Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
"Teach the Controversy" — Shameless T-Shirt Capitalism Edition
Forget Darwin vs. Genesis--what about Ptolemy vs. Copernicus, or Egyptian vs. alien pyramid builders? As the folks over at the T-shirt site, Teach the Controversy explain:
'Big Science' is always suppressing The Truth with their blatant pro-evolution anti-wacko agenda: from the fact that UFOs built the pyramids to the reality of creationism and fact the universe is "Turtles All The Way Down". It is time to fight back and urge schools to Teach The Controversy with these intelligently designed t-shirts.
Pick your controversy from the designs below:
Thanks to shameless capitalism, controversialists of all stripes, flat-earthers included, can now express their grievances against the demythologizing tendencies of science on their chests.
Kudos to D.A. Ridgely for pointing out the
site.
|10.7.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Cool images. I went to clusterflock dot org, but can't find
these images. Are they really available on t-shirts? If so,
where?
Also, to what creation myth does the last image (beetle, sun)
refer?
Just Plain Brian|10.7.08 @ 4:18PM|#
controversialists of all stripes
Not quite - I see no mention of His Noodliness, The FSM
Naga Sadow|10.7.08 @ 4:18PM|#
I'm getting the one with the devil burying dinosaur bones. There's a woman in my American Gov class that during a debate on Seperation of Church and State stated thus: "The Bible says that the Earth is only six thousand years old. Anything to the contrary is the work of Satan." Everyone was quiet until I mused, "Really? He must be a busy guy."
NotThatDavid|10.7.08 @ 4:19PM|#
1) Dude, there's a link to the site that sells them in the post.
Heck, it's the only link there.
2) To a myth that the sun is pushed across the sky each day by a
(very heavily insulated) dung beetle. African, I think?
Hogan|10.7.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Tonio - The Egyptians apparently thought a scarab beetle god moved the sun through the sky like dung. link
Bingo|10.7.08 @ 4:21PM|#
There needs to be one that has Bush detonating the WTC with a Looney Tunes-style plunger detonator. Anything less just isn't offensive enough.
|10.7.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Also, to what creation myth does the last image (beetle,
sun) refer?
From the site:
Sun Scarab
Because we know that the sun is moved through the sky via giant
beetle
|10.7.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Not quite - I see no mention of His Noodliness, The FSM
Well, of course not, this is all about falsehoods. Not the one true
FSM.
Ironic|10.7.08 @ 4:29PM|#
"Not quite - I see no mention of His Noodliness, The FSM"
That is because Pastafarians should be dressed in full pirate
regalia.
LT Nixon|10.7.08 @ 4:31PM|#
So the fact that Aliens built the pyramids in Egypt and for the Mayans is a controversey now, eh? You ever been there, those stones are big! I'd like science to explain how a bunch of enslaved, starving people built those monstrosities.
|10.7.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Actually the book "Darwins Black Box" is a pretty awesome
critique of flaws in evolutionary theory.
The author points out that asexual reproducing bacteria did not
have enough time to process all the molecular information needed to
create complex chemical pathways for synthesis and metabolism and
the billions of other chemical jobs cells do.
The author being a creationist comes to the conclusion that there
is no other explanation but a creator. Not the conclusion i would
come to.
That being said a serious flaw in evolution was exposed by a
creationist....one cannot deny that the science was
progressed.
Personally i could give a shit on who wins and who loses which this
debate has essentially come down to. I would rather simply know how
the world works.
|10.7.08 @ 4:35PM|#
I personally like the Periodic Table one. That shit is
funny.
When I was in h.s. chem, one of the school administrators wandered
in our class and joked, "Chemistry was a lot easier in my day,
there were fewer elements." My buddy said, "What were they: earth,
air, fire and water." That still makes me laugh.
Warty|10.7.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Check out the SCIENCE! shirts, too. The best one has to be the robot guitar. SCIENCE!
Naga Sadow|10.7.08 @ 4:38PM|#
LT Nixon,
It's easy to assume our ancestors were stupid savages. Truth is
they were incredibly motivated and had highly skilled engineers.
Nothing focuses the mind like the threat of starvation. Also, I
read somewhere that they were actually paid laborers not
slaves.
Dello|10.7.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Do I believe in aliens? Of course! I refuse to believe that in all the vastness of the universe, we're as good as it gets...
