Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Rush Limbaugh Calls Intelligent Design Pushers 'Disingenous'

I know why they're doing it, but I still think that [Intelligent Design] is a little bit disingenuous. Let's make no mistake. The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals because it ostensibly does not involve religious overtones, that there is just some intelligent being far greater than anything any of us can even imagine that's responsible for all this, and of course I don't have any doubt of that. But I think that they're sort of pussyfooting around when they call it intelligent design.

Call it what it is. You believe God created the world, and you think that it's warranted that this kind of theory for the explanation for all that is be taught.


Holy crap. Even Rush Limbaugh, who opposed the Dover decision, admits that ID is a fraud.

Incidentally, Judge John E. Jones III, who ruled against ID in the Dover case had this to say about ID:

It is our view that a reasonable, objective observer would, after reviewing both the voluminous record in this case, and our narrative, reach the inescapable conclusion that ID is an interesting theological argument, but that it is not science. (p. 89)

29 comments:

JDHURF said...

I think that when Rush Limbaugh himself begins to criticize ID then all hope for such a “theory” is dead in the water. I cannot believe this – Rush Limbaugh!! ID is truly beaten and done with in some degree, the defeat in Dover will hopefully spread and influence the rest of the country (let us hope the influence reaches Kansas!). Anyone that supports ID should reevaluate their position when individuals such as Limbaugh are denouncing it.

asher said...

Yes, ID as an idea opposed to evolution was a bad move. They should have simply stuck to the various and myriad theories of evolution, and shown what a scientific theory would consist of: namely "a comprehensive, logical explanation of natural phenomenon, resting on verfiable evidence, observation and experiments that can be replicated." Does any of theories fit these catagories or shall we redefine it again?

a commentor said...

I think that in order for something to happen, there has to be a cause. For example, this apple tree grew because little Jimmy planted the seeds, or this video game came out today because Alex worked on it.
So too, the universe couldn't have just made itself. Plus, even if the info. was already there and something was bound to come about from it, how did the the universe know what to do with the info.? It would have to be programmed to know what to do. And just like with a video game, there needs to be a programmer.

Foilwoman said...

What's with anonymous comments about one's (not-so-deeply held?) beliefs? If you really think a god created cholera, barracudas, flesh-eating bacteria, and mutating (evolving) viruses, sign you name to the damn thing. Or be like Peter and deny it and be damned.

Oh, and Judge Jones wins my vote: sexiest man of the new millenia. Intelligent thought is such a turn on.

CyberKitten said...

A comment from the recent Science Awards:

The editors of Science wrote: "Today, evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted."

oracle25 said...

Obviously you got this off some blog somewhere. I was actually listening that day, just after he made those remarks he went into a defense of ID. He is a staunch creationist who opposes all forms of evolution. He believes (correctly so) that evolution is mentally inept, those who listen to the show know this.

Jewish Atheist said...

oracle, I saw it referred to on a blog, but the text is from the source: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_122305/content/institute.guest.html

I know Limbaugh's a Creationist. The point of this post was to show that even he thinks ID is a sham, not that he believes in evolution. ID is just plain dishonest, since it tries to pretend to be science. That's the part that Limbaugh agrees with.

oracle25 said...

He never said that. What he said was people are trying to candy code it to much. I happen to disagree with him but it doesn't change what he said.

Jewish Atheist said...

It's a direct quote. Do you know what "disingenous" means? Hint: you won't find it in the same dictionary as "candy code."

Laura said...

Candy Code? WTF is that? Is that the little Secret Spy ring you get with your Cracker Jacks?

Never thought a Dittohead could make me laugh out loud, thanks!

oracle25 said...

I KNOW IT'S A DIRECT QUOTE I HEARD HIM SAY IT!!!!!!

I'm not sure what "disingenous" means, but I do know what "disingenuous" means. It means "not straightforward: not candid or frank" i.e. candy coding.

asher said...

I think he meant candy coating

oracle25 said...

Oop's, yeah, sorry.

dbackdad said...

