1. Comment #11705 by Sri on December 6, 2006 at 5:05 pm

This is really a disgrace. Bringing faith through back doors into the education system speaks volumes of the ugly methods of these theists. No wonder we need to be confrontational in nature when debating against religion and its unscientific offshoots.

Other Comments by Sri

2. Comment #11724 by myxoma on December 6, 2006 at 10:49 pm

Truly frightening. Makes me wonder what similar groups are up to here in the U.S.

(other than Jesus Camp. -shudder-)



Other Comments by myxoma

3. Comment #11725 by Munger on December 6, 2006 at 10:56 pm

Notice how often the Intelligent Designer invokes the words "science" and "evidence". I'm glad that the other guy calls him on it though. And really, the question of "Who is this designer?" is the proof that Intelligent Design is not a theory, but poorly disguised Christianity.

After all, if a teacher started using the Intelligent Design packets to suggest that it's possible that Zeus and the gods of Olympus created the earth, or that aliens seeded our planet with DNA, how many Intelligent Design advocates would still be on board?

Intelligent Design only works because people have such a limited understanding of what the word "theory" means and how scientific research works. Dawkins is right when he says we can no longer allow ignorance and misunderstood definitions to dominate these debates.

Other Comments by Munger

4. Comment #11733 by macronencer on December 7, 2006 at 12:42 am

Unfortunately, many people will hear the exchange regarding Walpert's association with Humanism as an accusation of bias, and therefore be persuaded to consider the debate to be a true controversy.

The interview was well handled, but I think that the addition of someone directly affected by this (a science teacher, for example) might have lent a more common-sense element to the discussion.

Other Comments by macronencer

5. Comment #11737 by Urbi Cica on December 7, 2006 at 1:30 am

The crucial issue, surely, is that there is no one in the world studying "Intelligent Design." There are no journals dedicated to the subject and in ten years, only one paper (which was a review paper, not an original contribution) has seen light of day. If the intelligent designers had produced a corpus of peer reviewed work, then it could be a different argument. Until they do, I can't see what a science teacher is supposed to teach!

Other Comments by Urbi Cica

6. Comment #11738 by JoeK on December 7, 2006 at 1:46 am

There are two arguments here, both of which Paxman tried to help Prof Walpert bring up and both of which went sailing merrily over his head (another proof that brilliance in academic study and good communication abilities do not imply eachother).

1) There is a difference between a theory and a Scientific Theory.

2) What is discussed in the scientific literature and what is taught in the schoolroom are not the same.

So you can admit that ID is a theory and should be discussed (which is true if we still want to have freedom of speech etc.) but demand quite fairly that until it is a Scientific Theory it is kept out of the classroom.

Other Comments by JoeK

7. Comment #11739 by Duncan1349 on December 7, 2006 at 2:08 am

Developing the point Munger made, it was interesting that at no point did Andy Macintosh say 'Intelligent Designer/Designers', again if irreducible complexity is found, there is no reason to immediately jump to belief in a god (You can bet that most ID followers would jump to belief in the Christian God), belief that a superior 'alien' race designed and put us here is the first thing one should look to, even then this does not mean that the superior race could have not evolved themselves. Dawkins himself has said something similar, albeit much better put across, thought id mention it anyway.

Other Comments by Duncan1349

8. Comment #11740 by Creeping Jesus on December 7, 2006 at 2:12 am

We went to our kid's school parents' night last week and brought this up with the head teacher.

"Over my dead body!" was the reply.

Teachers aren't as daft as these idiots think they are.

Other Comments by Creeping Jesus

9. Comment #11752 by Apemanblues on December 7, 2006 at 4:26 am

These ID people make me sick.

I have no time for that kind of intellectual dishonesty. I think scientific spokespersons should stop shuffling around politely and just come straight out and accuse these people of blatantly lying.

If they don't then these people will succeed in recruiting a small percentage of morons to their cause and muddy the waters of science with their filthy religious views, just like they have in the minds of many Americans.

Other Comments by Apemanblues

10. Comment #11753 by aoratos philos on December 7, 2006 at 5:06 am

This has already been posted at youtube 5 days ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_znfn0GJe0

It has comments and everything :p

Other Comments by aoratos philos

11. Comment #11755 by DavidMcC on December 7, 2006 at 5:21 am

Don't forget, Urbi Cica, that Jerry Falwell's Liberty University is trying to get accreditation to offer "science" degrees.





Other Comments by DavidMcC

12. Comment #11756 by One Eyed Jack on December 7, 2006 at 5:21 am

Creeping Jesus,

"Teachers aren't as daft as these idiots think they are."

Most are not, but sadly some are. It only takes a few to plant the seeds and that is exactly what the ID advocates want.

OEJ

Other Comments by One Eyed Jack

13. Comment #11757 by evad on December 7, 2006 at 5:23 am

Not a great defense from Professor Walpert, he seemed rather too shocked to mount a coherent rebuttal. Meanwhile, Professor McIntosh had clearly rehearsed his position, speaking in an apparently reasonable and balanced way.

It is critical that representatives of the scientific community should be well read in the arguments and language of the ID folk, and be able to counter them in a clear and easily digestible way.

Part of the problem is language, just look at how the term 'theory' is misused. I know JoeK made reference to this, but to me the key thing is that non-scientific people do not understand that every scientific truth (backed by empirical evidence and reason) is called a theory. A theory is a supposition or system of ideas intended to explain something, by definition it leaves room for doubt. Doubt that is critical to the scientific process, but which in everyday use suggests genuine uncertainty.

When explaining the theory of evolution it is critical that people understand the scientific use of the term theory. We should perhaps liken the theory of evolution to that of gravity (thus stopping people drifting off into space and the planets arbitrarily bumping into each other), or that of electromagnetism (thereby enabling every-day electronic devices and the TV that people are watching).

There are mountains of evidence supporting evolution by natural selection, corroborated from multiple disciplines, that leave this 'theory' in no-doubt today. All of the fossil, geographic, geologic, zoologic and DNA evidence point at the same conclusion, without a single exception. There is no evidence for ID, and people adopting this position should never be allowed to be perceived as reasonable.

-- dave

Other Comments by evad

14. Comment #11761 by Ole on December 7, 2006 at 6:12 am

These "ID theories" are also popping up over here in Norway. The other day in a local newspaper - the first time I've seen it there. It was a "New Age Christian" who had read a book by Richard Milton. He was attacking both Dawkins and Dennett in this article - calling Dennett a disciple of Dawkins, etc.

I sent a reply to the newspaper. Hopefully it will be printed tomorrow. As some pointed out here, I tried to show what a scientific theory is, by giving a few examples (Empirically testable and falsifiable, etc.) - and that ID is not a theory of that kind.

I ended the article by citing this:

intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent.

(from the Nobel Laureates letter to Kansas State Board of Education, September 9, 2005)

O.J.

Other Comments by Ole

15. Comment #11766 by One Eyed Jack on December 7, 2006 at 7:07 am

"It was a 'New Age Christian' who had read a book by Richard Milton."

Obviously well read. If the author has tackled Richard Milton's treatise on Darwin, then he's probably ready to move on to other great thinkers like Sylvia Brown.

OEJ

Other Comments by One Eyed Jack

16. Comment #11777 by Thrall on December 7, 2006 at 9:05 am

I love the outrage of the scientist when the mediator suggests that Darwin is a simple "theory". That's exactly how I feel every day when arguing about proof of god and intelligent design. "Show me proof!"

I hate to say this, but my wife and I think that religous people have blinders on, and cannot comprehend the information given to them about evolution, either due to their religous upbringing or pure daftness.

Other Comments by Thrall

17. Comment #11779 by saneatheist on December 7, 2006 at 9:07 am

I hope the schools use these information packs, I'm sure our kds are inteligent enough to conclude that the bible stories, are just that, stories! The more ridiculess the theists claims are, the better.



Other Comments by saneatheist

18. Comment #11791 by Graham9 on December 7, 2006 at 11:25 am

A terrible slanging match. Wolpert had a huge chance to make mincemeat of the ID man and he messed it up. Also, he seems not to know what a scientific theory is.

Other Comments by Graham9

19. Comment #11830 by Roy_H on December 7, 2006 at 1:36 pm

"Intelligent Design" is a theory that was designed by unintelligent people.

Other Comments by Roy_H

20. Comment #11884 by eno on December 8, 2006 at 2:55 am

We have to take a stand on this. It is vital that we protect children from these biased lies, mischief and abuse. If I discover a local school of mine is teaching this I'll be contacting the school governors and possibly the press. This is outrageous.

Other Comments by eno

21. Comment #12469 by Deoradh on December 12, 2006 at 4:38 am

Where in the Bible does God tell Adam/Moses/Jesus, or anyone else, about Intelligent Design? Sorry Theists but if it's not in the Bible you don't get to believe in it.

Other Comments by Deoradh