D.A. Ridgely|10.7.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Kudos, more appropriately, to Timothy, who (at a site known only, well, mostly to a chosen few secret decoder ring libertarianish types) brought the site to my attention earlier today.
Andy|10.7.08 @ 4:42PM|#
My vote for funniest shirt is the Devil burying the fossils. I
like how they captured that look like he's up to something shady.
And the UFO-Pyramid one is funny too, since it illustrates the
satirical point the best.
I've always wondered what creationists would say to a holocaust
denier or 9/11 conspiracy theorist that wanted to "teach the
controversy".
Boston|10.7.08 @ 4:42PM|#
I bought the one with the Unicorn and wore it to work. A person quite a few rungs above the corperate ladder, asked me about it. I said it was a shirt about ID. The blank look on her face was priceless. Nothing like having to explain Intelligent Design to upper management.
|10.7.08 @ 4:44PM|#
So the fact that Aliens built the pyramids in Egypt and for
the Mayans is a controversey now, eh? You ever been there, those
stones are big! I'd like science to explain how a bunch of
enslaved, starving people built those monstrosities.
Well, the fact that, at least in Egypt, they weren't enslaved, they
were hired labor, and weren't starving was part of it. Not to
mention you can use more than one person to pull a brick is
another.
joshua,
Behe's book has been pretty thoroughly debunked. Panda's Thumb is a
pretty good blog that eviscerates a lot of his arguments. As for
Behe advancing science, 4 out of 5 peer reviews rejected his
claims.
Hogan|10.7.08 @ 4:45PM|#
joshua corning - The conclusions of Darwin's Black Box have been heavily disputed. I like having Darwinian mechanisms questioned, it makes the science both more interesting and better. But in this particular case, the "irreducible complexity" arguments made in that book are really weak and only kind of scientific. There are lots of unresolved issues with Darwinism, but I don't think there are really any that point to a Creator as an alternative.
|10.7.08 @ 4:46PM|#
Also, I read somewhere that they were actually paid laborers
not slaves.
I read some were and some were not. But yeah the slave part has
been over stated. You do not get that good of work only from
slaves.
There is a reason why the North out produced the South.
And why the US out produced the Soviet Union.
KT|10.7.08 @ 4:47PM|#
That is because 80% of scientists are communist freedom-haters who want to blot out the truth. Don't you know how this works?
|10.7.08 @ 4:48PM|#
I have the SCIENCE!
shirt with the cowboy scientist riding the amoeba.
The best t-shirt I've seen in a while is this one on
the two-party system.
BDB|10.7.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Not only that,the South remained extremely poor until the middle of the last Century because of slavery's legacy.
|10.7.08 @ 4:51PM|#
I read some were and some were not. But yeah the slave part
has been over stated. You do not get that good of work only from
slaves.
The evidence that they were not is that they found tombs of some
laborers. The size, decorations and contents of the tombs indicated
that the laborers were rewarded for their work. It was "an honor"
to build the tombs for the supposed future gods that was considered
far too good to be left to slaves.
|10.7.08 @ 4:52PM|#
joshua corning - The conclusions of Darwin's Black Box have
been heavily disputed. I like having Darwinian mechanisms
questioned, it makes the science both more interesting and better.
But in this particular case, the "irreducible complexity" arguments
made in that book are really weak and only kind of scientific.
There are lots of unresolved issues with Darwinism, but I don't
think there are really any that point to a Creator as an
alternative.
Yeah you have seriously conflated his conclusions with the problem
he proposed. The arguments are strong and it is a tragedy that
science has been abandoned simply because of some whacked out
political agenda.
"Oh no he is a creationist! Quick lets abandon the scientific
method and make t-shirts"
Fucking pathetic.
|10.7.08 @ 4:54PM|#
That is because 80% of scientists are communist
freedom-haters who want to blot out the truth. Don't you know how
this works?
I would not say that but I would say that in many issues it has
become agenda driven.
|10.7.08 @ 4:57PM|#
I love how the "evolution/creationism" issue has been leveraged
by the left to insure that government funded union controlled
schools are the norm.
But yeah lets make t-shirts.
|10.7.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Naga,
I recommend L. Sprague De Camp's Ancient Engineers, which
discusses the tremendous engineering capabilities of various
ancient cultures.
BDB|10.7.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Since when is evolution "leftist"?
You're like the Communists who said Lysenkoism was real biology,
while everything else was "western biology".
Hogan|10.7.08 @ 5:00PM|#
corning - I don't believe I was conflating anything. It's been a
while since I've read the book. Perhaps I'll go back and take a
look at it and flesh out my thinking a little more. But the
arguments certainly aren't strong. I hate to just cite Wikipedia on
this, but I thought this summarized my thoughts fairly well:
"within [the book] systems were labeled "irreducibly complex" if
Behe was not able to envision a simpler system that still
worked."
I don't have an agenda about evolution, if someone somehow
demonstrated that ID was supported with persuasive evidence, I'd
think it was neat.
Hogan|10.7.08 @ 5:01PM|#
also, more insight from Wikipedia:
"Though influential within the intelligent design movement for
several years, the book has lost some of its currency as more and
more examples given by Behe as evidence of irreducible complexity
have been shown to be explicable by known evolutionary mechanisms,
something Behe conceded under cross examination while testifying as
an expert witness on behalf of the defendants in Kitzmiller v.
Dover Area School District."
|10.7.08 @ 5:02PM|#
Since when is evolution "leftist"?
No one said that.
Who the do you think you are talking to?
|10.7.08 @ 5:05PM|#
joshua,
Uh, science has been advancing Darwin's theories for a long time
and hasn't just "stopped". Evolutionary theory has moved forward as
people make new discoveries and new contradictions. Heck, Behe's
theories were tested*, like his statement about irreducible
complexity of blood clotting was disproven looking at jawless
fish.
You should try knowing about what you talk about before you open
your yap.
* You know, that other part of the scientific method, testing out
claims, rather than just making them, throwing up your hands and
saying, "It must have been done by Xenu!"
|10.7.08 @ 5:06PM|#
The blood clotting example.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/behe-vs-lamprey.html#more
Naga Sadow|10.7.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Pro Lib,
I own the book. I had to look up the authors take on Nero just to
make sure he wasn't throwing in a joke.
|10.7.08 @ 5:11PM|#
But the arguments certainly aren't strong.
The process by which cells emerged from nothing is not very well
explained by evolution. If explained at all. How can an examination
of that process be weak?
Seriously you are throwing the baby out with the bath water.
I don't have an agenda about evolution, if someone somehow
demonstrated that ID was supported with persuasive evidence, I'd
think it was neat.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
You really cannot see how fucked up you are can you?
|10.7.08 @ 5:18PM|#
like his statement about irreducible complexity of blood
clotting was disproven looking at jawless fish.
Actually "irreducible complexity" is not what I am talking about.
Although it would appear to be loosely related.
Perhaps you should go back and read what I wrote before opening
your yap.
D.A. Ridgely|10.7.08 @ 5:24PM|#
This is just the sort of calm, balanced, civil discourse those t-shirts were designed to encourage. Bravo!
|10.7.08 @ 5:25PM|#
rather than just making them, throwing up your hands and
saying, "It must have been done by Xenu!"
Who the fuck are you talking to?
Serioulsy who the fuck does that sort of shit.
"Oh so you say blatantly and repeatedly say that you do not accept
a lack of an explanation as proof of the existence of a creator. Oh
i know i will accuse you of saying the opposite"
What the fuck is wrong with you?
EvB|10.7.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Ignoring the controversies does not help kids. They should be
presented with a good Rogerian Argument: explain this is what
creationists or whoever are saying, this is what the scientific
community is saying, and this is why the scientists are more
credible and probably closer to the truth.
If a kid learns evolution and their parents tells him or her it's
all lies, the kid isn't going to be able to come to a rational
decision.
The worst thing educators can do is tell people their ideas are
just stupid. The strange theories will never go away, and just
denying them only fuels their beliefs.
BlueBook|10.7.08 @ 5:28PM|#
I like the Discworld reference, but the shirt depicts a land
turtle; Great A'Tuin is a sea turtle. Heresy!
(Incidentally, if you look up 'heresy' on Dictionary.com, the
sponsored links bring up Hershey's Chocolate.)
|10.7.08 @ 5:33PM|#
Naga,
Really? I love that book, but it seems like no one ever has heard
of it. I also own his Great Cities of the Ancient World,
which covers some similar areas (esp. architecture), though the
book is broader in scope, covering more cultural material.
