Joined: Oct. 2005
|Quote (Febble @ Feb. 25 2012,05:39)|
|Quote (Stephen Elliott @ Feb. 25 2012,03:16)|
|Quote (Febble @ Feb. 24 2012,04:45)|
|That doesn't make it not interesting :)|
But he actually has a good point. Most ID proponents don't understand the science, and, to be fair, most ID skeptics don't understand evolutionary theory all that well either.
Most of us simply do not have the expertise to critique the relevant science, but we are happy to refer to scientific authority because we are not anti-science.
There is a real assymmetry, but I don't think that's where it lies.
And boy is there tribalism. That, IMO, is how people like Santorum or Bachmann can get away with endorsing ID. Most people don't have the expertise to see what's wrong with it, nor the expertise to understand the scientific counter-view.
Maybe, but you don't have to understand scientific publications to know which side has the evidence. It is fairly simple (if you actually look) to see that science is based on trying to explain data, ID is just saying that science is hard/not certain etc. Therefore God!
Do you think that ID has anything of substance? I don't.
No, I don't, but that's because I have enough expertise to recognise that.
I have no expertise, all my education has been authoritative. Yet it is fairly easy to see that ID is nonsense. Anyone arguing pro-ID after several years is clearly not looking at any evidence they do not like.
BTW, I started out as pro-ID. It did not take long to see who had rhetoric and who had evidence. It does not require lots of education/intelligence/training to judge, just a genuine desire to learn.
I do not believe that any long-time ID supporters actually want to learn.