Back to the serious
There's the New York Times showing its damn liberal bias again. Article about the film Expelled, and about how several scientists, including PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins (you can find his website yourself, I'll bet) were interviewed under false pretenses (they believed they were being interviewed for a different movie called Crossroads, which
( Read more... )
A bunch of links about debunked nonsense. And now I really need to go do stuff.
Reply
No, they haven't. Whenever ID starts getting into laying out the details, we get "it's not scientific, don't bother us." You even do it IN THIS VERY REPLY. If it's wrong, then argue that it's wrong. If the science it is based on is flawed, then show it. If the conclusions that are drawn are flawed, then show it. (in general, we don't have to get into the battle here) But, for the love of URD, don't sit here and say that science is a method of investigation, and then use the holy name of science to restrict what can be investigated. Because that is a double standard.
I'm not going to get into the details of ID and why I think you're wrong in saying that it is flawed. That's not the point, and I really don't want to spend the time fighting a battle with one of me vs. fifty of you.
As for your links... Blogs, blogs, and more blogs. I especially like the one that reads like a redneck recounting his fishing expedition. "Let me tell you about the time I bagged Dembski." It's a blog. You have no idea if it's true or not. Could be up there with Scott Beauchamp, or it could be real. Never know. But you seem to take it as gospel.
I may give the books a go. Though I'm skeptical of any book that seems to set ID in opposition to evolution. Clearest sign that the author has no clue as to what he's talking about. That's like the opposition between a car and its tires. All of ID's calculations (and I don't care whether you think they're right or wrong, it's not the point) are based on the assumption of evolution. Hell, if anything, it forces creationists to face the undeniable fact that Evolution is the only theory that fits the evidence. Period. ID is just a bit of questioning about the naturalist assumption.
Reply
For instance, ERV has a little more to say about irreducible complexity. There's this article from American Scientist Online about various problems with ID, and then there's this article reprinted from Natural History magazine in which three short articles from ID proponents are refuted by other scientists. That was a couple of minutes of Google searching.
Finally, I have to say, thank you for the ad hominem attack on me and my ability to rationally evaluate evidence, as well as miscasting both my attitude and the attitudes of the scientific community. ID has laid out all the details. Behe and Dembski have both written several books. All their details are there. Their arguments are not being dismissed out of hand. Their science has been shown to be flawed, repeatedly. I have no doubt you are capable of finding more examples of ID being shown to be flawed than the couple I've linked, which is certainly something you don't seem to have done as of yet. I'm, in fact, somewhat dubious that you, yourself, have a clear understanding of either ID or evolution, since ID is a counter to evolution, and is based almost entirely on the idea that certain aspects of biology can't be explained by evolution (they can), and thus a designer is what enabled those aspects so that evolution could take it the rest of the way.
Simply put, however, the biggest problem with ID is that it is not just not scientific, it is anti-scientific; it's a recasting of the teleological argument, and, like I said, strives to put the Designer (almost invariably thought to be the Christian God by its proponents) forward as the answer to any biological question that has yet to be answered. If humanity had accepted God as an answer to questions about the way the world works, we'd still be tilling our fields with steel plows pulled by donkeys and light candles at night. Here is a further exploration of the philosophical problems with ID.
I also don't know when I turned into 50 people.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Except that I DON'T shoot down sources that are Mainstream Media. In fact, those are the ones I cite. So you have plenty of room, thank you very much.
I'm really sorry links to a bunch of blogs written by actual scientists isn't good enough for you.
No, they aren't. They are not peer-reviews. They have no controls. There is no way to tell what is fact, and what is opinion and bias. So, no. A blog is a blog. I don't cite you Michelle Malkin, do I?
There's a difference between opinion pieces and blogs, and actual scientific reasoning, such as what you would find in journals such as nature (which I seem to recall you scoffed at). Nor will these guys take on a "non-scientist" head-to-head, such as when they opposed his "Nature of Nature" conference.
Finally, I have to say, thank you for the ad hominem attack on me and my ability to rationally evaluate evidence, as well as miscasting both my attitude and the attitudes of the scientific community.
So now we've come to the point where you're characterizing disagreements as ad hominem attacks? That is... rather regrettable.
ID has laid out all the details. Behe and Dembski have both written several books. All their details are there. Their arguments are not being dismissed out of hand. Their science has been shown to be flawed, repeatedly. I have no doubt you are capable of finding more examples of ID being shown to be flawed than the couple I've linked,
And I also am capable of finding examples where the criticisms are flawed or biased. Simply because scientists have responded, does not mean that the arguments have been refuted, you know. But, again, my intent is not to get into the evidence, itself, but rather the rank bias against the field of study.
which is certainly something you don't seem to have done as of yet.
You accuse me of making attacks, and then throw this out? Gee, good one, Ian. Would you think it appropriate if I said that you obviously haven't researched ID, because you don't agree with me?
I'm, in fact, somewhat dubious that you, yourself, have a clear understanding of either ID or evolution, since ID is a counter to evolution,
Except that it is FUNDAMENTAL to the math behind I.D. I'm really not sure where you get the idea that it is counter to evolution.
and is based almost entirely on the idea that certain aspects of biology can't be explained by evolution (they can), and thus a designer is what enabled those aspects so that evolution could take it the rest of the way.
No. It is based on the idea that things can not be SOLELY explained by evolution. It is not a replacement for evolution, but a proposed COMPANION. It's like saying that the dead guy can't be explained solely by a gun. You need a shooter.
Simply put, however, the biggest problem with ID is that it is not just not scientific, it is anti-scientific; it's a recasting of the teleological argument, and, like I said, strives to put the Designer (almost invariably thought to be the Christian God by its proponents) forward as the answer to any biological question that has yet to be answered.
And yet we allow consideration of fields such as archeology and forensics. I guess naturalism is the order of the day... except when it isn't.
If humanity had accepted God as an answer to questions about the way the world works, we'd still be tilling our fields with steel plows pulled by donkeys and light candles at night.
Many devout scientists have managed to accept both God and science. In fact, many have considered scientific inquiry as a matter of getting to understand God's works. The two are not mutually exclusive, except for those who want to force a divide.
Reply
When did I say you did? I'm going to risk sounding like I'm attacking here, but this is getting a bit old. For someone with an English degree, you have an amazing habit of reading things only one way, and that is the one in which you get to take the most offense.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
What the ID community has said has not been refuted, it has been responded to. There is a difference. And you can't refute what you don't accept as scientific inquiry.
I love how you pooh-pooh blogs, especially since basically all ID has to offer right now is a blog (Uncommon Descent, where they ban everyone who says anything remotely critical of ID and generally make themselves look like total idiots).
True. All I have is the books and my review of the information. However, if your guys won't let them step on the stage, you have no place complaining when they perform in a different venue. But, hey, the Catch 22 seems to be working for y'all.
Other than that, all you've got is Behe's latest book, which has been completely ripped to shreds by pretty much anyone who's reviewed it.
Anything can be ripped to shreds, given enough snark and one-sided views. I try to look a bit deeper to see if the arguments hold water.
ID is in opposition to evolution. It's saying "natural processes can't explain X, Y and Z, so goddidit". That X, Y and Z are part of the evolutionary process does not make this any more valid. And ID, right now, is basically the Discovery Institute (crackpots who also employ Young Earth Creationists), Michael Behe (whose own academic department put up a disclaimer saying they disagree with him), and William Dembski, who sent out an email claiming his opponents had met their "Waterloo", got canned by Baylor, and is now desperately attempting to cling onto any shreds of academic respectability his former association with Baylor might still afford him.
Yeah, good job you guys did there, with Dembski. You guys didn't like what he had to say, so you pretty much destroyed him professionally. But, you know, witch hunts and political lynchings are not science. Or do you think it's not possible for scientists to do so?
We'll never come to any sort of agreement on this, but it honestly continues to boggle me how much credibility you continue to give to people like Dembski, who's lost every shred of credibility he ever had.
The fact that your guys ran a pretty good smear campaign doesn't mean he was discredited.
Here's the thing. If you want to discredit him, then have your guys take him on, in an honest debate. Where he gets to respond. The way you tell it, the scientific community should be MORE than capable of taking him apart. Let them do it in a fair fight. Hell, make Dembski put up or shut up. If he can't perform, then people like me will leave him.
Reply
The ID side is, in a word, *religious*. They are unable to divide their scientific outlook from their personal beliefs about an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent guiding force behind the entire universe. When they examine a counter-argument, their attitude is not "Is this counter-argument a valid response to the points I raised?", it's "Does this counter-argument convince me that God cannot possibly exist?". Of course, in most cases the answer is "No". Thus, the counter-argument can be deemed invalid, and the original argument can be re-used in all future discussions.
Meanwhile, the real scientists find the same faulty arguments being used again and again and again, until they get so tired of refuting them again and again that they give up. And the ID side declares themselves matyrs/opressed by The Man/winners by default.
Reply
They haven't honestly responded to it once. They just fire shots from behind their own cover. Sorry, but you have to debunk at least once before you can use that argument.
The ID side is, in a word, *religious*. They are unable to divide their scientific outlook from their personal beliefs about an eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent guiding force behind the entire universe. When they examine a counter-argument, their attitude is not "Is this counter-argument a valid response to the points I raised?", it's "Does this counter-argument convince me that God cannot possibly exist?". Of course, in most cases the answer is "No". Thus, the counter-argument can be deemed invalid, and the original argument can be re-used in all future discussions.
Except that anyone who reads Dembski's work can't come away with that point of view. Read his books. He talks a lot about probability, biology, and physics. He deals in math and science, not theology. Though, based on your reasoning, I probably shouldn't have responded to that, because I should restrict how many times I let you re-use the same argument before I declare it not worth responding to anymore.
Meanwhile, the real scientists find the same faulty arguments being used again and again and again, until they get so tired of refuting them again and again that they give up.
They haven't been refuted. They've been responded to, and in a very flawed and biased way. Refuting them takes a lot more work. Like, letting your opponent respond to the criticisms. That's why they don't want to be on the same stage with Dembski. Then they can't wave their magic "it's not science" wands and make his points disappear.
Reply
I don't understand what archeology and forensics have to do with my statement about ID being the teleological argument. Many devout scientists clearly don't feel the need to support Intelligent Design, because it's almost entirely being supported by religious non-scientists and by the folk at the Discovery Institute. You're metaphor of the dead guy and the gun would, I guess, be apropos if it were actually the case, but most in the scientific community aren't at all convinced there does need to be a shooter, or rather, a designer. If there must be an intelligent designer, who designed the designer?
You talk the talk of "looking deeper to see if arguments hold water," and of accusing people of having unreasoning biases, but it seems pretty clear to me that the arguments only hold water for you if they support something you want to believe in, and thus it's likely that the unreasoning bias is in you. You wear your persecution complex quite as well as Dembski and Behe do.
Reply
OH DEAR FUCKING GOD. WHAT IS IT WITH YOU? DO YOU ALWAYS FUCKING INSIST ON TAKING EVERYTHING THE WORST FUCKING WAY?
I give up. When you behave like this, I have no desire to even consider trying to engage in an intelligent debate with you, because you refuse to meet me half way, with ANY degree of understanding. I had higher hopes for you.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment