BillB
Posts: 388
Joined: Aug. 2009
|
| Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 24 2012,15:00) |  |
Can you fill in some of the blanks - for example, which intelligent design argument are you referring to?
I assume (perhaps wrongly) you are not referring to just the 'God Didit' one?
Second, I don't recognize any of that as relating to reality, I've attempted to debate people like KF on many occasions, only to be met with personal attacks and veiled abuse - he even tried to claim at one point that any critique of his arguments was an attack on him personally, a tactic designed to shut down critical debate and absolve him from explaining perceived flaws in his thinking.
In addition to the latching debacle, you might also want to look up his proposed experiment involving a random noise generator, and the replies that point out some of the gaping flaws in his thinking there - namely the point that demonstrating how a random noise generator produces random noise and not order has nothing to do with evolution in a world with order and structure, all it proves is that a random noise generator generates random noise (which we all knew anyway but KF systematically failed to understand) - also consider his constant confusion and conflation of biological evolution and biogenesis ... He is a preacher who believes he should be beyond criticism.
If you take a look through all the replies to his ramblings you won't see me or many others referring to Judge Jones, Haeckel, or anything else in your satirical straw man. Take a look at the actual arguments that ID critics made on UD (before the recent cull) and you will see that the vast bulk of the critiques are addressing the ID arguments, and refer to the evidence.
As for peer review - yes it would be wrong to claim that there are no peer-reviewed ID publications. The issue is that they are very rare, and appear in journals that don't deal with biology. Peer review does not a theory make, at least not in science - you need a major body of work and - critically - empirical evidence, not just weak probability calculations based on unrealistic scenarios.
|
