In that case, I would urge you to take a look at TalkDesign.org. I admit that it’s a site that is actively opposed to Intelligent Design, but it does go into considerable detail about the arguments of the main leaders of the ID movement, and it has plenty of links to pro-ID and pro-Creationist sites if you want to read the views of the other side.
Because there is no why. How can they investigate something that doesn’t exist ?
Because the believers aren’t interested in letting others “judge for themsleves”; they want to force their delusions on everybody else, by any means necessary.
It’s unscientific nonsense; either they didn’t ponder it very much, or they pondered it badly, or it’s just consciously designed religious propaganda.
I would suggest that if you are going to defend them (on whatever level) you might want to read what they have said.
I think that you are probably correct regarding Johnson, although his profound thoughts have done nothing more than cause him to reject science as a discipline. However, Behe has clearly “thrown up his hands.” He actually accepts neo-Darwinian Natural Selection, but then comes to a halt when he finds something puzzling. He has also demonstrated really sloppy research in a couple of areas–claiming in his first book, for example, that no biologists were pursuing an examination of what he found troubling while a quick Google™ search by a complete layman turned up several papers on the topic that had been published before he published his book, and his continued defense of some claims in his books that have already been disproven through scientific examination. Dembski has spent all his energy throwing up smoke screens and bad statistical analysis. Had he spent any time actually “pondering,” he would look less the fool or charlatan.
There may be other ID proponents out there who have “pondered,” but none of them demonstrate it, with most of them spending most of their time attacking science or trying to con people into making ID-supportive claims based on ignorance of the topic. (See Keith Miller’s description of his contact with the Seattle based Discovery Institute that is funding most of the assaults on schools or their manipulation of Cardinal Schoenborn to get him to write his off-topic defense of ID for the New York Times.)
You believe that, and I believe that, but lots of people don’t.
That doesn’t provide justification for fighting fire with fire. Again, fight the battle that’s worth fighting.
I’m sure there are guilty parties on all three counts. Yes, it’s unscientific; no, the argument from design is not obviously nonsense.
Well, they’re wrong. When the other side has no facts to back them up, I feel no obligation to take their opinion seriously.
I’m not lying; I’m not fighting fire with fire.
Also, it’s a battle worth fighting; evolution is a cornerstone of modern science, and a great danger to the biblical literalists ( whom I despise ).
Since there is no evidence for it, yes it is.
Looked at it. Not entirely comprehensively (I got other stuff to do, alas.) It appears to be essentially a PhD pissing match; everything I read there (and in the links to pro-ID materials) was devoted to a metadebate along the lines of “in your paper calling me stupid, you were stupid because …” Not helpful.
If it isn’t scientific, it IS worthless–as science. How complicated is that?
The “fire” I was referring to was the “forc[ing] of their [opinions (you called them delusions but since I don’t view your opinions as delusions I’m changing the word)] on everybody else.” You seem to me to be in favor of doing that.
You are clearly “guilty” of what Phillip E. Johnson said was the problem with mainstream science, namely “demand[ing] a priori adoption of a naturalistic philosophy that … dismisses out of hand any explanation that contains a supernatural cause.” (Source: Wikipedia article on Johnson.) I put “guilty” in quotes and removed the word “wrongly” from the quoted passage because obviously, you don’t think you are wrong to do so. Nor do I. But Johnson thought so. You aren’t going to make his ilk change their minds, and so they are going to refuse to take you seriously for essentially the same reason you refuse to take them seriously.
Also, man, why you gotta despise?
Deep pondering does not mean something is right. The main thing to understand about IDers and creationists is their dishonesty. They begin with a conclusion, and invent arguments and ignore data to defend it, no matter what the evidence shows. Both scientists and philosophers often begin with what they want to demonstrate or prove, but honest members of both sets do their best to provide valid arguments, and offer their arguments in peer reviewed papers to allow the very best minds in the field try to shoot them down. That is exactly what IDers do not do. I think you are insulting philosophers when you call ID an example of good philosophy.
Yes, the thought that the world is too complex to happen accidentally could be a reason to posit a designer. Tom Paine justified his belief in a deity (just not the Christian one) by the complexity of the solar system. But when the complexity can be explained without the need for a designer, then honest people will abandon the designer or at least admit he is not necessary. That’s just what IDers and creationists do not do.
