I wrote:
>>This is **not** because of any new scientific research
>>being conducted by the proponents of Intelligent Deisgn.

wirelessguru1 wrote:
>It is new interpretation of data...

Unfortunately, the claim that Intelligent Design is a "new
interpretation of data" just more of advertising being used
by the Discovery Institute to peddle a 200 year-old, quite
religious, God-of-the-Gaps theology as brand new science.
Although it might be effective advertising, it is still untrue
and bankrupt science. The cigarette companies were excellent
at convincing people that cigarettes were safe to smoke.
However, that neither made their claims true nor made the
cigarettes safe to smoke.

If wirelessguru1 wants a good laugh, he might want to look
at [www.re-discovery.org]. :-) :-) :-)

I wrote
>>Rather the success of Intelligent Design is the result
>>of a well-funded, on the scale of over a million dollars,
>>anti-evolution public relations and political lobbying
>>efforts by various pro-ID organizations, including the
>>Discovery Institute.

wirelessguru1 wrote:
>Well, then like I said to Barnard, it seems like
>"natural selection" is favoring them or their genes.
>The "evidence" shows that they are "successful"
>getting the fiat money...

The fact that a specific idea attracts money has nothing to do with
it being scientific or not. A person need only look at the huge
amount of money donated to churchs for missionary work to see that
"natural selection" quite often favors projects involving religious
agendas in terms of getting "the fiat money". At his best, "natural
selection" as defined by wirelessguru1, favored Jimmy Swaggert far
better than the average biologist. Just because wirelessguru's
so-called "natural selection" favored Jimmy Swaggert in terms of
attracting money failed to prove that either him or his beliefs
were scientific in any way

A revealing way of how the Discovery Institute" and other supporters
of Intelligent Design practice their idea of "science" is noted in
"Catholic Church Appears to Step Backward on Evolution Leading
Cardinal Redefines Church's View on Evolution in the July 9, 2005
New York Times at [lettrist.blogspot.com].

Where "the institute" refers to the "Discovery Institute", this New
York Times article stated:

"Mark Ryland, a vice president of the institute,
said in an interview that he had urged the cardinal
to write the essay. Both Mr. Ryland and Cardinal
Schönborn said that an essay in May in The Times
about the compatibility of religion and evolutionary
theory by Lawrence M. Krauss, a physicist at Case
Western Reserve University in Cleveland, suggested
to them that it was time to clarify the church's
position on evolution.

The cardinal's essay was submitted to The Times by
a Virginia public relations firm, Creative Response
Concepts, which also represents the Discovery
Institute."

Also, there is "The Discovery Institute and Public Relations at
[www.pandasthumb.org]. It stated about the Discovery Institute:

"In fact, it turns out that over the past year
they had enough money to hire a very high-profile
public relations firm, Creative Response Concepts
(CRC), to spread their message."

This article noted that other clients for Creative Response Concepts
included “Contract for America”, Parents Television Council, Regnery
Publishing (the firm that published Phillip Johnson’s book, Darwin On
Trial), the high-profile client of the 2004 USA presidential campaign,
“Swift Boat Vets for Truth“, and AT&T.

Apparently neither wirelessguru1 nor the Discovery Institute do not
understand the difference between media campaigns and public relations
stunts, even if they are successful, and real science. The right
advertising campaign can be successful at promoting an idea regardless
of whether it is science or junk. The "natural selection", which
wirelessguru1 talks about proved nothing about Intelligent Design
being real science. All it proved is that some people are willing to
spend lots and lots of money to promote a religious agenda. Besides,
if there was any real science proving the validity of Intelligent
Design, the Discovery Institute would not need to pay a company
involved in political smears, such as the “Swift Boat Vets for Truth“
campaign, lots and lots of money in order to convince people that
Intelligent Design is scientific.

Best reagrds,

Paul H.

P.S. in my previous post I badly garbled the name of the advertising
firm. I apologize for that.

"The past is never dead. It's not even past."
William Faulkner, Act 1, Scene III, Requiem for a Nun (1951)



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 08/08/2005 10:08PM by Paul H..