Project Steve (Intelligent design)

[SoCalDem]

Another accidental "find".. Very clever :)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/steve/


Project Steve
Humorous Testing of the Scientific Attitudes Toward "Intelligent Design"
Via Scientists Named "Steve"


ince the early Twentieth Century, evolution deniers have been fond of creating lists of "scientists" who do not accept evolution. This tactic is an attempt to give the erroneous impression that, among scientists in general, support for evolution is in decline or that evolution is a "theory in crisis."

Project Steve is a parody of these lists conducted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). It is a listing of scientists with doctorates who support the following statement:
..................................................................
Evolution is a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences, and the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. Although there are legitimate debates about the patterns and processes of evolution, there is no serious scientific doubt that evolution occurred or that natural selection is a major mechanism in its occurrence. It is scientifically inappropriate and pedagogically irresponsible for creationist pseudoscience, including but not limited to "intelligent design," to be introduced into the science curricula of our nation's public schools.

..................................................

snip..


dited to add this cute cartoon I found

?click

[Paperspirit]

1. I had to use my first post

here at DU to reply with a huge AMEN to this.

Creationism CANNOT be allowed to stand as science instead of the superstitious dribble it is.

~e.

[C_U_L8R]

3. Welcome to DU Paperspirit !

Amen indeed.

[newyawker99]

16. Hi Paperspirit!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[zeemike]

2. There is a fatal flaw in the theory of both

And as far as the intelligent design theory you can probably see it but not in the the theory of evolution, But it is contained in this statement:
"the scientific evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of the idea that all living things share a common ancestry. "
All living things sharing a common ancestry is not even logical to me sense the earth has been bombarded for many million years by cosmic debris which may have brought many life forms into existence independently. That could explain why there is no missing link or transitional creatures being found.
And there are other possibilities of how life came to earth that are more fantastic to the mind of the scientist that believe only what they see and are afraid to think out of the box but i had better not go there. .

[RC]

5. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life.

only with how it changes with regard to its environment. Whether life started here or came from space doesn't matter. Nor does how many times it got started here.

[zeemike]

7. And so the fatal flaw

If you can't deal with how life started how can the theory ever be proven?
Perhaps life is always being created even today it the great oceans of the world by cosmic particles that start new life all the time in the vast plankton of the sea. And so what you think is a reptile crawling up on land and becoming a horse through natural selection may be all wrong and happen much faster than you think.

[Zodiak]

15. There are other possibilities

but the evidence doesn't point that way. The most parismouious answer we have for the relationship between organisms is common ancestry. This is bourne out by comparison of morphology, physiology, and genetic structure.

It is not that we scientists are "afraid" to think outside of the box...we do....but we don't call it science. Science is observation and hypothesis testing...not the contruction of untestable hypotheses because it is "fantastic".

Leave the science to the scientists or at least familiarize yourself with the scientific method and the evidence before you make such statements. I do not mind a scholarly criticism of evolution, but one done out of ignorance with concomitant accusations of rigid thinking and fear gets my back up.

[YOY]

4. The thing is, 'creation theory' is not a 'theory' at all

There is no evidence supporting it whatsoever. Calling it a theory insults the definition of theory.

Wikipedia can help out here: SNIP "A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from and/or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable."

So lets stop calling it a theory, OK?

[ProdigalJunkMail]

9. what would work better?

creation story i think works best. The thing I don't get is that Creationists seem to miss that the bible says nothing about God CREATING life...nor does it mention how God might have directed the flow of life so I am not sure why they try to get involved in this at all.

sP

[YOY]

10. Well, if they want to be "scientific" about it...

Creation hypothesis...as it has not been proven yet.

Story is for literature (which is what it is and we all know it!) ;-)

The bible says "made" in the English version of the Bible. What the verb used in original Aramaic is beyond me.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

11. well, in the Hebrew

of the old testament, there is only one act of creation and that is 'in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth'. From that point on every other act is 'made'. The distinction is important. Made indicates that God used what was already on hand to make stuff. I find that interesting. The 13th century kabbalist Nahmanides had some very interesting things to say about the Book of Genesis in his commentary Guide for the Perplexed.

sP

[YOY]

12. Still when you play with words you're letting the literalists take over

Literalism kills any philosophical base western religions might have with bogged down mythology.

Context be damned, they're just words in an anchient manuscript. Many of which seem to contractict each other.

[ProdigalJunkMail]

13. well, like any good piece of literature

the author likely picked words to convey a message with intent.

sP

[YOY]

14. or authors (Plural)

with different intentions and differnt messages.

[undeterred]

6. Does that mean God made Adam and Steve?

:rofl:

[Glorfindel]

8. Well, duh....! Of course She did

}(