Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Science Fiction (Leftists worry IDers are using Leftist tactics to win 'Intelligent Design fight)
TNR ^ | September 9, 2005 | Noam Scheiber

Posted on 09/19/2005 6:01:22 PM PDT by gobucks

In 1993, the journalist Jonathan Rauch published a book called Kindly Inquisitors, in which he catalogued contemporary threats to the Enlightenment tradition of seeking truth through logical or empirical discourse. One of Rauch's points was that, while this (classical) liberal system for amassing knowledge appeared to be under attack from both the religious right and the multicultural left, in fact the two groups were making a version of the same argument: Mainstream science didn't accord their beliefs the respect they deserved, whether it was creation science on the one hand or feminist or Afro-centric science on the other.

Rauch's book has held up remarkably well in the twelve years since it was published. This is particularly so in light of the current debate over intelligent design (ID)--the idea, popular on the right, that life is too complex to have resulted from random variation. Even President Bush has suggested, as the creation scientists (and multiculturalists) of the 1980s and 1990s did before him, that both sides of the supposed debate be treated as legitimate in public school curricula.

But there was one thing Rauch didn't anticipate. At the time, he suggested that, even though creationists had adopted the tactics of the academic left--the demand for equal time--they still believed in objective truths. They just didn't think all of these truths were discoverable by science. By contrast, today's IDers have gone further and adopted the epistemology of the left--the idea that ostensibly scientific truths may be relative.

The animating principle of the postmodern left is the notion that truth follows from power and not from its intrinsic rightness. It's a conceit that began in the humanities but eventually spread to hard sciences like physics. "The point is that neither logic nor mathematics escapes the contamination of the social," as postmodern pooh-bah Stanley Aronowitz has put it. What makes this approach so radical is its implication that the way to win intellectually is to win politically.

In making their arguments, the postmodernists rely heavily on the work of historians of science like Thomas Kuhn. It was Kuhn who famously argued that scientific knowledge proceeds as a sequence of "paradigm shifts"--revolutions in the way we understand the world--and that the shifts occur not simply when the evidence in favor of the new paradigm becomes overwhelming, but when the people invested in the old paradigm are in some sense defeated (which may not occur until long after they're proved wrong). Mainstream science has taken from Kuhn the belief that evidence and logic are necessary, if not quite sufficient, conditions for a paradigm shift and that, in the long run, successive shifts bring society closer to objective truth. Where the postmodernists go awry is in their emphasis on Kuhn's relativism.

Unfortunately, these postmodernist ideas have become a staple of the ID movement. As laid out in a strategic memo produced by the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, the leading backer of intelligent design, "Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, and Sigmund Freud portrayed humans not as moral and spiritual beings, but as animals or machines who inhabited a universe ruled by purely impersonal forces." There was nothing particularly objective about this view, according to the IDers. Instead, applying the same reading of Kuhn that the postmodernists embrace, they argue that it was simply the result of a political struggle between insurgents and the establishment. (In fact, the IDers frequently cite Kuhn to this effect.) Probably the clearest example of this comes courtesy of Bruce K. Chapman, the Discovery Institute's president. "All ideas that achieve a sort of uniform acceptance ultimately fall apart, whether it's in the sciences or philosophy or politics, after a few people keep knocking away at it," he recently told The New York Times. But that's nuts. Germ theory, relativity, the idea that the earth is round--with apologies to Tom Friedman, the fact that all have withstood the occasional challenge suggests that truth counts for something.

Chapman might protest that he's simply proposing a more accurate alternative to evolution, the same way Darwin proposed a more accurate alternative to creationism. But ID isn't a new theory, just a new attempt to advance an old one, with some new empirical claims thrown in for good measure. As Jerry Coyne has pointed out ("The Faith that Dare Not Speak Its Name," August 22 & 29), scientists can discredit ID using the exact same evidence they used to debunk creationism. Once you realize this, it's no longer possible to interpret Chapman as echoing the belief in a steady progression toward truth.

