Dr.GH
Posts: 2332
Joined: May 2002
|
One "crandaddy" posted at UncommonDescent couple of weeks ago, the following sillyness: "The
Dilemma of Joe the Archaeologist."
Since it mentioned archaeology as a source of support for IDiocy, I took a closer look.
crandaddy used two images,
 Image #1
and
 Image #2
crandaddy placed these images into an unlikely scenario of an archaeologist, Joe, wandering off into the Andes Mountains looking for some mega-site to excavate. Joe is grant funded, is associated with a major university, and has two work crews. These teams produced the two photos above, and "Joe" has the dilemma of chosing where to dig.
The first image is to be taken by a naive observer as the product of natural events and thus "less designed" than the other. This is therefore intuitive "proof" that there is "design" that "design" is easy to recognize and that this is taken to be evidence of God. (This last bit is based on the open admission by all principle IDiot "theorists" that their
"Designer's" real name is Yahweh).
First, let's clarify a few trivial points; The first image is from some rocks in Simi Valley California, the second image is of an Olmec sculpture currently in Villahemosa,Tabasco Mex. and was originally excavated at the early Olmec site of La Venta. Another trivial point is that I have conducted research at all of these locations.* So for openers, Joe needs a new job, becasue he will be fired for not knowing whether he is in California, Mexico, or somewhere over the rainbow. At least we know he is not in Kansas, because many of the State School Board there believe ID BS.
But, crandaddy has illuminated a few knobs on the IDista's noggin' for us. First, there is the notion that that any fool can get lots of grant money. Because we also know that "Joe" is a scientist and a university associate, and that grants come from poor tax payers we "know" that intellectual scientists (who are actually all fools) are all ripping-off the poor tax payer.
But more interesting is that here in California, and probably all over the world, there are natural, unmodified rock formations which are though to have some resemblance to some human feature. Many are taken to resemble human genitals and they are worshipped as aids to fertility. These sorts of sites are well attested in ethnography (eg. "Ceremonial Fertility Sites in Southern California." Charlotte McGowan, 1982 San Diego museum of Man).
For example, maybe davescot can recall some of his photographic inspired sexual fantasies and identify this image?
This is a basic error of IDiots: There is no difficulty in finding patterns and inventing associations. All cognizant people do this all the time. Science has the more difficult task of rejecting false patterns and spurious associations.
* I logged-in over at UD to point this out in two posts. The first substantive post was blocked and the second posted with a "spell flame" from the ever pathetic davescot. Oh well, as Bill Demski is so fond of saying, "Pearls before Swine ..." Except Dembski needs to offer retractions, and I don't.
--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."
L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"
|
