Reflections on the contemporary church, culture, Christian philosophy and doctrine.
"it has a plethora of impressive accolades already"The cheering crowds are creationists cheering for one of their own. Scientists simply say "Ho Hum" - yet another ridiculous book of non-science nonsense.
Sigh. You exemplfiy everything that is intellectually embarrasing with the anti-ID movement. You have no answers, you don't do the work necessary to deal with the ideas actually proposed by ID, you construct and destroy straw-men, you dismiss people without dealing with their ideas, you are loaded with ad hominum arguments with no work on the merits of the problem, and apparently, you can't even bring yourself to read the dustjackets of their books.There are not only endorsements of the book from established and respected scientists, there are positive endorsements from scientists who disagree with ID, but find the arguments important.You are a great example of why the traditional Darwinian movement is going the way of the Dodo bird. You have rested on your political laurels for so long, you have forgotten how to think, and you have forgotten that the truth of the matter is not up for peer review.
"You exemplify everything that is intellectually embarrassing with the anti-ID movement."I have corrected your spelling. You also misspelled "signature" in your main title.There is no "anti-ID movement". Such a "movement" would have to be against something. ID is nothing but anti-science bafflegab."You have no answers,"Wrong. I have the fundamental answer - it's not science. No other answer is needed."you don't do the work necessary to deal with the ideas actually proposed by ID"No such work is necessary since most of the "ideas" are anti-science nonsense. The "ideas" that are explicitly anti-evolution have been refuted many, many times. But the pseudo-scientists just repeat them over and over again."you dismiss people without dealing with their ideas"when their ideas are not scientific."you are loaded with ad hominem arguments"Wrong. "It's not science" is true and not an "ad hominem". (I corrected your spelling.) "with no work on the merits of the problem"The problem (the origin of life from non-life) is being worked on by real scientists. Proposing an "intelligent cause" simply says "we will never know" and that is the end of science."There are not only endorsements of the book from established and respected scientists"An "argument from authority" is just not good enough in this case."You are a great example of why the traditional Darwinian movement is going the way of the Dodo bird."Hilarious nonsense. Besides, this book does not even try to argue against evolution. Meyer proposes that an "intelligent cause" created the first life about 4 billion years ago. "forgotten that the truth of the matter is not up for peer review"Hilarious nonsense.Bottom line - there is nothing new in this book and it will be ignored because it's meaningless nonsense.
Thanks for correcting the spelling errors. I don’t pretend to be a spelling-bee champion. But I should have checked my work much more carefully before I sent it out into cyberspace.But I think that is about the only place where you have me. You might have me on the word “movement” in that the anti-ID sentiment doesn’t necessarily have t-shirts and annual meetings in Orlando, but that is where it ends.Your singular response highlights what I was trying to point out: instead of doing the work of pointing out where exactly the efforts of ID goes wrong, you and others conveniently dismiss it as “not science.” That’s a little like someone dismissing someone who disagrees with them by labeling them as “not smart.” If we can successfully label a person or an idea that way, we can define them out of the area of ideas. And that is actually a kind of argumentative fallacy that relies on emotional sabotage or unreflective presuppositions.But that isn’t going to fly for long. Maybe you have a definition of “science” that allows you to dismiss ID, or maybe you have a reason or two for claiming that ID doesn’t deserve your attention?
"instead of doing the work of pointing out where exactly the efforts of ID goes wrong"The efforts go wrong instantly. There is always the claim "scientists do not understand this yet". Followed by "therefore god did it". So, yes, that's "not science"."That’s a little like someone dismissing someone who disagrees with them by labeling them as “not smart.”"WRONG. There is an established definition of science and Meyer admits in Chapters 18 and 19 that he needs to change the definition of science!"Maybe you have a definition of “science” that allows you to dismiss ID"YES! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science"capable of resulting in a prediction""god did it" can predict anything and everything. So it can never be science. The "supernatural" is "beyond science" and it can never be "useful" to science.
Post a Comment