Like all conservatives, of course, the IDers claim to decry relativism and to embrace absolutes. But, for them, the claim is logically incoherent in a way it wasn't when it came from their creationist predecessors. When a proposition is empirically false, as both creationism and ID (to the extent that it makes empirical claims) are, you're free to assert its truth; you just can't call it science. The creationists had no problem with this; they just rejected any science that contradicted the Bible. But the IDers aspire to scientific truth. Unfortunately, the only way to claim that something empirically false is scientifically true is to question science's capacity for sorting out truth from falsehood, the same way postmodernists do.

Conservatives were quick to point out the danger of this view in the '80s and '90s. They argued that a science that rejected the idea of truth was vulnerable to the most inane forms of intellectual hucksterism. And they were right. It's not hard to imagine scams like cold fusion or the Scientologist critique of psychiatric drugs gaining ground in a world where science's ability to identify knowledge has been undermined. (Among other monuments to postmodern thought was the idea that E=mc² might be a "sexed equation" that "privileges the speed of light over other speeds," as Belgian-French theorist Luce Irigaray once asserted.)

Americans don't like thinking of themselves as backward. As a result, the risk from science-rejecting creationists hasn't been particularly acute in recent decades. But most people don't have very strong views on the philosophy of science. If, unlike the postmodern left, the ID movement can enlist mainstream conservatives in questioning science's capacity to produce objective truth, then it's by no means clear the effort won't succeed. In that case, it will end up threatening a whole lot more than just evolution.


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: allcrevoallthetime; anothercrevothread; cary; crevolist; crevorepublic; darwin; enoughalready; intelligentdesign
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last
If, unlike the postmodern left, the ID movement can enlist mainstream conservatives in questioning science's capacity to produce objective truth, then it's by no means clear the effort won't succeed. In that case, it will end up threatening a whole lot more than just evolution. Well, we hope so ....

But, if that just don't beat all! The jig is up fellas!! The leftists have got us all figured out.

-- (By contrast, today's IDers have gone further and adopted the epistemology of the left--the idea that ostensibly scientific truths may be relative.--

We, the clever folks who have bought into the idea that truth is relative and whoever has the most power gets to create the stuff known as 'truth'. Ahem, just when did we do this? I didn't get the memo...

(gee, we must keep well-thumbed copies of Kuhn by our commodes even!!!),

and we the clever folks who have decided that since the revealed word of our Lord is insufficient, why, we'll clevely adopt leftist postmodern tactics to win the fight against the godless, communistic, atheistic, amoralistic, father-hating, scoundrels of the left.

I had absolutely NO IDEA we were that smart, that they are so worried they opened Pandora's Postmodern box, and now, much like Islamo fundies, we're going to use this 'master weapon' against them. The tone of this article is just comical.

But, then again, maybe we are that unbelievably ...; after all, W is, still, the President. (*sounds of quiet chuckling and the whispered word ...'Rove'....*)....

1 posted on 09/19/2005 6:01:25 PM PDT by gobucks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I know you like reading and posting stuff like this from this high brow mag read by low brow knuckleheads on the left.

Enjoy!


2 posted on 09/19/2005 6:02:24 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
When a proposition is empirically false, as both creationism and ID

I thought that their problem with ID was that it was supposedly not falsifiable. There is a huge difference between that and being "empirically false." This writer doesn't know what he is talking about.

3 posted on 09/19/2005 6:20:12 PM PDT by DeweyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
If, unlike the postmodern left, the ID movement can enlist mainstream conservatives in questioning science's capacity to produce objective truth, then it's by no means clear the effort won't succeed. In that case, it will end up threatening a whole lot more than just evolution.

I, and the other evolutionist-scientists here at FR, have been consistent in positing the view of this quoted paragraph for quite some time now---namely, that the ID "movement" could: (1.) undermine science and (2.) undermine conservatism (because of its association with ID as portrayed by the MSM.)