Hogan|10.7.08 @ 5:34PM|#
The world on some turtles scenario isn't just from Discworld.
That's like a Hindu myth or something. Bertrand Russell cited it
pretty frequently.
corning - I don't have a political agenda about evolution, but that
doesn't stop me from noticing that your genius author had to
retract much of the evidence from your genius book when giving
sworn testimony in a court case. You need to calm down... and then
suck my cock.
Kolohe|10.7.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Nothing like having to explain Intelligent Design to upper
management.
This would tend to make move their company's stock into the 'buy'
column, actually.
Kolohe|10.7.08 @ 5:41PM|#
They should be presented with a good Rogerian
Argument:
I thought presenting a good 'rogering' meant something completely
different.
Boston|10.7.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Kolohe,
Oh I am glad they didnt believe in it or take offense. The fact
that they were oblivious that such a concept exists is another
matter entirely.
|10.7.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Since when is evolution "leftist"?
And since when is Intelligent Design religious?
No one here but us politically-neutral scientific inquirers.
|10.7.08 @ 5:57PM|#
I don't have a political agenda about evolution, but that
doesn't stop me from noticing that your genius author had to
retract much of the evidence from your genius book when giving
sworn testimony in a court case.
That is laughable....so i point out a flaw in evolution then you
point some other proposed flaw and how it was wrong and there for i
must be wrong cuz this other thing...and now you are not on an
agenda.
what the fuck?
here we go for the record i wrote:
The author points out that asexual reproducing bacteria did not
have enough time to process all the molecular information needed to
create complex chemical pathways for synthesis and metabolism and
the billions of other chemical jobs cells do.
and then you brought up "irreducibly complex" which is not the same
thing.
Why would you do that? Why bring up a different thing and attach it
to the thing i was talking about if not to confuse
intentionally?
|10.7.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Since when is evolution "leftist"?
And since when is Intelligent Design religious?
and so joe tries to incorporate "Evolution" into the left's lexicon
of ownership.
Pretty.
|10.7.08 @ 6:18PM|#
I do not understand this strange aversion to skeptical analysis
in regards to evolution.
No one argues that Steve McIntyre has not progressed the science of
climate change (well accept for a few political operators who have
"moved on") and no one argues that Thomas Gold's Stagnant Universe
hypothesis did not progress the science.
Hell almost any interview of Stephen Hawkins has him discussing
hypothesis that he got wrong but no one would argue that their
disproof did not progress the science.
Naga Sadow|10.7.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Pro Liberate,
I own or have read a ton of classical literature and/or books about
the ancient era. When I first started playing Rome:Total War I was
kicking the shit out of everyone that took me on just because I
understood the notion of classical warfare. Pin them down with a
line of infantry, swing the cavalry around on their flanks. Works
everytime.
Just Plain Brian|10.7.08 @ 6:27PM|#
I do not understand this strange aversion to skeptical analysis in regards to evolution.
Are you talking about this thread, or the scientific community in
general?
Naga Sadow|10.7.08 @ 6:49PM|#
One of my brothers and several of my friends insist I cheated. Sorry buddy. Pick your battles, terrain, and tactics. Also, don't be afraid to pull a Thermopolyae or Horatius at the bridge. I assume I am talking to someone who also reveres the classics? Plutarch, Livy, Thucydides and, of course, Herodutus?
|10.7.08 @ 6:56PM|#
We used to have more classicists around here--me, with my Latin
cognomen, gaius marius, and others. We're dying off, I guess. Or
being hunted down and killed.
Oh, smacky knows Latin and Greek. I think she learned those for
time travel purposes. Wish I could read the classics in the
original.
Just Plain Brian|10.7.08 @ 7:02PM|#
rich,
Isn't "bad persistant troll" redundant? Maybe it's just me, but I
figure the term "troll" already conveys both "bad" and
"persistant". If someone was either good, or brief, would we still
call them a troll?
Naga Sadow|10.7.08 @ 7:02PM|#
Now that is impressive. Also, Dio Cassius? That is hard to get your hands on. I had to wait roughly 5 weeks just to get my hands on my Frontinius. Strategamata would be my favorite if I had a favorite. Plus for a while I was learning a little Latin as the translation was on one page and the original on the other. Xenophon was a bit rough but he made it interesting at least. Nothing like reading how the Ten Thousand made it to the Black Sea.
|10.7.08 @ 7:47PM|#
I like the unicorn one the best.
