Here Comes Intelligent Design Education Day

Check this out at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog: Last Call for Intelligent Design Education Days, March 14 and 23, in Seattle and Dallas! It was written by Daniel Reeves, the Discoveroids’ Educational Outreach Assistant. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis:

As a former STEM teacher, I think it’s safe to say that one of a science instructor’s biggest challenges is to instill in students an exciting and genuine sense of discovery through the scientific process. With so much emphasis on approved curriculums and sometimes-rigid state standards, it can be an uphill climb to demonstrate free and open-ended inquiry. This can be true in home and private schooling environments, just as much as in the public classroom.

Ah yes, “free and open-ended inquiry.” We know what that means to the Discoveroids. Reeves says:

Here, then, is a unique opportunity for home educators and private school teachers. It’s Intelligent Design Education Day, this month in Seattle and Dallas.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! After that stunning announcement, he tells us:

This is your chance to introduce your class to some respected scientists who are pioneers of open inquiry and proponents of intelligent design (ID), an exciting and well-supported scientific theory of origins in competition with traditional Darwinian theory. ID considers the evolution of life with an eye to discerning objective evidence of purpose operating in biology and cosmology.

Ooooooooooooh! This is your chance! Reeves continues:

Whether you’ve introduced your students to ID or not, they’ll benefit greatly from hearing an overview of the study of design in nature as well as updates on ongoing research. Best of all, they will get to meet, talk with, and challenge (yes, please do!) a few of the leading scientists and scholars in the movement! Speakers include [list of Discoveroids].

Your students will “benefit greatly” from those outstanding thinkers. Let’s read on:

This is an all-day event, offered completely FREE and only once a year, so don’t miss out! Classes are welcome, and so are individual students, teachers, and parents. To learn more about or register for the Friday, March 23, ID Education Day in Dallas, TX, visit [link omitted]. If you’re interested in the Wednesday, March 14, ID Education Day in Seattle, visit [link omitted].

Want more? Here’s another excerpt:

What question could be more important than the origins of life? Use this occasion as a launching point to foster spirited conversations in the classroom — comparing the available theories with the evidence, and allowing students to form their own informed opinions.

Yes, let the children decide. Here’s one last excerpt:

Want a preview? See here for the top six lines of evidence for ID … .

By all means, dear reader, click on that link and check out their evidence. When you’ve been sufficiently dazzled, start making plans to participate in least one of the Discoveroid events. And have a happy Intelligent Design Education Day!

Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

39 responses to “Here Comes Intelligent Design Education Day

  1. Michael Fugate

    intelligent design (ID), an exciting and well-supported scientific theory of origins in competition with traditional Darwinian theory.

    How many lies can you fit into only part of sentence?
    Exciting – no
    Well-supported -no
    Scientific – no
    Theory – no
    in Competition – no
    traditional Darwinian – huh?

  2. Holding The Line In Florida

    100% pure grade A bull feces. I have heard it all now.

  3. Derek Freyberg

    “Intelligent Design Education” – cue the “Princess Bride” quote.

  4. Michael Fugate

    Here is their grand list of “problems” with evolution:
    Genetics: Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
    Biochemistry: Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
    Paleontology: The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
    Taxonomy: Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
    Chemistry: The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.

    Pathetic.

  5. An all-day event? With 60 seconds’ worth of material?

  6. Whatever their imaginary problems with evolutionary biology, they have nothing positive to offer.

  7. Whether you’ve introduced your students to ID or not, they’ll benefit greatly from hearing an overview of the study of design in nature as well as updates on ongoing research.

    a. Everything was obviously designed
    b. Updates from the Green Screen lab should take max of 1 minute.

  8. “to instill in students an exciting and genuine sense of discovery through the scientific process”
    And what exactly have the IDiots from Seattle discovered again last two decades?

    “objective evidence of purpose operating in biology and cosmology”
    Nice contradiction. This means unsurprisingly (because that’s what Daniel is an IDiot for) that his “theory” is not scientific and hence is out of competition before the game started.

