Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Fixing the article... (Score 2, Interesting) 3315

by noblesse oblige (#12409591) Attached to: The Pseudoscience of Intelligent Design

The only change between the slashdot intro and the K5 intro is the sentance, "An article over at Kuro5hin discusses the controvery over the Intelligent Design movement." While not a gross error, unless Mime Narrator and benna are the same people, it should have been in quotes. Such inflamatory writing and unattributed quoting indicates incestuous propegation of problematic ideas.

The quote, "a theory that has been shown to explain the origins of life time and time again" is an interjection of commentary in the reporter's passive third person voice and is not accurate. Surely it is a queue to illicit the contemtuous responses such as such as (Score 5: Insightful):

Honestly, just what is the deal with these fundamentalists?
If the author was wishing to be non-inflammatory, or better yet honest, they would have said, "a theory that has been accepted as an explaination of the origins of life time and time again." Many explanations are accepted in science that are unable to produce repeatable results (even one-off results) because as a framework they explain a lot of what we do see. The unverifiability is overlooked and clearly acknowledged to students. There is no shame in promoting a theory we still lack the ability to ultimately verify. For instance many aspects of Einstein's theory of relativity remain unverified.

However, one may see in this dishonest attempt to reach beyond being "accepted" to being "shown" a peek at the motivation for the piece. It is also pretty indicative of the same mental gymnastics he attemps throughout the piece.

Another example is the ommision of a mechanism for origin of life in the the next paragraph in the K5 article:

To understand the problems with Intelligent Design, first it is important to understand the theory it is attempting to oppose, evolution by natural selection. The theory is this: If organisms reproduce, offspring inherit traits from their progenitor(s), a variability of traits exists, and the environment cannot sustain all the members of an increasingly large population, then those members of the population that have poorly-adapted traits (to their environment) will die out, and those with well-adapted traits (to their environment) will prosper (Darwin 459). Over a long period of time, this process leads to extreme complexity, and adaptedness.

One would think this is a crucial item to develop after reading the inherent outrage against the situation "that high school science teachers teaching evolution tell their students that evolutionary theory [sic] is flawed, and that intelligent design is a valid alternative." Where "flawed" simply means it has many unverified elements as does Intelligent Design.

Indeed, if all the author thinks of evolution is the ability for orgamisms/species to change traits over generations then there is no conflict. There is also no mechanism proposed to explain the origin of life with evolution either.

So while outraged at the mear co-habitation of ID and evolution, the contradiction offered is abandoned so quickly? All that is left is just competition. The author chooses not to compete over verified applications of the two theories. Evidence is also skipped. The author instead chooses to make evolution and ID compete in clearly unverifiable ways. The author awkwardly chooses "complexity" as his chosen arena, and chooses mathematical theory as his weaponry.

The rest of the article invokes its own pseudo-science in the use of highly specific mathematical models of statistcal theory as models of natural behaviour and law. At issue is "complexity" and he makes the mistake of using the complexity of a mathematical system to represent the complexity of a natural system, and they are not the same thing at all.

Further damning the piece as a pseudo-intellectual work is his overly constrained focus on "complexity" itself as the only issue being discussed between the two intellectual camps. In short, it is a fallacy of division. Honestly the way he coaxes this very tight straight jacket onto the readers is rushed and sporadic, much like the sophism of the street-cons and grifters.

The reader will note that I am plainly an appologetic. The keen observer will note I am an appologetic for evolution and have not once tried to promote intelligent design. My objection lying clearly in the politically motivated over-reaching of that article -- in the name of science. And I fear how appologetics such as my own and the school in question are marked by the author as herasy at the altar of science. Not for scientific or reasonalbe reasons, but for fear of a christian boogey-man lingering in the corners of the discussion.

Do you suffer painful illumination? -- Isaac Newton, "Optics"

Working...