|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 916,385 Year: 3,642/9,624 Month: 513/974 Week: 126/276 Day: 23/31 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Discovery Institute loses one | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I'm a little confused here and I may be wrong, but something doesn't smell right. The article implies that Davidson was a member of DI and then realized it was not the type of organization he wanted to be involved with.
From the article:
quote: As far as I can tell, membership will get you a few free CD's and that's about it. The fees are mainly for supporting it as a non-profit organization. All of the published articles are freely available on line. I went to their site and searched their database using keywords "Intelligent Design" and 102 articles came up. There seems to be an abundance of free information available with which to form an opinion as to what sort of organization DI is as it relates to ID. In the article, Davidson goes on to say:
quote: Then why did he join? The various mission statements on the site are quite clear to what the focus of the organization is. I didn't need to join the organization to view any of the 102 articles on ID. Davidson surly could have determined the nature of the organization by reviewing these articles and mission statements. As a scientist, doctor, and 28 years as a nephrology professor at the University of Washington medical school, I don't think Davidson "suddenly" formed his opinion about evolution. He must have held long standing views on the matter. If it is patently obvious to posters here at EvC that DI is nothing more than a propoganda organization, how could such a highly educated scientist been duped regarding the "real" agenda of the DI? Its seems to me that at best, he might have been curious about ID and its proponents, (DI). But if that is the case, then he could have gotten all the info necessary to determine what type of organization they are without becoming a member and thereby save himself some embarrassment. At worst, he joined with the expressed intention of smearing the organization. This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:45 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Nothing of the sort. I just find it...suspicious. Don't you?
This message has been edited by Monk, Fri, 08-26-2005 03:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
If they scoured their membership list for scientists and then used their names without permission to further their cause, that's wrong. But I get the impression Davidson was interested in more than a few CD's when he joined.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Yes, but he is no illiterate dummy. He could have taken 10 minutes, skim some of their articles as I did, find out who they are, then save himself some embarassment. Instead he joined. Perhaps he joined without thinking about it just to get a few CD's as Arach has suggested. Or perhaps he joined an organization he knew nothing about with the intention of learning about it latter. I don't buy it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
You are assuming that the articles on the site now were also on the site then. Given that this was several years ago, and that the website has evolved over that time extensively, I think this is too simplistic. But we don't know from the article in the OP when Davidson joined. How do you know it is a given that Davidson joined several years ago? The changing banners are interesting, but how does that tie into Davidson? You posted a statement signed that does not endorse ID. Is that what Davidson signed? My impression is that he didn't sign anything, just that his name appeared on a list as one of 400 scientist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Because the list is several years old. Well that's what I'm asking. How do you know? Link?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Damn, too slow. I found the list also that had Davidson on it. And no, I generally don't take anyones word for it without some evidence, that's the creo method isn't it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
wanna make a project of this? Sounds interesting, might even get some media attention with the results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
That assumes that he took a skeptical line and investigated the DI rather than believing whatever representations they made to him. And he would likely be predisposed to believe people presenting themselves as Christians and scientists. I'm not sure what "representations" were or were not made. As I posted, with the information currently available on the web site, one can easily form an opinion about the org. If you add to that someone with the credentials Davidson has, then he should have had a good idea about what he was getting into beforehand and should not have become "surprised". Most people are more critical of an organization if they send membership dues. Sure, there are legions of willfully blind donors who support the likes of Benny Hinn. They send in money month after month without question. But I wouldn't put Davidson in that category. Still, there could be scenarios where Davidson joined in good faith only to discover later that his perception of DI was not correct. For example:
These questions are why I think our little project would be interesting. This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:49 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
This is part of the problem that I have with the endorsed statement: it is intentionally couched in reasonable terms that most scientists would agree to, while the USE of the list is hardly on the same terms. Of course people are "skeptical" of the ability to explain "all" mechanisms. But being skeptical is a long way from endorsing pseudoscience in the place of working science. Agreed, when the list is used as an endorsement of ID as science, that's wrong. But the first half of the statement:
quote: Begs the question. What to do about this skepticism? It seems to me that ID may be an avenue to explore that skepticism. This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:50 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
But why do you think that? The main people behind ID haven't actually done anything resembling science with the concept in years. It appears they realised it was a busted flush years ago and that when they switched over to the current tactic of "teaching the controversy". But the concept of ID seems to have finished as a scientific effort a while back. Well, I prefer to keep the door open on the possibility that a brilliant mind may come along to upturn the whole subject and put something forward that scientists can get their teeth into. It's happened before. Consider the long history of changing scientific viewpoints as a result of new discoveries. If our "Truth in ID" project shows that the 400 list is accurate and these scientist do hold skepticism regarding the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Then ID is the avenue to explore it. Frankly, I'm very interested in their comments. The "teach the controversy" tactic was ill conceived and is beginning to do more harm to the cause than good. I suspect it probably does not represent an acceptable approach by the majority of scientific members. Again, our project may shed insights on this if it is included as a question in the e-mail. This message has been edited by Monk, Sat, 09-17-2005 11:52 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Hi Brad
I have never had a response to my question aired here @eVC as to a possible probabilistic origin to the "movement". Yes, and I doubt that "origin" was solely religious. You know how science abhors leaving questions unanswered. Its an itch that one must attempt to scratch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
Does it? Or does it suggest that there could be other natural mechanisms possible and that they shouldn't be discounted out of hand just because we already have mutation and natural selection? Sure, that suggestion is valid. ID as possible is not exclusive.
Again, they did not specifically ask for an endorsement of ID in the statement (yet it is still presented as one) all they did was couch skepticism in seductive phraseology. Do you find the phrasing seductive? I don't. It seems straight forward to me. I don't see any "phunny business" in the statement by itself. Its use, on the other hand, is a different story.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Monk Member (Idle past 3944 days) Posts: 782 From: Kansas, USA Joined: |
I said:
quote: To which you responded:
Why? What give ID any better credibility than uncle bob's crank ideas? Let me rephrase that: what gives ID a single element of credibility compared to uncle bob's crank ideas? If evolution shows why people can't fly, and we cannot explain {theoretical event A} by the current theories of evolution, then we can fly??? Well that's what I want to find out with the project. If the majority of these scientist answered the statement with an eye towards other naturally occuring phenomenon specifically exclusive of ID, then DI misled them by not stating its subsequent use to promote ID. If OTOH, they answered as part of a general discussion of ID, then that gives more credence towards further examination of ID as opposed to uncle bob or IPU's or whatever. When I say credence I'm not saying ID is valid or scientific, just that a portion of the scientific community is intrigued by it and may be willing to see it examined further rather than dismissed out of hand.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024