    “they’ll benefit greatly from hearing an overview of the study of design in nature”
    Granted, it will be a good exercise in spotting logical fallacies.

    “as well as updates on ongoing research.”
    Somehow all of us missed these updates when the IDiots of Seattle published them on their blogs or in their books.

    “clink on that link ”
    OK. Oops. It’s a list of IDiot articles. So I have to click another six times.

    1. “the human body plan appears abruptly in the fossil record, challenging an evolutionary explanation:”
    Evolution Theory can’t explain, hence a Grand Old Designer.
    2. “only intelligent design can explain the abrupt origin of animal life in the fossil record.”
    Scientific materialism (see Wedge Document) can’t explain, hence a Grand Old Designer.
    3. (Not even necessary to click this one) “There is no known cause, other than intelligent design, that can produce machine-like structures with multiple interacting parts.”
    Science can’t explain, hence …. (I already get tired).
    4. “The origin of life requires a massive infusion of information, which can only be explained by intelligent design.”
    Science can’t ….. yawn.
    5. “finely tuned expansion event,”
    Ah! Something new! Not really, we’ve heard this one a thousand times before (and more). Basically this is “assume a Grand Old Designer (this time calle a fine tuner) and conclude a Grand Old Designer.
    6. No need to click again: “Belgian astronomer Georges Lemaître theorized ….”
    Yeah, and before him did the Soviet commie Alexander Friedmann, but we can’t expect any IDiot to display this kind of honesty. Worse is that Lemaitre himself wrote that this explosion (which these days is called Big Bang, so it’s actually the same “evidence” as nr. 5) provides no justification for a Grand Old Designer.

    So this top 6 consists of four gods of the gaps and two more salto mortales from our concrete world to a divine one (thanks again, Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis). Alas I have to disappoint our dear SC. I am not nearly dazzled enough to start making the plans he suggests. It’s all old wine; not even the bags are renewed.

  9. If design can explain something. then how about giving us an explanation.
    Here is design X. Here is result Y. And here is the connection.
    OK?

  10. Christine Janis

    1. “the human body plan appears abruptly in the fossil record, challenging an evolutionary explanation:”

    I wonder when they think it appears. With our own species, Homo sapiens? How, exactly is our “body plan” different from other primates, other mammals, or even other vertebrates.? “Body plans” are for phyla, not species.

  11. mnbo rhetorically asks

    And what exactly have the IDiots from Seattle discovered again last two decades?

    But credit where credit is due, Mynheer! They have discovered a new method of achieving what had so long been the fruitless quest of the Alchemists, viz.,

    The transmutation of baseless assertions into fungible gold!

  12. Its happening in Dallas? Those school trips to the Perot Natural History Museum must be biting into the ‘rood business model. Bear in mind that Dallas is also the home of the Bible Belts great bastions of anti science fundamentalism from the pulpit.

  13. Intelligent Design seems to be the sine qua non for an illiberal mind, one narrow minded and closed to new ideas. Yet to assume evolution, while rejecting outright with derision and ridicule Intelligence Design, is itself neither liberal, open-minded, nor embracing the possibility that our own assumptions and beliefs might be flawed. Evolution is a theory, as is Intelligent Design, and the science is not settled, as science is always tentative . Beyond the point where the scientific method cannot be employed, then theory becomes philosophy, if not idealogy. Dismissing a thought arbitraily and passionately at that point is not the child of reason.

  14. Intelligent Design is not a theory.

  15. Michael Fugate

    Anonymous, did you have a point in that word salad?

  16. Eddie Janssen

    Dear Anonymus.
    According to the Theory of Evolution there is a long line of me, my mother, her mother, her mother, (repeat 50 million times) to her mother who was some sarcopterygean fish (let’s assume for clarity a eusthenopteron). And of course, the line does not end in the late Devonian, it continues to the Cambrian and the Proterozoic.
    The mechanism? Genetic mutation (harmful, neutral or beneficial), natural selection (change in temperature, an extra predator, overpopulation etc) and some portion of bad luck (like the Siberian Traps, the Deccan Traps or a coincidental spacerock).

