From Ed Brayton's site:
Michael Medved, newly named Discovery Institute fellow, lets the cat out of the bag in this interview with the Jerusalem Post:
"The important thing about Intelligent Design is that it is not a theory - which is something I think they need to make more clear. Nor is Intelligent Design an explanation. Intelligent Design is a challenge. It's a challenge to evolution. It does not replace evolution with something else."
He's right, of course. ID is nothing more than a PR campaign against evolution, complete with marketing slogans and spin doctors."
I think we may see some back peddaling coming here. This is not going to set well with Dobson, et al. In fact, this is one of the most bizarre, yet honest, statements to come out of this group- ever.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Grrrrr !! I just read this to my husband -- he and I both hate Medved. We didn't know he was connected with DI !
ReplyDeleteMedved was just recently appointed a "Fellow" of the Discovery Institute.
ReplyDeleteOh, I just cannot wait to see what kind of spin this generates. The IDers hate it when someone slips and speaks the truth. How about "it was taken out of context" as their first line of defense? Beautiful.
ReplyDeleteI cannot understand why the DI would make him a senior fellow. He has no credentials in science, but,...he is a master at framing issues and he is a political chameleon who knows how to use controversial arguments to make his point.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the DI will be re-thinking this choice.
This will be interesting to watch.
AAAHHHH why is DI growing??? Clearly this newbie fellow hasn't learned the ropes yet. Step #1: lie/twist the truth.
ReplyDeleteSkep, good to see you !
ReplyDeleteIt's really good to see you too nonmagical thinking :-)
ReplyDeleteI'm ecstatic you're here!
Actually, Medved is an expert at lying and bending the truth and I suppose that is why he was made a senior fellow.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that the DI, reeling by there recent defeats have turned to a time honored tradition of obfuscation.
Their minions fall for this because most of them are rather uninformed types and so creating confusion will only drive them deeper into their irrational beliefs.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe following is an excerpt from the Dover trial. The questions are being asked on direct examination by the lawyer for the pro-ID side. The witness is Michael Behe, a Discovery Institute Fellow. "Mr. Miller" is Ken Miller, a biologist who testified against the ID side:
ReplyDeleteQ. Sir, what is intelligent design?
Behe: Intelligent design is a scientific theory that proposes that some aspects of life are best explained as the result of design, and that the strong appearance of design in life is real and not just apparent.
Q. Now Dr. Miller defined intelligent design as follows: Quote, Intelligent design is the proposition that some aspects of living things are too complex to have been evolved and, therefore, must have been produced by an outside creative force acting outside the laws of nature, end quote. Is that an accurate definition?
Behe: No, it's a mischaracterization.
Q. Why is that?
Behe: For two reasons. One is, understandable, that Professor Miller is viewing intelligent design from the perspective of his own views and sees it simply as an
attack on Darwinian theory. And it is not that. It is a positive explanation.
The DI no longer cares what scientists think. They're out for media attention, and even bad attention is better than none.
ReplyDeleteIN Russian, "Medved" means "bear." Now you know why he's not very subtle.