Glen Davidson
Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
|
How ID makes one sure of God, according to Torley
Yes, Vincent, we know that recounting confirmation bias could bolster one's commitment. What of that?
Now, let's suppose that the atheist madman actually demands a good, causality-based design explanation for the coccyx. Sure, you believe your fantasies, but why don't you back up your horseshit for once?
The madman demands ID science--not wishful thinking--that explains why anyone would design bird wings to begin development as many (ancestral) bones, only to fuse into rather greater wing bones. The madman demands actual evidence for the design of ATPase--for a causal design science rather than "you can just see that it's designed." The madman demands the intelligence that decided mammal testes have to descend from their apparent ancestral positions into a scrotum (provided they have high body temperatures), while birds dispense with such requirements.
Instead of wallowing in your mindless prejudices, only reinforcing them, why not for once imagine what you'd do if you had to actually explain life according to design? You can't do it meaningfully, and no one who isn't already beholden to such nonsense has any compelling reason to swallow it. I don't care how much your blind faith is bolstered by pseudoscience, it's no good for doing science, nor for explaining a damned thing causally.
It's a good mind trick for the congregation, though, ramble on and on about how useful ID is for bolstering your belief in God "empirically" (no pretense there that it's not about God, its only saving grace), while ignoring all of the evidence that shows life not to be designed.
By the way, who has ever died for a scientific idea? One dies for religion and other social causes, not for facts or scientific truths. They can stand on their own--that seems to have been Galileo's reaction, and correct in that case, at least. One might risk life or liberty over the right to do science (so it seems to me), but I can't imagine anyone sticking faithfully to evolutionary theory itself, as if it were some baseless belief like a religion, or ID. To be sure, he recognizes that one wouldn't die for ID, either, but that its role is to bolster the religion--at least getting the relationship of ID and religion right.
Glen Davidson
--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p
Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
|