It seems to me that, for a variety of reasons, ID/creationists do not have regard for objective and empirical observations. Truth to them is merely a matter of who can shout the loudest and, as such, is purely political.

4 posted on 09/19/2005 6:22:27 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: gobucks; PatrickHenry
Great article. I think it deserves and evo list ping. It really nails down the attack on the philosophy of science that underlies ID and demonstrates its resemblence to certain leftist attacks.
5 posted on 09/19/2005 6:23:27 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

((((ping))))


6 posted on 09/19/2005 6:24:10 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
Some ID people make claims that have been falsified. For instance, Behe has claimed that the blood clotting metabolic pathway could not have evolved in a Darwinian manner.
7 posted on 09/19/2005 6:25:44 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Ping for the ID folks ... I found the article actually very encouraging...

The exposure of how a leftist thinks ... just another form of gathering, ahem, enemy intelligence.


8 posted on 09/19/2005 6:26:04 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
This article truly holds a looking glass to reality.
9 posted on 09/19/2005 6:26:49 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I had a hunch you'd like it. See, we are all friends in the Freeper Sandbox, and we can play nice.... :)


10 posted on 09/19/2005 6:27:11 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
So where do you disagree with the article? I can't really follow your comments.

Thanks for posting it, BTW.

11 posted on 09/19/2005 6:28:13 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: js1138
This article truly holds a looking glass to reality.

Whose reality?

12 posted on 09/19/2005 6:28:56 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

That would be a double secret Darwin Central literary reference.


13 posted on 09/19/2005 6:30:58 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

"science-rejecting creationists"

Here we go again, lumping ID in with creationists (i.e. those that take the bible literally).

You folks who dismiss ID as science rejecting are not very well informed. In fact, ID supporters assert that it is established science which is "science rejecting" when the issue of first causes (and evolution) is raised.

Please, lets keep this argument fair...

If you really want to know what ID is all about with respect to questioning the dogma of evolution read Phillip Johnson's "Darwin on Trial." He is not a biblical literalist, though he is a Christian. They are certainly not mutually exclusive except to the ignorant.

And for very intelligent, thoughtful, and powerful, though not scientific, arguments regarding the existence of God and the truth of Christ, read GK Chesterton's works on the matter and C.S. Lewis too.

Or you could still argue from ignorance, emotion and ingrained prejudice...your call.




14 posted on 09/19/2005 6:31:01 PM PDT by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; Junior; longshadow; RadioAstronomer; Doctor Stochastic; js1138; Shryke; RightWhale; ...
EvolutionPing
A pro-evolution science list with over 300 names.
See the list's explanation at my freeper homepage.
Then FReepmail to be added or dropped.

15 posted on 09/19/2005 6:32:10 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

George Orwell picked up on this phenomenon long before 1993.


16 posted on 09/19/2005 6:34:42 PM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
From the article:

When a proposition is empirically false, as both creationism and ID (to the extent that it makes empirical claims) are, you're free to assert its truth; you just can't call it science. The creationists had no problem with this; they just rejected any science that contradicted the Bible. But the IDers aspire to scientific truth. Unfortunately, the only way to claim that something empirically false is scientifically true is to question science's capacity for sorting out truth from falsehood, the same way postmodernists do.

17 posted on 09/19/2005 6:34:56 PM PDT by PatrickHenry (Disclaimer -- this information may be legally false in Kansas.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Here we go again, lumping ID in with creationists (i.e. those that take the bible literally).

You folks who dismiss ID as science rejecting are not very well informed. In fact, ID supporters assert that it is established science which is "science rejecting" when the issue of first causes (and evolution) is raised.

Please, lets keep this argument fair...

Yeah sure, and they're not really Liberals, they are really Progressives

I hate to tell you, but you're not fooling anyone

18 posted on 09/19/2005 6:36:22 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Whose reality?
"...double secret Darwin Central literary reference."

Hah!!!

