Intelligent Design - Stupid Congressman

[USincognito]

Or - why a lawyer shouldn't coach you for a speech about science.

I just became aware of a speech delivered on the floor of the House in 2000 by Congressman Mark Souder where he was decrying a letter from professors are Baylor University critical of him for hosting a conference on Intelligent Design.

Transcripts from the Congressional Record cannot be directly linked to, but if you take the following link to search the 106th Congreess and enter "intelligent design is not a science" the link is the first search result "House of Representatives - June 14, 2000".
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/r106query.html

The text of the letter was entered and if you read the entire speech, at the bottom he thanks ID advocate Philip Johnson for helping him. From this quote, he probably should have chosen a more scientifically literate advisor or even someone who understands logical fallacies. The last paragraph is the important one, and the part in blue is simply sad.

The gentleman from Florida (Mr. CANADY) approached several people, including the Discovery Institute, about plans for such a hearing. The people at Discovery suggested that instead we allow them merely to put on a modest informational briefing on intelligent design . That is exactly what happened, and we regarded the result as very valuable.

Nevertheless, many of us continue to be concerned about the unreasoning viewpoint discrimination in science . This letter dismisses those who do not share the philosophy of science favored by the authors as frauds. It is ironic, however, that the authors do not ever actually get around to answering the substantive arguments put forward by people at the Discovery Institute. The authors support a philosophy of science they call materialistic science . The key phrase in the letter is that we cannot consider God's role in the natural phenomenon we observe. Yet this assumption is merely asserted without any argument.

How can the authors of this letter be so confident that God plays no role in the observable world? Once we acknowledge that God exists, as these professors presumably do since they teach as a Christian university, there is no logical way to rule out the possibility that God may actually do something within the universe He created.

In addition, the philosophy of science the authors talk about is just that, a philosophy. It is not itself science , even according to the definition of science put forward by the authors themselves. They state, for example, that all observations must be explained through empirical observations. I am not sure what that means but I do know this: This statement itself is not verifiable by observation or by methods of scientific inquiry. It is rather a philosophical statement.

The transcript is rather a quick read so I recommend taking the link above, following my directions and reading the whole thing.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Souder is the shameless ideologue who commissioned a one-sided report on the Sternberg-Smithsonian matter, using that single issue to push an agenda of alleging systematic discrimination by universities and institutes against creationist-friendly scholars.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

all observations must be explained through empirical observations.

Shocking! How dare they! [/sarcasm]

I am not sure what that means

Really? than why the hell are you gobbing off about it?

 

[lemmings]

Nothing can be worse than Sen. Ted Stevens' Net Neutrality about tubes and dumpsters.

How are these people getting into office anyways? I thought that you needed lobbyists to get into office.

 

[PKJ]

"I can't fit my dogma in science so I'll just make up a new definition of science".

That is very stupid, and an insult to people who actually do science.

 

[Contracelsus]

Nothing can be worse than Sen. Ted Stevens' Net Neutrality about tubes and dumpsters.

How are these people getting into office anyways? I thought that you needed lobbyists to get into office.

They are running for office in the United States...that's how they are getting into office!

We are fiercely proud of our collective ignorance. This is why conservative candidates of all stripes trot out the "Aw shucks, I hain't no intellectchul! I are a simple farmboy from the countryside!"

It is a strong streak of hatred for intellect in the U.S. and especially for science. Yet mysteriously we hold onto our lead in scientific education...guess that's why the number of american-born science/engineering grad students in said educational institutions is decreasing year over year at alarming rates.

But who am _I_ to be concerned. I hain't no intellectchul, I'm just a simple country boy from the midwest. WOn'tcha pleeze vote for me?

 

[USincognito]

My BA degree in 1990 was in History and Political Science. Life has since then brought me to a point where I'm a security guard on a corporate campus... yet somehow I can see that the philosophy of science, which determines some basic metaphysical underpinings of what it can and cannot address, are inherently philisophical, and understand both what empiricism means and how it is crucial to the Scientific Method while a man who can be elected - repeatedly - to the U.S. House of Representatives is utterly clueless on both of these issues does not give me hope for the future of this nation.

 

[Apos]

Note that the Sternberg report he authored amusingly presents all the facts necessary to completely refute the complaints made in the report.
A classic case of how you can have your own spin on things, but not your own facts.

 

[BeamMeUpScotty]

If the ignorance this congress-critter has shown were an employable trait, which it apparently is for him, there would be no unemployment in the USA.

 

[USincognito]

Looks like some of the Creationists in OT didn't do their homework about Rep. Souder.
http://www.christianforums.com/t4460932-darwinian-inquisition.html

 

[tocis]

The last paragraph is the important one, and the part in blue is simply sad.

"I don't know jack about the topic of my speech but I know I'm right and They are wrong!!!!111!!!!"

 

[tocis]

It is a strong streak of hatred for intellect in the U.S. and especially for science. Yet mysteriously we hold onto our lead in scientific education...

Word!

It often seems to the average German I am that there's the US and the US. The US are a modern, democratic, well-educated nation, while the US are a backwater, ultra-conservative, fanatically religious dark spot on the world map.
Yep, this is quite sarcastic. Beg your pardon if I offended anyone, just wanted to get the point across as clearly as possible.

 

[[serious]]

That is pretty damn funny. scientists are perfectly able to publish papers even if they have strange ideas about certain things. Tesla beleived it was possible to commune with the dead and made some wonderful advances in electricity. Funny thing though, he understood the differance between beleif and science and never tried publishing a paper on communing with the dead.

 

[Chalnoth]

That is pretty damn funny. scientists are perfectly able to publish papers even if they have strange ideas about certain things. Tesla beleived it was possible to commune with the dead and made some wonderful advances in electricity. Funny thing though, he understood the differance between beleif and science and never tried publishing a paper on communing with the dead.

It's just amazing to me that some people can have such fantastic beliefs and still do good science.