Is this guy a metaphysical bigot?

He fears he is, and I, of course, politely refuse to dispute the case with him. (One should never dispute such cases with anyone. People who need enlightening on such points must enlighten themselves or be enlightened by higher powers than me.)

I am a metaphysical bigot and you probably are too. What do metaphysical bigots think? We think that creationism is a historical hypothesis: it is not a hypothesis about the future. We come to the conclusion that creationism is not scientific because it, by definition, is a supernatural historical hypothesis. We come to the conclusion that creationism is probably not true because we cannot tell whether or not creationism is, in fact, true.

I would urge you to read the rest of his abstract for a typical upcoming conference for yourself. (Either this is the same conference, or these people hold too many conferences.) I will note, however, that irrespective of bigotry, Darwinian evolution, by its very nature, is just as much of a "historical hypothesis" (and not a "hypothesis about the future") as is creationism. So there is nothing there to distinguish it from creationism here.

I have no idea whether creationism is true, but good mathematicians assure me that Darwinism must be false, and I can certainly see why they think so.

Blog service note 1: Did you come here looking for one of these stories?

- the Privileged Planet film shown at the Smithsonian, go here for an extended review. Please do not raise cain about an "anti-evolution" film without seeing it. If your doctor forbids that, at least read my detailed log of the actual subjects of the film. If you were one of the people who raised cain, ask yourself why you should continue to believe the people who so misled you about the film's actual content ...

- the actual showing of Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian, go here and here to start, and then this one and this one will bring you up to date.

(The only big news is that, just before the event, the Smithsonian announced that it intended on keeping $5000 of the $16 000 that it claimed in public that it would return to Discovery Institute. So if you are a journalist like me, be among the first to get the numbers right, m'kay?)

- the California Academy of Sciences agreeing to correct potentially libellous statements about attorney Larry Caldwell, who thinks that students should know about weaknesses as well as strengths of Darwinian evolution theory, click on the posted link and check the current daily post for any updates.

- Bill Dembski threatening to sue the Thomas More Law Center in the Dover, Pennsylvania ID case, click on the posted link and check the current daily post for updates. (Note: In breaking news, this has apparently been settled. See the story for details. )

What blows me away, as a journalist, is that — so far as I can determine from the posts that appeared in my comments box when I wondered about the point of this particular conference: Darwinists seem to want to talk about the Darwinian Revolution without addressing seriously the crisis that most North Americans checked out of the Revolution a long time ago, and (to judge from the growing number of education controversies) they are leaving in bigger droves every day, and becoming more militant about it. To me, coming from a news perspective, that's the only story worth covering right now. It makes about as much sense to discuss the history at this point as to argue over the style of the afternoon tea sandwiches on the up-ending Titanic.

The Darwinists, of course, mostly think that their neighbours are all ignorant hillbillies driven by mindless superstition (see the charming example in the following post). But the neighbours themselves think that the universe and life forms show clear evidence of intelligent design - and that belief is not held as a superstition. Increasing numbers of the suspicious neighbours are scientists.

What Sosis really needs is to spend some time looking seriously at the science evidence against the neo-Darwinian theory of evolution, which, in the age of the Internet, is becoming ever more widely known. If he thinks there isn’t any, and never could be any such evidence, yes he is a bigot, alas, but otherwise, I am sure, a nice young fellow. On the other hand, he might look at the state of the evidence and find himself on a fruitful, exciting, and interesting journey. Hey ... I'm putting my money on the latter.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Blog service note 2: Comments temporarily disabled

Because I will be on vacation from blogging for a few days, I have disabled Comments for recent stories. Anyone who wishes to start an Internet rumour that 1) this blog no longer accepts comments, period or 2) I have abandoned blogging/disappeared/died can start it at any time and publicize it as widely as they wish. To avoid wasting electrons, do try to provide a correct URL, however. - Denyse

Speaking of wrong ways to defend Darwinian evolution (from goo to zoo to you in a zillion easy steps)...

... at least one Thumbsman proposes to defend Darwinism by, apparently, any means. Note the following comment at the Panda’s Thumb blog on how to force the public to accept it (but you must scroll down, or search on 35130):

Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

Not so, friend. Your only problem is that you are living in an open society, and you would be much happier in a closed one, which would feature much “public firing and humiliation,” et cetera .... If you achieved your goal, science would certainly not be among the winners.