Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Tech Central Station ^ | 11/10/2005 | Uriah Kriegel

[Ichneumon]

Youre not an official crevolist Freeper until Dimensio calls you a liar. Welcome aboard!!

The astute reader will note that to Freeper anti-evolutionists, earning a reputation as a liar is something they're *proud* of.

Excuse me while I gag.

[wallcrawlr]

astute readers also recognize sarcasm...plus it is true..he calls everyone a liar.

come on ich, dont slip on me

[Stultis]

The problem is this: ID searches for causes.

No it doesn't. In fact ID positively and relentlessly REFUSES to search for causes, or even speculate about causes. It restricts itself to "inferring" only the (alleged) effect -- the presence of "design" -- but won't say a word about how (or when, where, etc) that design was caused or instantiated.

[balrog666]

I forgot to mention that you also offer lame apologetics for bad creationist arguments. Oh, and you lie about the claims of creationist articles when those claims are exposed as bogus and then run away like a coward when your lies are exposed.

Are you saying that Running-Dog is a lying, clownish, worthless, cowardly troll who can't spell, think, or understand logic?

[Dimensio]

I've never called Alamo-Girl a liar. But then, unlike many of the creationists here on FR, she doesn't engage in clear and blatant dishonesty.

[RightWhale]

I don't see the point of applying the concept of evolution to all science. It wouldn't be much use in mathematics, and in physics it would be disastrous. It does have utility in biology, the taxonomic part, and in sociology. Some try to extend the idea into psychology, which might work as well as any other approaches.

That I don't have much use for evolution in my field of specialization--physics--should not be taken to imply that I have any use for the supposed alternative idea.

[wallcrawlr]

ok, 1 Freeper....I'll give you 1

[Dimensio]

I try to refrain from labelling a creationist "liar" until I can identify a point where it is clear that they are making a statement that they should know is false by virtue of having had the truth of the matter explained to them in previous discussions. For example, when a creationist claims that evolution includes the origin of life even though I can find a previous discussion where it was clearly explained that evolution does not, in fact, address that topic, then it's rather obvious that the creationist in question is simply lying. Or, for more blatant examples, when a creationist claims that Antony Flew has rejected the theory of evolution when replying in a discussion about an article that explicitly states that Flew accepts the theory of evolution. Or when the same creationist later denies making any comment at all about Antony Flew in a direct response to a post that links to their previous comment on the man. Or when a creationist claims that all fossil fakes were exposed by "non-evo" scientists and, when asked to support the claim, denies ever making it. Or when a creationist presents a fabricated quote from a biologist, then defends it after the fabrication is exposed.

But it seems that very few creationists think that any of the above is actually "lying". Apparently most creationists don't believe that knowingly making a false statement is actually "lying".

[Stultis]

The problem is that those on the Darwinism side of the debate refuse to see or studiously ignore the fact that the natural sciences do not contain all possible knowledge.

Yeah. We all know that evilutionists never read fiction or philosophy, recite a poem, play or listen to music, learn a recipe, love a woman, ride a horse, repair a car, or do anything at all requiring, involving or acknowledging knowledge or knowhow outside of the natural sciences. They are, to a man, unidimensional automatons of soulless science!

(Do I really need sarcasm tags?)

[js1138]

...so maybe you are not wrong about those things.

I have had to eat my words on these threads a couple of times, so I appreciate anyone who engages in an actual discussion.

Someone has pointed out to me that Galileo did not have the technology to make precise measurements of gravitational acceleration. There is no doubt that he made measurements.

Newton was one of the brightest men who ever lived, and his work is brilliant, but he built a cosmology out of a few data points. He no more observed the workings of the cosmos than Darwin witnessed dinosaurs mating.

Science is about building explanitory theories and looking for evidence to confirm or refute the expectations of theory.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Is Intelligent Design a Bad Scientific Theory or a Non-Scientific Theory?

Neither. Intelligent Design is not a theory. One of the leading exponents (William Dembski) of ID claims, "Intelligent design is just the Logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory." This shows that ID is just another type of theology.

[Ichneumon]

astute readers also recognize sarcasm...

Then what does the fact that you didn't recognize *my* sarcasm imply about the level of your reading ability?

plus it is true..he calls everyone a liar.

No, he doesn't. Another lie in your cap.

[Thatcherite]

astute readers also recognize sarcasm...plus it is true..he calls everyone a liar.

I have never seen Dimensio call anyone a liar without him posting, or being prepared to post when challenged, compelling evidence that the poster in question is, in fact, a liar. I therefore find it remarkable that you seem to consider being labelled a liar by Dimensio some kind of badge of honour. Most of us consider lying to be shameful.

[Thatcherite]

But it seems that very few creationists think that any of the above is actually "lying". Apparently most creationists don't believe that knowingly making a false statement is actually "lying".

No statement made to attack the evil religion of evolution can ever be considered to truly be a lie.

[Ichneumon]

Newton was one of the brightest men who ever lived, and his work is brilliant, but he built a cosmology out of a few data points. He no more observed the workings of the cosmos than Darwin witnessed dinosaurs mating.

He also wasted a great deal of his talents on alchemy, and an idiosyncratic theology.

[Dimensio]

I will admit in one discussion posting, in a bit of thoughtlessness, a blanket statement that "creationists are liars". Which is, of course, not what I really believe. What I believe is that most creationists that I have observed are liars. I am aware of the existence of a few non-lying creationists, which is why I usually phrase general statements about creationists with such a caveat, but I have been a bit hasty now and then.

[Junior]

Damn. I wonder what would happen if anti-evos ever figured out how to do text searches on on-line documents. For instance, one need only go to Project Gutenberg to find a copy of Darwin's works. Sorta like this:

The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection; or, the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life

(Note, I skipped all the intro pieces dealing with copyright and all that)

Once in, it takes a whole lot of effort to hold down the CTRL key and hit "F" -- after which a search box will pop up.

Nosirree Bob. I'm telling you it'll be a dark day indeed when anti-evos actually understand how to utilize the internet for research.

[js1138]

Newton probably had Asperger's Syndrome.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[PatrickHenry]

Someone has pointed out to me that Galileo did not have the technology to make precise measurements of gravitational acceleration. There is no doubt that he made measurements.

I think he used an inclined plane to make round things "fall" slower, and he measured the time with his pulse. Not terribly precise, but it was sufficient to observe that heavy objects fall no faster than light ones.

[Dimensio]

Damn. I wonder what would happen if anti-evos ever figured out how to do text searches on on-line documents.

I thought that many already posessed this knowledge. How else do they dig up quotes that seem to be "damning" for the case of evolution but, when examined in context, pose no problems with the theory whatsoever? I assumed that they did a search on a text string, found something that looked promising and cut and pasted the sentence without reading further.

If they didn't do it that way, it would suggest that creationists actually do read the sources that they quote, and their out-of-context quoting is a practice of dishonesty rather than haste and laziness. And a creationist wouldn't be dishonest, right?