An example of how ID has succeeded

[Elind]

I thought I would share this link for those interested in viewing a discussion thread that is a little different from how this subject looks in this forum.

Here there is an obvious consensus by the majority on scientific understanding, and of course religious perspectives and arguments to the contrary tend to be with many on one side and fewer on the other.

This link is from Littlegreenfootballs, which some here love to hate and which many consider a rabid right wing website mainly because it has a well stated objective of debunking Islamic thinking.

However it has a different mix of members from Jref. I would guess a more representative sample of the population as a whole.

Some are obvious Christians who don't like Islam first because it is not Christian, and secondly for other reasons. Quite a few are atheists or agnostics or scientifically literate theists, but a disappointing number are clearly ignorant of the principles of science, even though they just as clearly think they understand them.

Primary persons at this site, including the originator, Charles Johnson, do have their heads screwed on and would be comfortable at Jref, but there is
definitely something amiss with the education system of the USA that cannot teach the fundamentals of critical thinking and allow that term to become "anything should be respected".

Note, you will need to scan quite a few of these posts to get a feel for the mix.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/29786_ADL_Denounces_Ben_Steins_Expelled/comments/#ctop

[PixyMisa]

Aargh, not another one! The first time Charles posted on Expelled it only petered out at 2300 comments because he'd put up another post on those fast-evolving lizards and the debate moved there. (The folk at LGF sometimes refer to themselves as lizards, or more formally, lizardoid minions, so that story was unavoidable.)

Aaaaaanyway, scroll down to comment 39, follow the link to a pretty decent article by John Derbyshire, and then keep reading to, oh, a little past half-way to see who's been out there stirring up trouble. ;)

[PixyMisa]

But yes, you're right. I was active in the two earlier threads, and it's incredibly depressing. Most of these people are not idiots; they're reasonably intelligent and educated, and yet many of them are aggressively ignorant about evolution in particular and science in general. That's why I keep coming back here.

[Elind]

If you dare, PM me with your handle over there.

[PixyMisa]

You have PMs turned off!

[bokonon]

Here's an example of where explaining the strengths of the Theory of Evolution and flaws in ID appears to have worked:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/board/nest/104842605

[Elind]

Needs registration.

[bokonon]

Sorry, I forgot about that.

Here's the first (& referenced) post of the thread in question, discussing the movie Expelled.

Apologies to king freddie, Dezn 98, Mr Mike Person, Big Science, etc
by markmcalonan 4 hours ago (Thu May 1 2008 11:42:46)

(& sorry if i didn't get your imdb handles quite right, & there are other posters who should be included whose names don't come to mind right now, so sorry to them too)

In discussing the validity of evolutionary thought I admit that I have had misconceptions about the process. This must've been frustrating for you, so I'm sorry. Upon further investigation, there seems to be more validity to the idea than I originally believed. In light of recent knowledge of dna, genomes, etc, it seems the process can help explain how life is developing. Of course, we can't go back & see for ourselves, but I'll be careful to evaluate the clues that we have better. Thanks for the links, some of them are helpful.

[Elind]

Some haven't a clue and can be educated, but my impression is that those who are ID/Creationists now will always be, because what they have learned is how to discount reality when it conflicts with their beliefs. I think it comes down to this concept of "teach the controversy", and that is where ID is winning because it seems so "democratic".