N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
From GPuccio, #7, at http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelli....-142236
| Quote | Indeed, aren’t we beginning to get tired of such a strange group of scientists, all of them intelligent and brilliant people, who are suddenly realizing the deep flaws of darwinian evolution theory, and have the courage to declare that, and yet are quickly dismissing intelligent design “just because it is intelligent design”, without even considering it, or at least acknowledging that there are people in the world who have been saying the same things for years, before they did, reaching different conclusions?
What right have these people, so detailed and lucid in their critics to the existing paradigm, to desperately stick to new absurd proposals and reasonings, which make the same darwinian arguments they criticize look quite reasonable and simple in comparison, and yet simply ignore or self-sufficiently condemn the impeccable model of ID?
So you, the shapiros and koonins and fodors, please have a little bit more courage and honesty, and at least try to “address” and recognize the point of view of other scientists, like Dembski and Behe, who have been having more courage and honesty than you, before you, and have never tried any final, desperate evasion from truth.
Just for curiosity, I only hope that Fodor may be successful in convincing everybody that natural selection “isn’t” the driving force of evolution (which, obviously, is perfectly true: design is the only observable driving force of anything which could be called evolution). After all, NS, with all its faults, is certainly the smartest obfuscating tool among the many not so smart concepts of darwinism, and I really wonder what kind of gimmick could take its place, if it were dismissed by its same inventors. Which weapon will they be left with? Genetic drift? Hmm… I would not like to be in their shoes! |
The ID model is not "impeccable". It has ruled itself out of consideration nearly at the outset, by being based on rhetoric, false claims, and false evidence, rather than on verified evidence.
Democritus suggested that matter was made of atoms, and so did John Dalton. Democritus gets only a little credit because, although he was correct in arguing for atoms, he did so rhetorically and philosophically rather than on the basis of hard evidence. Dalton gets more, even though he just postulated atoms as the easiest expanation for his observations, because he had some decent, if indirect, evidence.
Philospohizing about the nature of things gets you very little credit in science. Philosophizing about evolution on the basis of the standard piss-poor understanding of biology shown by IDists gets you no credit at all.
|
), and yet, sometimes I look at women and want to throw my hands in the air. For example, at a recent function one of the speakers talked of gathering the morning dew and pressing it to one's face to maintain that youthful glow - and the women just cooed with joy at the idea. I thought, "Acid rain?" (And don't get me started on the Dr. Phil thing. Ick.)
