N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Here's three other people telling you much the same things at other places:
From UnderConstruction, at
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creatio....80.html
| Quote | Re: Theory of Intelligent Design
#1585 by UnderConstruction » Sep 03, 2011 7:09 am
Oh and Gary, perhaps we could trouble you to provide and original copy of the "Rules of Science" that you are working from? Only, you seem to be adhering to a set of rules that include amongst other things:
-The removal of any need to make testable predictions.
-No need for falsifiability.
-The ability for one person to declare a work to be a theory, despite failure to provide the above and over the disinterest of the scientific community at large.
-The ability for one person to retain creative sole control of said "theory" and to be supreme arbiter of what is and is not a valid criticism.
-The ability to arbitrarily declare what is and is not science, over the objections of practicing scientists, or even just those with a decent science education.
-Seemingly active encouragement to reconcile religious claims with scientific fact.
-The right to misrepresent the works of scientists.
-The right to redefine terms at will.
Now I would submit that based on this, the rules that you are working to do not reflect the behaviour of the majority of the scientific community in many cases, as well as directly contradicting it in others. Perhaps you are of the belief that you are the only one who actually adheres to the rules? |
From Cueball at
http://ncse.com/blog.......0015669
| Quote | [Each paragraph is from a separate post] On a serious note, your theory is not scientific. Not even a little bit. You have no evidence whatsoever for any "design" in biology. The fact that you have no proof, reminds me of a great quote by Christopher Hitchens: "What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof." Or, if you like, Carl Sagan: "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
I know it can't be easy for you to hear (read?) after spending so much time on your idea, but I'm sorry, I've gotta be honest with you. The truth is that it just isn't scientific. Yes, you made it look pretty with your charts and everything, but the actual substance of it requires huge leaps of faith that aren't falsifiable, aren't even testable, and don't actually have a basis in fact.
I'm sorry, but I still don't see anything that qualifies as evidence or proof. I just see assertions. I also still haven't seen a method for testing your idea.
|
From CdnMacAtheist, also at http://ncse.com/blog.......0015669
| Quote | Gary, there are several problems with your 'claims' about your 'IDea'. Your continued & self-serving misuse of the words you use - like theory, intelligence, tested, design & model, as well as your basic premisses & assumptions, which are not foundationally sound or acceptable as science.
A theory isn't something you just create out of whole cloth by inventing different, incorrect uses for existing words, then just put out for others to discuss how to test it. A theory is an viable explanation for a number of existing, well-tested hypotheses which can be tied together using repeatable, mutually-buttressing processes. A proposed hypothesis needs facts & evidence to be tested & possibly falsified before it can even become an accepted hypothesis looking for an explanatory theory. Your 'IDea' doesn't have those facts, evidence or completed research where the proposal has been tested using accepted scientific methods which remove personal interference, interpretations & biases from the (blind) testing procedures. |
We could go on. Everywhere you go, people raise the same objections.
Let's try this - one way of separating conclusions from beliefs are that conclusions should change when contradicted by new evidence, but beliefs don't rest on evidence so changing them more often requires revelations. Hypothetically, what if anything might convince you that your ideas about "intelligent design" are wrong?
|
