Time Magazine: Evolution vs. ID (Merged)

[GreyGhost]

Time Magazine's August 15, 2005 issue is about the evolution/intelligent design debate. It should be interesting. Here is a link, but you can't read the whole article unless you are a subscriber. Or you can wait until it hits the news stands, like I am going to do.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1090909,00.html

You can read the link called "Can you believe in God and Evolution?" It has four people with four different views on the subject. Michael Behe is one of them. I really like his reasoning for saying evolution is incorrect. Here is his reason: "I'm still not against Darwinian evolution on theological grounds. I'm against it on scientific grounds." But he gives no evidence for his claim other than the usual ID crap. Basically he says that since things are complicated then there had to have been an intelligent designer. This is what he has to say on that: "As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God." Who says that ID is biased? :D Then he goes on to say that science is not nearly as strong as they think. Assuming that "they" are the scientific community. I know people have said this time and time again, but if ID wants to be taken seriously they need to start doing some research to prove their point. It makes me sad that people buy into it.

The last guy interviewed is a typical YEC. Nothing new, but I still get a kick out of them.

[NottyImp]

"As a Christian, I say that intelligence is very likely to be God."

Ah. Is that "scientific" as well? :rolleyes:

[Hookpunch]

Ah. Is that "scientific" as well? :rolleyes:

As a Scientologist I say Xenu
As a Nation of Islam follower - Yacub
As a Scandanavian pagan -Odin
As a Hindu -Vishnu

etc.

And they say there is differing opinions by evolutionists.

[Monad]

I wonder why they still bother with Behe? - imo his ideas are pretty much dead these days. IC is rubbish and has been completely refuted both as a concept (which as an observation is totally banal and trivial on one level and at the same time no more than a rehash of the argument from incredulity) and as a set of purported evidences for design.

[RBH]

I wonder why they still bother with Behe? - imo his ideas are pretty much dead these days. IC is rubbish and has been completely refuted both as a concept (which as an observation is totally banal and trivial on one level and at the same time no more than a rehash of the argument from incredulity) and as a set of purported evidences for design.Behe's one of their few 'real' scientists who actually published decent work before he got entranced with IC/ID and gave up doing real science. They need him as a figurehead and exemplar.

IC is at the heart of Dembski's "specified complexity", which is their primary "marker of intelligence." They need SC, and by extension IC, to claim that there is an ID "science".

RBH

[Godless Wonder]

I was just leafing through this at the grocery store a couple hours ago while waiting in line at the checkout. Didn't get to read the whole thing, but did notice a little sidebar which had two paragraphs, one taking the position that "the eye" could not evolve, and another taking the position (and briefly explaining how) the eye could evolve. I was disappointed to notice that it failed to mention a specific number of times that the eye has been known to evolve independently, and the several sorts of eyes that there are ("camera" eyes like ours, and that of the octopus (separately evolved), compound insect eyes, the reflecting telescope eyes of the scallop, the pinhole eye of the nautilus, etc.)

Didn't get to read much before I got to the head of the line though.

[Godfather]

BugMeNot to read the article.

[Prof]

BugMeNot to read the article.

I tried bugmenot for the times article but it didn't seem to work. The times page asks for more information than just a password and email, which is all bugmenot provided.

Did you get it to work with bugmenot?

Thanks.

I'd really like to read it, but Time puts out a Canadian version here so we don't get the same cover stories. (Which annoys me, because I always read time to catch the pulse of America. I didn't need another Canadian newsmag).

Prof.

[Hookpunch]

I tried bugmenot for the times article but it didn't seem to work. The times page asks for more information than just a password and email, which is all bugmenot provided.

Did you get it to work with bugmenot?

Thanks.

I'd really like to read it, but Time puts out a Canadian version here so we don't get the same cover stories. (Which annoys me, because I always read time to catch the pulse of America. I didn't need another Canadian newsmag).

Prof.

Hey Prof -I picked up this issue - the cover story is the evolution debate in the Canadian edition.

[Godless Wonder]

A lot of the article is in the second post here on talk.origins (http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/browse_thread/thread/831755674ace75ab/0362e4dc2ad10419?q=%22time+magazine%22&rnum=1&hl=en#0362e4dc2ad10419) including the box with the two too brief opinions about how the eye can/cannot evolve that I mentioned.

Edit: oh wait, I see at the end the poster says, " That's all I could get access to without a subscription. " so I guess it's not anything you can't get from the link in the OP, though following the link in the OP it wasn't obvious to me how to get as much as he got.

[Javaman]

FYI, BugMeNot is used to bypass the annoying 'Free Registration' sites. TIME Magazine is not one of those and actually wants money for their service. Pro'ly why it doesn't work as many have found out already.

[Worldtraveller]

I bought it yesterday, and will see if I can give ya'll a decent review sometime in the next couple of days. (I won't violate any copyright laws, I promise).

Cheers,
Lane

[GreyGhost]

I just read the article last night. It isn't bad, but they are too lenient on ID. Richard Dawkins does have some good comments on ID, but if I was someone who didn't know anything about evolution or ID I probably would still be confused. Time doesn't really explain what evolution is about. Of course you can easily explain ID by saying "things in nature are complex, so therefore it has to be the work of a designer." Of course we all know who they want everyone to think the designer is without actually having the backbone to say it. At least it does mention some IDers don't want their "theory" taught yet because it isn't ready. And Dawkins does explain it isn't real science, and Behe agrees that it can't be tested scientifically. But when they have a testable theory lookout evolution! Or so they think.

I would give the article a rating of average. Someone who doesn't know anything about ID or evolution might not get much out of it and still be confused about the whole thing. I would really like some decent reporting showing ID for the junk it is.

[Rhaedas]

I was disappointed to notice that it failed to mention a specific number of times that the eye has been known to evolve independently, and the several sorts of eyes that there are ("camera" eyes like ours, and that of the octopus (separately evolved), compound insect eyes, the reflecting telescope eyes of the scallop, the pinhole eye of the nautilus, etc.)

The chapter of "Climbing Mt. Improbable" that discusses eye evolution is one of my favorite. Indeed, once you get real facts, the many pathways life has taken to solve this problem don't help the IDers one bit....they should stop using it as an example.

[Red Expendable]

Did anyone read the article in Time magazine?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,1101050815,00.html

I actually bought the magazine because of the article. I thought it was a little bit infuriating about giving any voice at all to intelligent design. How can anyone consider that science. Even though, the article seemed somewhat even-handed, I think that by put out the argument the way they did gave Intelligent Design more legitimacy than it deserves. Any comments?

There were some nice quotes from Dawkins in there though!

RedEx

[Varecia]

I saw it on the shelves today at the grocery store, but I didn't buy it. But now that I look more closely at the cover, particularly the subtitle asking if God has a place in science class, I think it may not be such a bad cover. It rightly associates intelligent design with God in science classes, which is something the IDer's are infuriatingly coy about. It may be a useful thing to have Time Magazine making that association for the average Joe and Jane, rather than an academic.

[ecco]

FWIW, the August 15th issue of Time Magazine has a pretty good article on the Evo/Crea debate.