might 
be interested. I was... for the first few chapters.

By the time it got to the part about "maybe at some point in the future 
we will have the technology to design our own genome and travel back in 
time to seed the Earth with it", I was in a state of utter disbelief. 
*How* can somebody who claims to be a scientist seriously propose such 
nonesense?!

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message