    What is the alternative, according to the Theory of Intelligent Design?

  17. It is tentative that the Earth is round and we should be open to the alternative theory that the Earth is designed.

  18. Michael Fugate

    Only someone who has no understanding of science, philosophy, and theology could support intelligent design. 200+ years ago Paley thought he could counter Hume by turning the tables on Aquinas and asserting creation implies a Creator. It doesn’t. You need the Creator first, which is what Aquinas thought he had done, and then and only then can one infer creation. This is why anthropology and archaeology are actually science and intelligent design is vacuous.

  19. My dear Anonymous: “the science is not settled, as science is always tentative”. If true, equally true for atomic theory, or indeed for a roughly spherical Earth. Back in Cuvier’s day ID was the dominant theory. It lost out to evolution, for good reasons, and if you don’t know of these you haven’t been paying attention for 200 years

  20. Actually, one sidelink, “Is there a First Human Couple?”, let me to a splendid sumary of Ayala’s discussion of interspecies polymorphisms, which EN then manages to attribute to (massively!) parallel evolution.

    One of many cases where I have learnt from creationists, who often ask good questions, but then, alas, ignore the answers.

  21. “Dismissing a thought arbitraily and passionately”
    We all here dismiss (and mock) IDiocy passionately, but never arbitrarily.
    Example:

    @EddieJ aks a simple question: “What is the alternative ….”
    Goddiddid.

  22. Has anyone addressed Paley’s difficulty:
    One question may possibly have dwelt in the reader’s mind during the perusal of these observations, namely, Why should not the Deity have given to the animal the faculty of vision at once? … Why resort to contrivance, where power is omnipotent? Contrivance, by its very definition and nature, is the refuge of imperfection. To have recourse to expedients, implies difficulty, impediment, restraint, defect of power.

    If one resorts to design as part of a explanation, what are the contrivances which the design takes account of? Design, by its definition and nature, involves recognition of defect of power. A theory of design will point to the difficulties for which the design is needed to overcome. Without difficulties, design is pointless.

  23. Michael Fugate

    If ID is somehow superior on its own, then why lie about evolution?
    Why not tell us how ID works?
    Look at the DI’s statements:
    Mutations cause harm and do not build complexity.
    Mutations can cause harm, but depending on the environment can also be beneficial. We know that organisms are unlike human designed structures and complexity is built by novelty, duplication, redundancy, etc.
    Unguided and random processes cannot produce cellular complexity.
    But natural selection is not unguided.
    The fossil record lacks intermediate fossils.
    You don’t even need fossils to know this is a lie. Genetic continuity is enough. If I can trace a gene through generations of humans, then it is safe to assume that gene in another species is a product of common ancestry.
    Biologists have failed to construct Darwin’s “Tree of Life.”
    See above and we now know that many organisms exchange genetic material in varied ways not just through sex. “On the Origin” is not a sacred text and is thought fallible by biologists.
    The chemical origin of life remains an unsolved mystery.
    So? Life is chemical-based. Vitalism went out the window long ago.

  24. If someone says that the changes in life can only cause harm.
    And that intelligent design, and only that, can prevent that harm.
    Wouldn’t that suggest eugenics?

  25. Michael Fugate

    A point of faulty logic is the idea that random mutations cause harm, but intelligently-designed mutations can cause benefit? How does that work? Is there a restriction on random mutations so they can never involve a change that is beneficial? It is like the idea that if one were playing 21 and have a ten, one could never get an ace from the next draw. Probability anyone?

    Another is that there is a brake on microevolution so that all manner of changes (never due to beneficial mutations of course!) may take place, but not changes leading to reproductive isolation.

    Wishful thinking is the sine qua non of ID.