JC Masterpiece must have changed his name to Oracle25. :-)

Laura said...

Nah... JC made me think about things he said and made some great points.... WHat happened to him?

Robert West said...

I'm sorry, but I'm SURE that the "candy code" is DNA as understood by creationists.You know,the genetic code with honey
poured on it...

oracle25 said...

Oh, and DNA as understood by evolutionist's is what?... oh, yeah, impossible.

Laura said...

Actually Oracle, no. They're understanding it more and more each day. They've found genetic causes (and cures) for diseases, are able to manipulate DNA to some extent to clone organs, use it to implicate people in crimes, prove child paternity. It's not impossible, and it's not a mystery. Remember that DNA was discovered as we now understand it only 50 years ago. Over the course of 50 years scientists have gone from simply knowing the structure of DNA to being able to put that knowledge to useful purposes... THat's pretty incredible when you think about it that way.

Robert West said...

They should have simply stuck to the various and myriad theories of
evolution,

ASHER:
How about naming some of these
"various and myriad theories of
evolution."? Come on,just 2 or 3
BESIDES Darwinian evolution.
Just put your brain in gear,think,
THEN type.
RW

oracle25 said...

Laura: And how does this explain the evolutionary theory? The fact that scientists are understanding DNA and RNA more is not a testament to evolution. In fact the more we learn about DNA the more evolution doesn't make sense

Jewish Atheist said...

oracle: What percent of scientists who work with DNA and RNA do not believe in evolution, do you think?

oracle25 said...

A growing number. True that many do believe in evolution, but virtually all those o the cutting edge of scientific research have either excepted creationism, or are looking for some new alternative. I am not aware of very many who really know what there doing who do not admit (at the very least) that evolution (as Darwinian theory has it) is highly improbable

oracle25 said...

Forgive me. When I said that many scientists have accepted creationism I meant that they had excepted some sort of design or divine intervention

Jewish Atheist said...

oracle, if you mean they believe in theistic evolution, then yes, many of them do. I can guarantee you that fewer than 1% disbelieve in evolution altogether.

oracle25 said...

If you mean those who are generally hired by a secular community I would have to agree. But if you mean all scientists I would be very quick to challenge that before I saw any proof.

As on Creationist I know of has said.

"4. “Almost all scientists accept evolution.”


Response: No, they don’t. The only related survey of scientists I am aware of was of chemists. A slight majority rejected evolution. [See the last paragraph of Endnote 2 on page 340.] Most professors in the basic sciences favor evolution, in part, because that is what they were taught and those who openly reject evolution are not hired or are fired. In the applied sciences (medicine, engineering, etc.) and among scientists in industry, those accepting and rejecting evolution may be nearly balanced. Gallup polls have shown that more Americans reject evolution than accept it. [See page 340.]"

The endnote he referred to said:

"Some incorrectly claim that almost all scientists believe in evolution. The only survey of scientists of which I am aware, involved chemists. Less than half (48.3%) said that 'it was possible that humans evolved in a continuous chain of development from simple elements in a primordial soup.' A slight majority (51.7%) said that “supernatural intervention played a role.” [Murray Saffran, 'Why Scientists Shouldn’t Cast Stones,' The Scientist."

I just don't see the vast majority of informed scientist that support evolution. Unlike what people generally believe evolution is a hotly contested issue among scientists. And as I have tried to articulate here over and over it's not just christian fundamentalists.

Jewish Atheist said...

A gallup poll in 1997 showed that 95% of scientists believe in theistic or naturalistic evolution, while only 5% believe that "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Perhaps the creationist you cite wasn't "aware" of any other surveys, but now you are.

oracle25 said...

Okay, How man scientists did they test? in what circles??

Jewish Atheist said...

Oracle, I don't have the original numbers. However, other sources (just Google it) confirm that scientists are significantly more likely (indeed almost unanimously) than the average American to believe in evolution.

Anonymous said...

And when the aethists were lookin for converts, yes they to said and shall say, Please g-d there should be more of us!