Venus Mousetrap
Posts: 201
Joined: Aug. 2007
|
| Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Mar. 09 2010,03:09) | | Quote (sparc @ Mar. 08 2010,23:32) | WMAD | Quote | | New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL |
|
I find it interesting that he uses | Quote | | METHINKS*IT*IS*LIKE*A*WEASEL |
in the paper but the word "Dawkins" does not appear. Neither does the phrase "Intelligent Design".
So as this paper was announced as
| Quote | | New Peer-Reviewed ID Paper — Deconstructing the Dawkins WEASEL |
A) How does it support ID?
B) How do we know he's talking about Dawkins WEASEL without a reference to where it's defined?
Poor poor Dr Dr Dembski. As yet there are no comments on that post. Don't be afraid to dig in y'all. |
I've been thinking lately about what would happen if we did just turn around and say 'fine, Darwinian evolution is wrong. What have you got?'. Because all the fine research that Dr D has been doing to pick away at evolution would suddenly be completely irrelevant, and we'd be left with the theory of 'anything we can't explain is designed', which has about as much use as the 'tall buildings have a lot of height' theory.
But it did kinda give me a glimpse into the ID way of seeing, I think. Because, when you get down to it, I don't really know how Darwinian evolution works. At least, not when it comes to, as IDers say, 'mechanisms forming out of chance and necessity'. Certainly I appreciate the idea that something could form one piece at a time, and those pieces could change, interact with other pieces, etc. But I have no idea how you'd go about proving or denoting something like that, or even if that is what population geneticists actually do.
I think ID supporters are the same. They see only the black box of Darwinian evolution (the mysterious 'chance' mechanism), the black box of ID (the mysterious 'designer did it'), and consider the two to be of the same merit.
The problem is, the public know even less about evolution than they do, so they're going to see it the same way. Is there no way to make the Darwinian box more open to those uneducated in biology?
|