"Joy to Thee and Me. Confusion to Our Enemies"

19 posted on 09/19/2005 6:38:12 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: qam1

"Yeah sure, and they're not really Liberals, they are really Progressives

I hate to tell you, but you're not fooling anyone"

Huh? Are you saying that those that believe in Intelligent Design, i.e. God, are all liberals?

Or are you saying that those that believe that a fair assessement of evolution should include its many flaws are all liberals?


20 posted on 09/19/2005 6:43:33 PM PDT by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
You folks who dismiss ID as science rejecting are not very well informed. In fact, ID supporters assert that it is established science...
Please, lets keep this argument fair...

Okay...

Mere assertion does not "establish" science. Science is, mostly, a method of inquiry, and certainly not a collection of assertions. What science does require, on a prima facie basis, is that objectivity and empiricism prevail.

21 posted on 09/19/2005 6:46:47 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
Here we go with the canard that the Left is interested in science and reason. They aren't. They haven't been for decades. Rational historicism has collapsed. Radical historicism has been the rage among Left-wing intellectuals for decades, and it views rationality as either an oppressive structure created out of thin air or merely something to be used in the service of irrational "values."

This entire debate suffers from myopia.

22 posted on 09/19/2005 6:51:28 PM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

"Mere assertion does not "establish" science. Science is, mostly, a method of inquiry, and certainly not a collection of assertions. What science does require, on a prima facie basis, is that objectivity and empiricism prevail."

Okay.

Yes an assertion does need to be backed up with evidence and or logical reasoning. ID does quite well with that. Again, read Johnson's book. Evolustionists typically dismiss ID without giving it much thought....now that isn't scientific thinking either...its just ignorance.


23 posted on 09/19/2005 6:52:46 PM PDT by fizziwig
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
"I had absolutely NO IDEA we were that smart,..."

Trust me, we're not worried about that

24 posted on 09/19/2005 6:55:13 PM PDT by muir_redwoods (Free Sirhan Sirhan, after all, the bastard who killed Mary Jo Kopechne is walking around free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

"Science is, mostly, a method of inquiry..."

In simpler terms, wouldn't it be better to say:

"Science is, mostly, a search for causes ..."

After all, ToE folks have found the 'cause', natural selection, which 'caused' the first living thing to end up as our common ancestor....

ID folks look for causes too....;


25 posted on 09/19/2005 6:59:00 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig

I do not see any (empirical) "evidence" from the ID community. And "logical reasoning," while seductive, is not the foundation of a science---data are.


26 posted on 09/19/2005 7:01:00 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

"ID folks look for causes too..."

And when they come up with material, non-supernatural ones they can take part in a scientific discussion.


27 posted on 09/19/2005 7:03:10 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is a grandeur in this view of life...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
ID folks look for causes too...

How?

28 posted on 09/19/2005 7:03:54 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: curiosity

I disagree with the idea that just because Kuhn is quoted by Discovery Inst folks, that must mean w/ buy into post modern methods of rhetorical fighting in order to win...

ID folks in my experience (and I'm not really a hard core ID type myself) do indeed strictly adhere to accepted scientific practices, and approach the problems of 'how' differently than do the scientists which presuppose a philosophic faith position they refuse to discuss: that 'natural' forces are the 'exclusive' cause of what we observe. It is the denial of that presupposition that is the issue w/ so many ID types, and me too.

That all said, I don't agree w/ the argument we're simply engaging in paradigm warfare, and thus validating the idea truth is merely relative to those who have the power to make it so.

ID folks, like the science folks in general, do indeed believe in a standard of absolute truth....

They just can't get it together about the origin of the standard.


29 posted on 09/19/2005 7:05:52 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

I, and the other evolutionist-scientists here at FR, have been consistent in positing the view of this quoted paragraph for quite some time now---namely, that the ID "movement" could: (1.) undermine science and (2.) undermine conservatism (because of its association with ID as portrayed by the MSM.)

