The Dishonesty Institute

Michael Egnor over at the Discovery Institute’s blog (I’m loathe to link that by the way, I’d hate to think I’m sending traffic their way, but there you go) claims that atheism as a collected organisation have used the First Amendment to promote the cult of Darwinism by litigating against any attempts towards teaching the “Strengths and weaknesses” of Evolutionary theory.

What he fails to also mention is that no litigation has ever taken place against anyone trying to teach the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory, but cases (Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School Board, et al)  have been brought against public schools that were attempting to require Intelligent Design alongside evolution as an alternative explanation for the origin of life.

The “Controversy” that these people manufactured isn’t really a controversy at all, it’s a move solely designed to put religious creationism squarely in the classroom, and while they claim at times that Intelligent Design isn’t religious, it doesn’t say who the “Designer” is, that anyone from any faith can believe in it, the leaking of the wedge document, a political and social action plan from the Discovery Institute, clearly states their goals.

Alongside a focus on the influential opinion-makers, we also seek to build up a popular base of support among our natural constituency, namely, Christians. We will do this primarily through apologetics seminars. We intend these to encourage and equip believers with new scientific evidences that support the faith, as well as “popularize” our ideas in the broader culture.

Thankfully reason won in the Dover case, and Judge E Jones III (It certainly can’t be claimed he’s some left-wing activist judge, he was appointed by GWB) said “the writings of the proponents of ID reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity” and that “the evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism”.

Egnor goes on to claim that Atheists have claimed evolution is a fact on par with gravity and heliocentrism, but that Discovery only wants to teach its weaknesses. Well it is on par with gravity and heliocentrism, given that any one of those could be overturned tomorrow with some as yet unheard of theory that undoes everything we know so far. It’s on par with gravitational theory in that evolutionary theory is the best explanation for the observed phenomena of the diversity of species and what we know of the observed change in inherited traits in a population over time, and the distortion of space-time in proximity to mass is one of the best explanations for the observed phenomena of gravity.

Every time I hear a creationist claim that evolution is just a theory, I wish they’d believe me when I told them gravity is too, and I would love them to jump off a building to test it out.

Advertisements

One Response to The Dishonesty Institute

  1. Michelle says:

    It’s not atheists that say that Evolution is a fact, it’s science that says that and it doesn’t matter one iota what your personal beliefs are. Everything Egnor(ant) writes smacks of the age-old argument that atheism is just another religion, with just a touch of the old whine Evolution is just another theory. Obviously can’t handle really thinking so he has to construct massive straw men.

    He has to, because to do otherwise would mean he’d have to admit they tried to introduce religious propaganda into the classroom. Pointing to alleged gaps in something or making it sound sciency doesn’t mean you’ve actually got anything worthwhile. To do that, you’d actually have to do some work and come up with a better explanation that fits what is observed.

    He completely forgets that this cuts both ways and the first amendment protects his rights just as it does the people he complains about. He’d do well to remember that before complaining about others exercising their rights to free speech and to allow schools to carry on with their task of educating students.

    My goodness, all of those writers are thick. “Yet More “Junk DNA” Not-so-Junk After All”…yeah, sherlock that’s right. All “junk DNA” means is that it doesn’t code for protein, not that it doesn’t do anything. Not exactly a “gotcha”.

    As an aside, the nofollow html code might help with some links where you don’t want linking to influence the ranking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow has more information. Failing that, linking to pages critical of the writer, or giving the information and telling everyone to use google are all options to avoid putting up their hit rate.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: