UK based ID pressure group

[Mojo]

There's a thread on the JREF forum about an organisation called "Truth in Science" which is sending materials about ID to "all Secondary School and College Heads of Science in the United Kingdom" They also launched a website last week, which can be found here.

Welcome to Truth in Science, a new organisation to promote good science education in the UK. Our initial focus will be on the origin of life and its diversity.

I wonder how long it'll be before they get around to physics or chemistry.

[Essex]

Does the spread of ID prove that creationism is evolving?

[Zendal Darkman]

The faq on the site quotes the infamous "600 scientists doubt evolution". Yeah, there are christian scientists who do doubt evolution, not because the science is "dodgy", but because.....they are christians. It’s a circular argument. The list of 600 scientist (with Phds!!!!) includes statisticians, mathematicians, electrical engineers etc, to be fair geneticists are on there). (by the way one of the signatories is Andy McIntosh, a member of the board of "truth in science", he is a Professor of Thermodynamics and Combustion Theory)

Of cource the reason why Andy McIntosh is so keen to teach ID is seen in here
http://www.amen.org.uk/actconf/minevang.htm point 6(d).


Not exactly relevant but this made me laugh
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._2_16_2003.asp

[Zendal Darkman]

Is Intelligent Design based on the Bible?
No. Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and palaeontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

of course they articulated it, "god did it" was the only mechanism they could use to describe the world around them. Only in 1859 did an alternative theory become available.

What are they referring to in the last sentence? I might e-mail them.

[vbloke]

There's nothing I'm aware of in cosmology that could promote ID or design.

I wish these people would cite their sources*.


* I forgot, they don't seem to have any except themselves or the bible

[Mongrel]

Is Intelligent Design based on the Bible?
No. Plato, Aristotle and Cicero articulated early versions of design theory, as did virtually all of the founders of modern science. Indeed, most scientists until the latter part of the nineteenth century accepted some form of intelligent design. The scientific community largely rejected design in the early twentieth century after neo-Darwinism claimed to be able to explain the emergence of biological complexity through the unintelligent process of natural selection acting on random mutations. During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and palaeontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

of course they articulated it, "god did it" was the only mechanism they could use to describe the world around them. Only in 1859 did an alternative theory become available.

What are they referring to in the last sentence? I might e-mail them.

If you mean the 'Specified Complexity' then Talk Origins has a few entries for it here.

From what I can make out it's yet another, disguised, Argument from incredulability (sp) with some nonsense maths (Good Math, Bad Math) and hand waving thrown in for good measure

[Mojo]

...snip...

During the past decade, however, new research and discoveries in such fields as physics, cosmology, biochemistry, genetics, and palaeontology have caused a growing number of scientists and science theorists to question neo-Darwinism and propose design as the best explanation for the existence of specified complexity in the natural world.

What are they referring to in the last sentence?

A load of "Creation Science" textbooks with the words "creation" and "God" crossed out and replaced by "intelligent design" and "an unknown designer", perhaps?

Or maybe they just mean the stuff Dembski and Behe have been coming up with.

[Zendal Darkman]

Does the spread of ID prove that creationism is evolving?

I think it does. It will be interesting to see how UK ID differs from the US version. At the moment they look pretty much the same to me! In fact I am sure I have seen the exact same literature on a US site a while back.

[Admin]

As Dawkins points out, accepting that there's an intelligent designer inevitably invites the question, "who designed the designer?"

If a designer can simply just exist why not the universe? Adding in an extra level of complexity just means that we explain less and understand less.

"God works in mysterious ways" is an easy, simplistic intellectual cop-out: it explains precisely nothing.

[boffin]

I've just been on the web-site truthinscience.org.uk.

This is very worrying.

The shitty and deluded ID movement is truly attempting to force its primitive ideas on school children - this could be religious indoctrination on an unprecedented scale.

Creationism dressed up in a lab-coat!

[vbloke]

ID for Dummies

©2006 vbloke publishing

1: Life, the universe and everything is too complex to have "evolved" through random mutations, not because we can't understand the mechanisms behind it or we don't want to admit that Darwinian "evilution" pretty much precludes the need for a god.

2: Therefore, there must have been a designer who created life pretty much as we know it. I mean, look at some of the cool stuff out there - it must have been designed. Flagellum, or eyes for example. How can eyes have "evolved"? I mean, come on.

3: This designer is not a specific god; in fact, it might not have even been a god, it might have been a race of super-intelligent aliens. We prefer the idea it was a god though - especially if it was our god.

4: ID is science because we say so - we're doing experiments on it, honest.

5: ID is not creationism, creationism says it was god (again, we prefer the notion it was our god) that did it all, whereas ID says it could have been anyone (see point 3)

6: There are loads of scientists who disagree with Darwinian "evilution" - we have a list of them. Please try and disregard the fact that they're all fervent Christians and very few of them have PhDs related to Biology, although we've snipped the media studies guys.

7: Our main textbook "Of Pandas and People" may have mentioned "creationism" once, but we rewrote it to replace "creationism" with "ID", as we felt people might not take us seriously if we left "creationism" in.

8: Although we don't explicitly state "god", we do try and imply it as much as possible. It also helps that we're a Christian pressure group.

9: Because ID is real science, the Darwinian "evilutionists" have to resort to using the courts to supress us as they feel threatened by us, or something.

10: God did it. It could have been aliens. Honest.

[Mongrel]

ID for Dummies

©2006 vbloke publishing
6: There are loads of scientists who disagree with Darwinian "evilution" - we have a list of them. Please try and disregard the fact that they're all fervent Christians and very few of them have PhDs related to Biology, although we've snipped the media studies guys.

Fixed that for you :)

[vbloke]

Fixed. Ta.

[Mongrel]

On a slightly more serious note though, I will say that the huge majority of people who profess belief in God(s) have no problem with Evolution. Once again it's the disproportionally loud minority (in the States) who are pushing this and I wouldn't be surprised if they're behind the UK attempt as well

[huw-l]

I went and had a look at truthinscience.org.uk when it cropped up on BBC news (the report was the usual "fair and balanced" he said she said). I was horrified to note that a lecturer in biology at Cardiff University is listed as being on their science panel.

I'm horrified for two reasons: I'm a graduate of the School of Biological Sciences at Cardiff and currently a staff member of Cardiff University.

So I sent the lecturer a polite email to ask if he is really affiliated with them and if he accepts their position that ID is a valid scientific hypothesis.