I'd just like to add to '(2.)undermine conservatism ' and destroy the currently governing conservative coalition.

30 posted on 09/19/2005 7:07:05 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
The Left's rejection of truth and moral absolutes have left them with no leg to stand on. All they can say about Intelligent Design is they think its premises contradict science. But post-modern epistemology says truth is relative and that its culturally bound. So it doesn't matter what people believe in because every person has to figure that out for themselves. There are rational arguments to make against ID but the Left won't make them for then they'd have to give their post-modernist dogma. And they show no signs of doing so.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
31 posted on 09/19/2005 7:08:44 PM PDT by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

And so, instead of a weapon which helps them, it becomes to them a sword of damocles...; maybe that metaphor is a stretch...


32 posted on 09/19/2005 7:18:58 PM PDT by gobucks (http://oncampus.richmond.edu/academics/classics/students/Ribeiro/Laocoon.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
It seems to me that, for a variety of reasons, ID/creationists do not have regard for objective and empirical observations. Truth to them is merely a matter of who can shout the loudest and, as such, is purely political.

Both creationism and creationism-lite are essentitally equivalent to postmoderndeconstructionism. Their political goals are identical, invalidation of scientific inquiry as a means of gaining knowledge.

33 posted on 09/19/2005 7:19:46 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch ist der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

I like Robert Heinlein myself.


34 posted on 09/19/2005 7:20:24 PM PDT by Artemis Webb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
After all, ToE folks have found the 'cause', natural selection,

Well, I'm glad you didn't resort to the---"it all just can't be random" critique.

I'm a life scientist (physiology/endocrinology). I admit that in my journeys I've encountered a few (2 or 3) who conduct their research as if they are trying to prove the ToE. The rest, however, are simply seeking data which may shed some light on how a particular phenomenon works. The problem is, because of the requirements of most grant-funding agencies, is that---in the research proposal itself and in the published, discussion section---some form of "relevance to society" must be stated.

Basic science has no preconceived relevance to anything except curiosity, and most scientists are forced to stretch to write such required inclusions. Thus, the "conjecture" part of science (thanks also to the MSM) receives the most attention.

35 posted on 09/19/2005 7:21:16 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
...invalidation of scientific inquiry ...

And whatever would be the substitute is a quick journey back to the dark ages.

36 posted on 09/19/2005 7:29:22 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rudder

And whatever would be the substitute is a quick journey back to the dark ages.

To Talibanland.

37 posted on 09/19/2005 7:35:04 PM PDT by ml1954
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Both creationism and creationism-lite are essentitally equivalent to postmoderndeconstructionism. Their political goals are identical, invalidation of scientific inquiry as a means of gaining knowledge.

I knew the article said something. If only they had used fewer words, and better.

38 posted on 09/19/2005 7:45:19 PM PDT by js1138 (Great is the power of steady misrepresentation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DeweyCA
science-rejecting creationists

So easy to win the debate when you create strawmen - this statement couldn't be further from the truth if he had actually tried!

39 posted on 09/19/2005 7:52:42 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper

Creationists reject science. If you think otherwise, please explain.


40 posted on 09/19/2005 7:56:22 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: gobucks

Aha! Great article. I've been thinking that a lot myself, that postmodernism and creationism/stealth creationism are secret friends.


41 posted on 09/19/2005 8:00:29 PM PDT by Vive ut Vivas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic

Hear! Hear! Note well the NYT impish coverage of Intelligent Design. For some time now their science articles, particularly about cosmology, have always gotten in little digs, at least.


42 posted on 09/19/2005 8:00:53 PM PDT by dr_lew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
You apparently have not read any creationist literature...it does exist. Recommend you do a little research.

BTW - Peer review is not all there is to science...particularly when creationist research is rejected a priori.

43 posted on 09/19/2005 8:00:53 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
You apparently have not read any creationist literature...

A presumptive error on your part.

