G'day, fellow RationalWikians! Don't forget to visit the Campaign page of the 2016 Board of trustees election in order to make your voice heard. Suggested activities include:

  • Endorsing select candidates (lending a hand to your loyal henchmen and/or glorious overlords!)
  • Anti-endorsing select candidates (character-assassinating your hated opponents!)
  • Providing moar goat (please wipe afterwards)
  • Just asking questions to the candidates

Your participation might help other users better direct their votes. More importantly, it'll show the world that we've yet to go full Citizendium in terms of election hype!

from FuzzyCatPotato (Talk), group Site wide (urgent) at 00:24, 25 July 2016

Essay:The flip side of William Dembski's "immodest proposal"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by Sterile.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

William Dembski, a leading IDer has latched on to the "strengths and weaknesses" [1][2] and "teach the controversy" movements and cleverly come up with an "immodest proposal" to "teach the non-controversy."[3] He even repeated the challenge when some fringe media outlet repeated his challenge.[4] It's so "obvious" to him that ID is true that he challenges evolution and biology classes to give "impossible" essay topics as to following:[3][4]

  • Students can explain in detail how evolutionary theory explains the Cambrian Explosion.
  • Students can describe the changes in genes and embryological development by which complex biological structures such as the human eye evolved.
  • Students can delineate the lines of evidence by which evolutionary theory has decisively refuted intelligent design.
  • Explain how evolutionary theory solves the problem that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA.

Sure, let's take that challenge. While we're at it, let's do the same for intelligent design:

  • An ID expert can explain in detail how ID explains the Cambrian Explosion. Why did the designer create (or whatever word you'd like, sir) more species during this period, and how did he/she/it do it?
  • An ID expert can describe the mechanism by which the designer developed complex biological structures such as the human eye.
  • An ID expert can delineate the lines of evidence by which intelligent design can explain any biological, cosmological, paleontological or astronomical phenomenon, without any comparison to evolution.
  • Explain how ID solves the problem that DNA cannot exist without protein and protein cannot exist without DNA. How did the designer do it?

Let's see who gets farther.

[edit] References

  3. 3.0 3.1
  4. 4.0 4.1
Personal tools