CRITICAL THINKING
about the manuscript entitled:
“Definitive Fossil Evidence for Intelligent Design (ID)”
by Sue Doe-Nim
-------------------------[NOTE TO TEACHERS: This article is a parody. The fossil specimen in the photo is,
in fact, authentic and the Methods section of the paper is an accurate description.
However, the reasoning and conclusions expressed in the article are clearly illogical and
unjustified. Although my main purpose in writing this article was to generate levity, it
may be possible for teachers to use this article as an example (perhaps a weak one) of
pseudoscience and pseudoscientific reasoning. It is pseudoscientific for several reasons.
First, it is based on anecdote (a single observation). Second, its interpretation as
symbolic lettering (ID) is based on superficial examination of the specimen in question,
with inadequate efforts to generate alternative explanations for the fossil configuration.
Third, its discussion and conclusions are made with utter disregard and disconnect to
geologic and paleontologic sciences. Fourth, it claims to provide evidence to support
Intelligent Design, an interpretation of the natural world which itself is non-testable and
unscientific. Evolution and evolutionary theory, in fact, are supported by and integrally
incorporated into virtually all types of natural sciences, including: geology, earth
science, biology, ecology, biochemistry, genetics, oceanography, paleontology,
anthropology, psychology, and more. For purposes of stimulating critical thinking,
students could be asked to consider and respond to the following questions. - Charlie
Drewes, May, 2005]
--------------------------
(1) Is the conclusion of this paper scientifically justified and defensible? Explain why or
why not?
(2) If you do not feel that the conclusion of this paper is justified or defensible from a
scientific standpoint, then explain what measure of paleontologic evidence would
adequately support the conclusion made in the paper?
(3) From the standpoint of paleontologic science, what are some possible natural
explanations for the specific identity and formation of the particular fossil specimen(s)
shown in the photograph? [Note: You should assume that the specimen in the photograph
is authentic and that it was obtained from a fossil bed, which in fact are both true.]
(4) What is pseudoscience? Is this paper an example of pseudoscience? Explain why or
why not? Some useful links to consult are listed below.
--------------------------
http://books.nap.edu/html/nses/6a.html
http://webexhibits.org/bogus/index.html
http://www.csicop.org/
http://www.csj.org/studyindex/studycrthk/study_pseddoscience/study_factpseudo.htm
http://www.chem1.com/acad/sci/pseudosci.html
http://www.metaresearch.org/solar%20system/cydonia/proof_files/proof.asp
http://www.criticalthinking.org/