44 posted on 09/19/2005 8:04:56 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Intelligent Design, i.e. God

Whoops! You weren't supposed to reveal that to anyone below Invoking Deity Level VIII

45 posted on 09/19/2005 8:20:35 PM PDT by Oztrich Boy (September 20 - 135th anniversary of the liberation of Rome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Rudder
Then you have not read the literature I have read. There is an abundance of good scientific literature favorable to the creationist position.

You might want to Google "RATE team" (Radioisotope and the Age of The Earth) for starters.

You might also want to do a little reading on Information Theory...and the source of information in living things...and how evolution explains the same.

46 posted on 09/19/2005 8:32:11 PM PDT by LiteKeeper (The radical secularization of America is happening)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: LiteKeeper
I've read what you mentioned. It's bogus and, at best, pseudoscience. The same goes for the use of infomation theory as it is applied (incorrectly) to ToE and or ID. I've done a fair share of radioscintillation and am familiar with the decay rates of several isotopes.

Bottom line: Do you believe human beings were here before 10,000 years ago? Do you have data supporting that contention?

47 posted on 09/19/2005 8:49:21 PM PDT by Rudder
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: gobucks
ID folks in my experience (and I'm not really a hard core ID type myself) do indeed strictly adhere to accepted scientific practices, and approach the problems of 'how' differently than do the scientists which presuppose a philosophic faith position they refuse to discuss: that 'natural' forces are the 'exclusive' cause of what we observe.

Limiting scientific inquiry to natural forces has nothing to do with faith. Scientists only look for natural causes because they do not know of any way to detect supernatural ones.

And that's exactly why ID adherants do not adhere to "accepted scientific practices."

"Accepted scientific practice" dictates that the investigator limit himself to theories and causes that are detectable. For instance, evolution postualtes that biological diversity is caused by genetic mutation and natural selection. Both of these phenomena are easily detectable.

Intelligent design theorists, however, fail to say how their designer or his work can be detected. It is therefore not science.

ID gives the illusion of being science by attempting to use empirical data to falsify Darwinism. Their attempt fails, but even if it did not, it would not make ID theory science.

To make your theory scientific, you have to do more than just knock down an existing theory. Just because the theory you're knocking is false does not make your theory true. You have to come up with independent evidence that supports your theory.

And that's what ID "theorists" fail to do. They point to something, like a Bacterial Flagellum, assert (wrongly) that it could not have evolved in a Darwinian fashion, and then conclude it was designed. But their conclusion does not follow even if their assertion were correct. After all, it's easy to come up with dozens of potental other untestable naturalistic explanations. How do they know their explanation is better than any of these other ones? Unless there is some positive evidence that it was designed, then the design explanation is no better than any other explanation I can pull out of my rear end.

48 posted on 09/19/2005 9:28:01 PM PDT by curiosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: fizziwig
Huh? Are you saying that those that believe in Intelligent Design, i.e. God, are all liberals?

By mentioning God you just proved my point. I guess you didn't read the Discovery Institutes's memo on not to mention the G word.

It's not a coincidence that all IDers just happen to be Fundamentalist Christians or Moonies. ID is just a backdoor way to get creationism back into the schools. So you're not fooling anyone when you claim ID is different from creationism.

Or are you saying that those that believe that a fair assessement of evolution should include its many flaws are all liberals?

No, however I've yet to hear a fair assessment of the flaws in Evolution from the Creationist (which yes includes the IDers). All you get is one of the following.

1) Argument from ignorance (i.e. Why are there still monkeys, etc)

2) Flat out Lies (i.e. quote mining, sound bytes over substance - Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics,)

3) Hate filled rants (i.e. Darwin is responsible for Hitler, Stalin, the Designator Hitter rule, etc)

49 posted on 09/19/2005 9:30:54 PM PDT by qam1 (There's been a huge party. All plates and the bottles are empty, all that's left is the bill to pay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry

Thanks for the ping!


50 posted on 09/19/2005 9:41:48 PM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-159 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson