Intelligent Design, and Other Dumb Ideas

Human Events ^ | 11/15/2007 | Mac Johnson

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

PING FYI

[BibChr]

Why, Al Gore, of course.

Seriously, how is that not a stupid question?

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Be back later, gotta go do a fill now.

[doc30]

See there? That's circular reasoning. In short, what you said is that the theory itself becomes the basis for what evidence will be interpreted and which will not be. Hence, only evidence which supports the theory will be considered, rendering the theory tautological. Under such a scheme, of course the evidence supports your theory - because you've prescreened the evidence you will accept as "interpretable". Sheesh.

You are the one drawing out such a tautology. Theories change, get refined or are discarded. That is part of the scientific process. Theories and evidence are intimately linked. Thus far, there is no evidence that yields to a concept other than evolution. And evolution, like all scientific theories, is purely tentative. Evidence is not prescreened for acceptance or rejection based on a theory. Evidence is accepted or rejected based on it's reliablity. When you look at a preponderance of all the pyscial sciences, they all point, within varying degrees of accuracy the same thing: a billions years old Earth, and even older universe and that life changes via evolution. It's not one piece of evidence that supports evolution, its all of it. ID only criticizes evolution where something is not known. But that is insufficient to switch back to a pre-enlightenment, magical invisble dude did it superstitious thinking.

[MrB]

One simply has to look at the laws of the universe, their (relative) simplicity and elegance, the balance of the known forces, to see that “accident” would not be possible.

Given the number of stars in our galaxy times the factors necessary for technological life to exist, there should be (liberally) .01 Earths in our galaxy. There ia considerably more than that.

[webboy45]

It’s either ID or magic.

[steve-b]

assertions about past events which we cannot presently observe

OK, that's one person who assumes that if he didn't see it personally, it's in doubt. The ghost of Johnny Cochran can chalk up "one down, eleven to go".

[MrB]

“Evolution doesn’t care if there is a creator or not.”

On the contrary - evolutionISTS insist that they have disproven a creator. This is the point behind the current religion of Evolution.

[xzins]

the author is a lost man

[doc30]

That's something of a false dilemma, since anyone familiar with the process knows that journals, because of philosophical bias, wouldn't publish anything promoting ID, since it conflicts with the WORLDVIEW of the peer reviewers relied upon by the journals.

Bullsh!t. SO because ID cannot produce scientifically sound research resutls, you have to scream discrimination. How pathetic. If ID had any substance, it would be eagarly published. But for people coming from the religious right, who are used to style over substance and who value an appeal to authority over preponderance of evidence, this is to be expected. Also, private companies engage in research work. There is likely more scientific knowledge there than in the academic community. And, from experience, I know many companies are actually ahead of academic research, even if it is from an applied perspective. Private companies exploit evolutionary theory because it helps them commercialize products that makes money. If ID was valid, the private sector would exploit it more than a bunch of charlatans trying to sell ID literature to the uninformed.

[Nathan Zachary]

"And most Americans read horoscopes which, last time I looked, were forbidden by the Bible."

Really? were does it say it's forbidden to read horoscopes?

Please provide the stats that show "most Americans read horoscopes".

[doc30]

Out of curiosity, what elections have creationists helped conservatives to lose?

Almost the entire Dover PA school board, except one non-creationist, were dumped because of pushing ID into the schools. And that was a predominantly conservative Christian community. Only the wing nuts on the lunatic fringe of Christianity believe ID is science, and they believe so because they feel real science threatens their literalist religious doctrine.

[doc30]

Most excellent analogy!

[MEGoody]

You sound like a Clinton by relying on polls.

:::rolls eyes:::: I won't even bother reading the rest of your post. Have a nice day.

[Nathan Zachary]

"Out of curiosity, what elections have creationists helped conservatives to lose?

Two seats in the last Kansas School Board election in 2006.

Liar. It wasn't disclosed whether those "creationists" were Conservatives or Democrats. You're just spouting B.S. to support your own beliefs(religion)

[doc30]

Lest you wish to argue that they rely upon "after the fact" explanations, please note that this is what evolutionists do as well. Evolution, like creationism and ID, makes assertions about past events which we cannot presently observe, and which must be inferred on an evidentiary basis.

Aside from the fact that evolution is testable in the hear and now, the past can also be tested. Evolution has left physical evidence in very distinct patterns. If you find evidence that blatantly disrupts those patterns, then you have found something that would refute evolution. On your logic, forensic science is just philosophical arguments and should not be used in a court of law because we cannot go back in time to see the actual criminal events, even though those events left physical evidence. Or we must say God did it by making thinkgs look like a crime scene, but we shouldn't study it because then we are questioning God.

[MEGoody]

And most Americans read horoscopes which, last time I looked, were forbidden by the Bible.

Uh. . .what does that have to do with whether or not ID is a 'political loser'? Not a thing.

I suspect that many people who say they agree with ID would be horrified to learn that ID proponents accept common descent and a 4.5 billion year old earth.

Some do, some don't. There are always varying views under the umbrella of a theory. (I doubt anyone would be horrified.)

[TXnMA]

"That's something of a false dilemma, since anyone familiar with the process knows that journals, because of philosophical bias, wouldn't publish anything promoting ID, since it conflicts with the WORLDVIEW of the peer reviewers relied upon by the journals."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I am "familiar with the process".

Learn to read.

I specified that they must do and publish valid scientific work in peer-reviewed journals. Then I said, "ALSO, publish in favor of "intelligent design".

Your accusation that reputable journals reject valid scientific work -- just because the authors have (in other venues) expressed their religions beliefs-- is slanderous, paranoid, ignorant, un-Christian, and, simply, a damnable lie.

[Virginia-American]

... anyone familiar with the process knows that journals, because of philosophical bias, wouldn't publish anything promoting ID, ....

Do you have any examples of this alleged phenomenon? CR/ID papers that were submitted to normal science journals along with the rejection letters would do.

[doc30]

No, "evolution" itself has not been supported by testing predictions. Predictions made upon previously obtained empirical information have been supported by further experimentation. That fact that evolution is an after-the-fact means of interpreting the prior data, in and of itself, had no effect on the testability or supportability of the predictions.

You need to read the literature. There is enough unique material to fill this server. And look at the original article. Mac Johnson even outlined experiments in the present, doen in a lab, whose results can be best explained by evolution. If you want to look at the fossil record, not one type of fossil, but the convergence of the whole record, you see patterns. Those patterns can be tested by looking for things that don't fit. It's so easy even a cave man could do it. SO where does that put you?