1of63
Posts: 126
Joined: Dec. 2007
|
BarryA
| Quote | | 2: The NAS handbook is very useful. We finally have incontrovertible proof that the Darwinists have two definitions of fact. The first definition above I will call “hammer dropping fact.” When I drop a hammer, it falls. That’s a fact. The second definition I will call “maybe not a fact fact.” |
Is this the best you can do?
Quibbling over the definitions of 'fact' in an NAS pamphlet?
You really think that is going to shake the whole edifice of evolutionary biology to its core and bring it crashing down? You hoping to do a whole Joshua and the walls of Jericho thing?
I don't think so.
First off, where's the problem? To quote Steven J Gould, "...'fact' does not mean "absolute certainty." Whether an observation or a theory counts as a fact is decided only by whether they have been confirmed, to quote Gould again, "to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." By that definition Ptolemaic astronomy was a fact. It was a fact that it described and predicted the motions of the planets with a reasonable degree of accuracy. Doesn't mean it was The Truth, it just meant that it worked. And that's what science really wants.
| Quote | | Here’s the bottom line: Much of the Darwinistas’ rhetoric depends upon an equivocation between “hammer dropping facts” and “maybe not a fact facts.” |
No, Bazza, this is you conflating 'fact' and 'truth'.
Ptolemaic astronomy was superceded by the work of Copernicus and Galileo because it explained the same thing to the same "pathetic level of detail" - and then some. It won out because it did more and did it better. The same for Newtonian mechanics and relativity; Einstein's explanation went to the same "pathetic level of detail" - and then some.
So here's the bottom line: you want to replace the theory of evolution with Intelligent Design, you're going to have to put an actual theory behind the label. It has to explain what evolution explains to the same "pathetic level of detail" - and then some. A rag-tag bunch of number-crunchers, engineers, computer geeks, shysters and self-proclaimed, self-important, self-made millionaires all standing around, wide-eyed, and gasping that 'it looks so complicated that it just has to be designed' don't cut it. Do the research, do the fieldwork, do the math, write it up and put it out there for others to trash - if they can. Stop whining about "Darwinistas". Either piss or get off the pot.
--------------
I set expectations at zero, and FL limbos right under them. - Tracy P. Hamilton
|
