Newsgroup: it.politica
Titolo: "Paul, how old do you think the earth is?"

From Fourth World Skeptics Conference in Burbank (2002)
<...>
Miller is a professor of biology at Brown University and author of Finding 
Darwin's God. He has been one of the most outspoken and effective defenders 
of the scientific integrity of evolutionary biology.
William Dembski's calculations "essentially assume what they are trying to 
prove," Miller said. In contrast, Darwin's ideas made testable predictions. 
"His predictions have been fulfilled overwhelmingly by subsequent 
developments."
"It is disingenuous to speak of design without speaking of creationism," he 
said. "Design theory is creation(ism)."
ID'ers still say everything is the result of design, said Miller, adding, "A 
theory that can explain anything in reality explains nothing."
He incisively critiqued various ID contentions about biology, including its 
claims that the bacterial flagellum or the blood-clotting cascade could not 
have progressively evolved. ID makes the same claim that the Krebs cycle 
(the cyclic series of chemical changes that result in carbohydrate 
metabolism and produce energy for living organisms) could not have evolved. 
"But there is a literature of how it did evolve," Miller countered. And, he 
said, the individual parts do have function.
"Dembski's calculations require an assertion we already know is false," said 
Miller. "The 'evidence' for ID requires a priori assumptions that an 
evolutionary pathway to a structure is impossible.
"Intelligent design creationism is nothing more than old-fashioned 
creationism dressed up in new arguments of information theory and molecular 
biology," Miller said.
He ended by countering the ID contention that science is closed-minded to 
the novel. "Science is not hostile to new ideas," he said. Novel ideas lead 
to new research, which is then subjected to peer review and obtains 
scientific consensus before reaching the classroom and textbooks.
Intelligent design, said Miller, wants to bypass all that messy science "and 
go directly to classrooms and textbooks." This was met with prolonged 
applause.
Dembski, in his presentation, did not so much make any scientific argument 
as assert the primacy of ID's political and popular power over science and 
evolution. (Dembski, who has Ph.D.'s in both mathematics and philosophy, is 
author of The Design Inference, among other pro-ID books.)
"Over the next twenty-five years ID will provide the greatest challenge to 
skepticism," he said. "ID is threatening to be mainstream," he said, 
asserting that polls show 90 percent support. "ID is already becoming 
mainstream within the public themselves," he said. "The usual skeptical 
retorts are not going to work against ID." He contended that ID "turns the 
tables on skepticism."
Dembski contended that Darwinism "is the ultimate status quo," that it 
"squelches dissent." Young people, who "love rebellion," see that and are 
attracted to ID as a result, he claimed. "The public supports intelligent 
design. The public is tired of being bullied by an intellectual elite." He 
contended that skeptics resort to rhetoric and "artificially define ID out 
of science," allowing in only material matters.
Intelligent Design, in contrast, "paints the more appealing world picture" 
whereas skepticism works by being negative. "This doesn't set well with the 
public. . . . To most people evolution doesn't provide a compelling view." 
And to scientists and skeptics who defend evolution and the scientific 
process Dembski ended with a sarcastic "good luck."
The point/counterpoint segment that followed allowed pointed questioning of 
speakers' positions. Some of the interactions were interesting indeed. For 
instance, Nelson at one point referred to a scientific paper on the 
evolution of the Krebs cycle. He said its authors "cannot close the cycle" 
unless they de novo postulate "a missing enzyme." Without that assumption, 
"the evidence doesn't work."
Miller asked for a few minutes. He explained he had the paper in question in 
his laptop computer and would like to find the specific passage. He found 
the paper, displayed it on the ballroom screen in full pdf format, and went 
right to the passage, showing where Nelson had misinterpreted its meaning.
Said Miller, in returning to the general point: "In the evolution of 
metabolism, the achievement of the fundamental steps of the Krebs cycle was 
not difficult at all. Almost all of its structure primarily existed for very 
different purposes, and cells had to add just one enzyme . . . to convert a 
collection of different pathways into the central cyclic pathway of 
metabolism."
At another point the two ID proponents were asked if they believed in the 
great age of the earth. Nelson answered that the earth's age didn't matter 
to him. Dembski said, "ID is not dependent upon any particular view of the 
age of the earth. It is not relevant."
Miller then returned to the question: "Paul, how old do you think the earth 
is?"
Nelson (after a pause): "It's well known I have a young-earth position."
Miller: "That is not so hard, was it?"
Nelson: "I still think it's irrelevant." He said skeptics ask the earth-age 
question "because they get rhetorical mileage out of it."

of the scientific integrity of evolutionary biology.
Be afraid...be very afraid, 'cause the truth is marching on...
Luciano
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com
 The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

 Luciano
e allora perchè non ti scansi? 


ihihih!
Kipling ci ha lasciato un gustoso ritartto dei "geopiattisti" nel
racconto intitolato IL VILLAGGIO CHE VOTO' CHE LA TERRA E' PIATTA.
Questi poveracci stanno facendo lo stesso con l'evoluzione della vita:
in un momento in cui gli OGM sono un fatto di interesse mondiale e
dimostrano in milioni di tonnellate che si possono inserire geni da
una specie all'altra proprio come la Natura ha fatto nel suo percorso
di miliardi di anni, essi "votano" contro!
ihihih!!!
ernesto