It would totally pass for a cute girly T-shirt, until you read the
fine print. Muahahahah.
Only it needs a few pink hearts and maybe a rainbow or
something.
|10.7.08 @ 8:37PM|#
"I do not understand this strange aversion to skeptical analysis
in regards to evolution."
Don't confuse aversion to Behe with aversion to skeptical analysis
of evolution. Behe has been at this for a while now, and keeps
embarrassing himself. Scientists are always debating the various
mechanisms of evolution. Like Newton's laws, evolution may be found
in error, but not in any ways likely to satisfy Behe.
Try reading KR Millers review of Darwin's Black Box for a start.
Miller is religiously inclined, and attempts to give Behe some
credit for his effort, but in the end says: "But ultimately, the
careful reader will recognize this book for what it truly is - an
argument against evolution that concedes nearly all the contested
ground to Darwin's edifice, and then ends up teetering on little
more than rhetoric and personal skepticism."
the innominate one|10.7.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Behe's book is full of strawmen and ad hominem arguments. If he
had anything useful to say, he would attempt to publish in the peer
reviewed literature.
The author points out that asexual[ly] reproducing bacteria did
not have enough time to process all the molecular information
needed to create complex chemical pathways for synthesis and
metabolism and the billions of other chemical jobs cells
do.
Behe posits that, but what is his evidence? Bacteria have extremely
short generation times and higher mutation rates than do
multicellular organisms. Mutation rates were probably higher in the
past, before full development of the ozone layer and atmosphere
providing protection from mutagenic radiation and before natural
selection had acted to increase the copying fidelity of DNA
polymerases. Carl Woese has hypothesized that early cells and their
precursors might have had considerable modularity in genes and
genetic mechanisms leading to a high rate of lateral gene transfer
among different prokaryotic lineages.
That being said a serious flaw in evolution was exposed by a
creationist....one cannot deny that the science was
progressed.
No, there wasn't a serious flaw in evolution exposed just because
you and Behe say so. The science would have been advanced more if
Behe would bother to test his own hypotheses and publish the
results in peer reviewed journals instead of making unsupported but
superficially plausible claims that happen to comport with his
personal beliefs, which real scientists have to debunk.
The process by which cells emerged from nothing is not very
well explained by evolution. If explained at all.
Evolution doesn't explain the origin of life at all, nor does it
purport to explain the origin of life. Your statement is a
strawman.
You really cannot see how fucked up you are can you?
Said the pot to the kettle. Darwin was right overall, but was
missing an understanding of the mechanism of inheritance. He knew
there was a tendency for offspring to resemble their parents from
his association with dog and pigeon breeders and his own
experience, but Mendel's work wasn't known and was lost for many
years. Darwin was also unaware of genetic drift. The modern
understanding of Darwinism is sometimes referred to as
neo-Darwinism or the Modern Synthesis to reflect the marriage of
Darwin's ideas with knowledge garnered from the rediscovery of
Mendel's work and the efforts of Fisher and other population
geneticists in the area of mathematical theory of the behavior of
genes. Behe is wrong, period.
EvB: Your suggestion is a legitimate pedagogical tool, but high
school biology courses don't have time to go into that level of
detail. Hell, college level introductory biology courses don't have
time to go into that level of detail.
|10.7.08 @ 10:27PM|#
Privatize education and make it non-mandatory. Then this
argument is as relevent as 'How many angels...'
Oh. That's logical. Sorry. carry on.
|10.7.08 @ 11:27PM|#
By Odin.
They'fe left out Yggdrasil!
Typical Skralings, won't allow the other side to be presented.
|10.8.08 @ 10:32AM|#
the innominate one:
THANK YOU for that! Goddamn, I get so tired of the ignorant "but
evolution doesn't explain the origin of life" cries. No, shmucks,
it doesn't. It doesn't even *try* to. So stop asking for it.
Also, if you want to worry about bacteria and having "time" to
carry out the molecular mechanisms required for reproduction? Um.
First, I'll ask you to learn a little bit about the RNA world.
Second, I'll ask you to take some time to learn about basic
biochemistry. Third, if you can handle it, read about some actual
bacteriology.
It's all quite plausible, reasonable, and thermodynamically
sound.
Until then, you don't know wtf you're talking about and all your
doing is blowing a bunch of ignorant hot air.
|10.8.08 @ 10:33AM|#
And, being at End of Threadsville, no one will care.
But I feel better, anyway.
the innominate one|10.8.08 @ 12:52PM|#
Bronwyn:
I'll see your RNA world and raise you a PAH (polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons) world. :)
Kunal|10.8.08 @ 12:58PM|#
>>We used to have more classicists around here--me, with
my Latin cognomen, gaius marius, and others. We're dying off, I
guess. Or being hunted down and killed.
I bet it was those IllegalAlien Goths that did it!
Hogan|10.8.08 @ 2:57PM|#
You really cannot see how fucked up you are can you?
Said the pot to the kettle.
Actually as the kettle in this scenario, I object. This is more
like "said the pot to the polar bear in a wedding dress snorting
cocaine on an igloo."
|10.8.08 @ 3:05PM|#
First, as others have noted, Evolution doesn't address the
question of the origin of life directly. As presently formulated,
the results Evolution describes are independent of how the Last
Universal Common cellular Ancestor arose. This area of research is
of interest to biologists and biochemists; however, the question of
how cells arose from simple chemicals is technically NOT part of
the scope of the current theory of Evolution. It is a separate
question, usually referred to as "Abiogenesis", sometimes as the
"biogenic transition".
For a relatively recent overview of the present state of the art
accessible to the lay audience, see
"Minimal self-replicating systems", Robertson et alia (Chem. Soc.
Rev., 2000, 29, 141 - 152, DOI: 10.1039/a803602k), which
indicates the arising of life may be viewed in part as a form of
autocatalytic reaction. For a more recent paper with a mathematical
analysis of the biogenic transition process, see "Prevolutionary
dynamics and the origin of evolution", Martin A. Nowak and Hisashi
Ohtsuki (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
doi:10.1073/pnas.0806714105). (Abstract only for the latter;
subscription or dead-tree journal required for full paper.
Sorry.)
|10.8.08 @ 3:06PM|#
Second, "well explained" as science uses it may only refer to
how well something is explained relative to some alternative
hypothesis (trivially, the alternative being the null hypothesis).
Furthermore, the presently accepted explanation in biology the one
"best" in a formal sense science uses.
Science refers to the process of gathering evidence, forming
conjectures about the evidence, developing a formal hypothesis
which indicates how the current evidence may be described under the
conjecture, competitive testing of all candidate hypotheses under a
formal criterion for probable correctness, plus the body of
hypotheses testing best thereby and which thereafter are referred
to as "Theories".
In the most formal sense, the criterion used for this is a more
exacting expression of Occam's Razor, which has been proven in the
absolute mathematical sense in the paper "Minimum Description
Length Induction, Bayesianism and Kolmogorov Complexity", by Paul
M. B. Vitanyi and Ming Li [PostScript file
here]. This shows that the most "concise" hypothesis is the one
most likely to correctly describe the character of future data.
Science thus becomes dependent (due to this paper) on the
philosophical assumptions that propositional logic is valid for
formal inference, that the Zermelo-Fraenkel Axioms of set theory
(which serve as the modern foundation for all mathematics) are
self-consistent (though they need not be complete), and that
Reality is relatable to Evidence.
Note that the root of the word "prove" is from the Latin probare,
"to test". Thus, hypotheses that become theories may be said to
have been "proven" in the sense that Science uses the word. This is
distinct from the mathematical sense, in that the usual use of
"proof" in mathematics indicates a rigorous derivation from axioms;
however, the sense that science uses is similar to the sense that a
person might seek to "prove" that their brain is not a piece of
cauliflower.
Intelligent Design advocates are thus, at best, supporters of a
conjecture with roots established in religion, who do not test
under the Minimum Description Length Induction criterion, and who
do not gather evidence directly from reality. As such, whatever it
may be that they are doing, it is not science.
|10.8.08 @ 3:25PM|#
Joshua, science does not have a problem with "skeptical analysis" in regards to evolution. However, the analysis must be done correctly. Science welcomes thinking
|10.8.08 @ 3:25PM|#
(drat it)
...welcomes thinking outside the box, but insists it also be kept
out of cloud-cuckoo-land.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245