  26. Michael Fugate

    Is it eugenics if God does it?

  27. docbill1351

    Kevin-C (minus) is back! Although, anonymously.

  28. “the human body plan appears abruptly in the fossil record” Just the usual creationism with multiple creation events.They say the same about Whales, Modern Turtles, Ash Trees and everything in the Cambrian.

  29. Michael Fugate

    And “abrupt” can be anything from 10 seconds to a billion years depending on their need.

  30. Ken Phelps

    “…pioneers of open inquiry…”

    Huh? Just how old are these guys?

  31. Hi docbill. Kevin C (minus) aka Anonymous is back? Pray tell what lines of evidence have lead you to this conclusion and please, fill us in on Kevin C (minus) and his pseudoscientific meanderings. This should be good.

  32. @Michael Fugate
    We know that organisms are unlike human designed structures and complexity is built by novelty, duplication, redundancy, etc.
    Some human designs make use of chance, such as the reactions of the performers and the audience, the unexpected behavior of the medium, etc.

  33. “This is your chance to introduce your class to some respected scientists who are pioneers of open inquiry and proponents of intelligent design (ID)”

    What an interesting inversion of the meaning of the word “respected”. Creationists always gloriously excel at looking backwards (pun intended).

  34. docbill1351

    Oh, this is RICH! The Tooters are holding Disco Day in a church!! What a surprise.

    But, wait, there’s more.

    Stevie Meyer, the Poohbah of the Pre-Cambrian isn’t even going to be there! They’re going to show an old video lecture. What a bunch of cheap-o’s.

    Then Brian “The Brain” Miller is going to yak about the origin of life. Remember Brian? His bio lists him as an “apologist for Every Nation churches and campus ministries.” Perfect credentials for the subject.

    Then comes Lunch! Apparently, Lunch is the most qualified of the bunch.

    After lunch and prior to indigestion setting in is Mike Keas delivering this lecture: Christianity’s Positive Role in the History of Science because why? Oh, yeah, all science, all the time. Remember Mike Keas? Neither do I. Prof of Philosophy at – wait for it – Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. Hey, you say, isn’t that the outfit what fired Dr. Dr. Billy Dembski for dissing Noah? Yep, same crew.

    And, finally, a lecture – oh, SKYPE lecture – all the way from Dummkopf, Germany on “How I Threw My Career Away and Became an IDiot” by Günter Bleeeeeccccchhhly.

    You’re out by 2pm.

    That’s ID “day” or five hours, actually. Four and a half if you count lunch.

  35. The nonsensical idea that random mutations can only cause harm must mean that Bufo bufo (6.9B BP) and Amoeba dubia (670M BP) are *way* more intelligently designed than mere humans (only 2.9M BP) since the former two have larger genomes and yet obviously withstand way more bad mutations than Homo sapiens.

  36. “Evolution is a theory, as is Intelligent Design, and the science is not settled, as science is always tentative.”

    True, false and true, respectively. But that last one does not mean what you imagine. The general shape of the Earth being an oblate spheroid is tentative in the same way that unconstrained objects fall in a gravitational gradient. That tentativeness does not mean that “the Earth is flat” deserves equal time. Have someone explain to you what Asimov was actually saying if you find it too much for your level of comprehension: http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

  37. But one can argue that the Flat Earth is a theory. There is more to that than there is to DI.

  38. Eric Lipps

    This is your chance to introduce your class to some respected scientists who are pioneers of open inquiry and proponents of intelligent design (ID), an exciting and well-supported scientific theory of origins in competition with traditional Darwinian theory. ID considers the evolution of life with an eye to discerning objective evidence of purpose operating in biology and cosmology.

    “Respected scientists”? Respected by whom? Their fellow creationist quacks?

  39. With all of those good thinkers, where is their competition to evolutionary biology?
    Scientists say that we are closest to chimps and other apes because we’re most recently descended. Does anyone know of any competing explanation