And my recipe for pecan pie doesn’t address the “why” of pecan pie either. Your point?
Dude, seriously, you need to stop and ponder the purpose of science; you’ve got it all wrong.
Not at all. Also not what Der Trihs was saying, in my opinion.
Scientific facts are not opinions. I’m advocating that actual science be taught in school, not that Star Trek is better than Star Wars.
Occam’s Razor demands it. Science and superstition are fundamentally opposed. There is no evidence that the supernatural is anything other than lies and delusions; therefore, science dismisses it.
Hardly. I am concerned with the facts; they are concerned with lies. I don’t expect them to take me seriously; faith is impervious to sanity.
Because biblical literalism is outright evil, given the barbaric nature of the Bible. I have no wish to be stoned, or see unbelievers massacred ( except for the gang rape of the young women ).
I never said science was failing in its purpose, or that scientists should be asking why. Science is not *about *asking why; philosophy and religion are, at least in part. To some, why is important.
Personally, I’m a pragmatist when it comes to factual truths. Knowing why-with-a-capital-W doesn’t really help me pay the mortgage or hit a solid tee shot, you know? On the other hand, knowing how stuff happens has all kinds of practical value to me. There are all kinds of great advances that science has made possible in this regard.
But I really don’t give a shit who’s right in the evolution/creation/ID debate. I can’t see it making a difference. Evolution isn’t going away absent some truly startling discoveries, and those who understand it well are going to continue to advance our ability to do cool stuff in the fields of e.g. biotechnology. As for whether there really is a giant hand in the sky pulling the strings, it just doesn’t keep me up at night.
Of course it matters; if the creationists win then American biological sciences will be crippled the same way Lysenkoism crippled the Soviet biosciences. Who’s going to do “cool stuff” if they are uneducated ?
What demands Occam’s Razor, other than faith? Occam’s Razor is a handy rule of thumb, but there’s no way of knowing whether steadfast adherence to it leads one to The Truth.
Further, Occam’s Razor only demands the dismissal of the supernatural if you think naturalistic explanations are necessarily simpler. Personally I think the theory of The Great Green Arkleseizure is a hell of a lot *simpler *than the wild and crazy tale of evolutionary biology. Nevertheless, I believe the latter is true and dismiss the former as whimsy.
But you ought to. Failure to oppose ID; which as many - nay, all - of the posters to this thread have pointed out, is absolutely worthless, as both science and philosophy; is giving support to the disturbingly powerful forces that are trying to convert the USA to a theocracy. If you consider this a desirable outcome, of course, then a more positive commitment to it would probably be appreciated by your side.
I should also point out that rejection of creationism doesn’t require one to accept atheism. Der Trihs, for whom I have the greatest of respect, will doubless disagree with me on this particular aspect of the debate, but I find a belief in God perfectly compatible with a scientifc view of the physical world.
Yes, it matters that we keep ID from being taught in our schools as science. What doesn’t matter is which side is right about how the world really is.
You’ve gotta hand it to those pesky creationists. They **have **created a debate out of whole cloth. The fact that the debate isn’t really taking place on the level on which they claim it is makes little difference, since most folks can’t make the distinction.
If you include “and philosophy” then you gotta subtract at least one from the count.
I said I don’t care who’s right. I do care who wins in the absurd debate over ID’s place in the science curriculum.
It’s simply an effective logical tool.
It’s more than a rule of thumb; given that there are infinite possible answers to any question it’s the only practical method of answering questions. Rather, it’s an indispensible component of any practical method.
It’s not simpler; like all forms of creationism it posulates an entity for which we have no evidence. Naturalistic explanations are simpler by definition.
Nonsense. Biotechnology based on science works much better than biotech based on prayer.
This presupposes the irrelevance of any search for Truth-with-a-capital-T.
A definition:
simple (adj.): not involved or complicated
To me, nature is highly involved and complicated. Much moreso than most myths I have heard. But as far as I’m concerned, by far the simplest metaphysic is that which answers “no” to the question, “are there other minds?” It requires no entities for which there is no evidence, and it only rejects that which it cannot prove (everything other than one’s own existence.) Unbelievably simple, especially considering another of the definitions of simple: “having or composed of only one thing, element, or part.”
Biotechnology will always be based on science – by definition, if you will.