|
|
|
jneutron
New Member
2 Posts |
 Posted - 01/15/2005 : 17:33:41
|
New here, hello to all.
It's sad when seemingly intelligent people support ID. I've been reading a political analysis website, The Moderate Independent, for some supposedly centrist takes on politics. Recently the editor just posted an essay on why Darwin was all wrong and that evolution occurs as a result of will. The development of fallacy upon fallacy is amusing and some here might find it interesting:
Original Essay: DARWIN'S THEORY IS ABSURD – LET THE SCHOOLS TEACH "INTELLIGENT DESIGN"
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i1darwin.htm
His so-called rebuttal: A RESPONSE TO CRITICISM ABOUT THE DARWIN ARTICLE
http://www.moderateindependent.com/v3i1darre.htm
He says he got many responses from many biologists, none of whom could find a chink in his armor, or cage as it were.
Cheers,
John C.
|
You can't prove ESP doesn't exist... |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 19:32:35 [Permalink]
|
Read the first several paragraphs...
It's the usual straw-man bullshit. The guy doesn't have any real idea of what evolution is or what statements the ToE makes.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 19:46:49 [Permalink]
|
What an idiot...
Three college courses and he still doesn't get it. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 20:24:30 [Permalink]
|
From the first article:Now don't start jumping up and down and think you have a champion for teaching Creationism. “Intelligent Design,” as the Pennsylvania school system aptly labeled it, is simply about that: the idea that there is some intelligence guiding things. In other words, that the biodiversity we see has been created. The guy doesn't understand that he's preaching creationism.The thing that Darwin nailed that seems pretty untouchable is that things evolve. Nope, he's got no clue about Darwin, nor about evolution.
From the "rebuttal":We Moderate Independents care only about the quality of the ideas, not the title or label of who says them. In this case, the quality of the ideas sucks, and the person who promotes them clearly has no ability to judge a science as good or poor.One of the problems we have with looking at history is we tend to distance it into ignorance. People or animals back then were nothing like us. They were innate, mindless, intelligenceless bags of genes and reactions. This guy really has no clue at all. And after a long description of news-channel preference as a "difference" between "monkeys":So there we are, biological identical but making the intelligence guided choice to take another direction. According to Darwin's theory, that choice will not shape our biology, it is our biology that shaped that choice. Neither. Whether a person likes NBC, FOX or some other news outlet is not a heritable characteristic (so far as we know). Natural selection does not function upon it as a force.Or might our biology be guided by our intelligent choices, might our brains have grown to be bigger, the rest of our biology seen similar shift GUIDED BY THE CHOICES WE MADE, not guided by natural selection of random biological mutations. Ah, okay, the guy is a hopeless romantic, trying (and failing) to make the case that Lamarckian inheritance will be responsible for his kids being more intelligent because they won't watch either FOX or NBC.They are Christopher Columbus. There was a prevalent wisdom that entirely ruled half of the world, that the planet was flat. As time went on, some people began to question and doubt this.
Still, nothing changed.
More time went by, and more people came to doubt it. Some brave and willful people devoted themselves to trying to prove that the world was indeed round.
Still, nothing changed.
Nothing changed until after years and years, the collective doubt, the collective will to prove otherwise, all culminated in the radical determination of a single man to finally do something about it. Maybe others had tried, but they had not managed to find the right mechanism. But through years and years of willing and trying finally, one day, one man comes forth with the will, finds the mechanism, and so forges off in an entirely new direction. Given what we've learned in another thread just yesterday, all I can say is: Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!One of the most central biological realities of the human body is adaptive biological change. If a child grows up in Mexico, they can drink the water without being sick. If someone exercises a lot, their body responds by adding muscles. Again and again, biological adaptation by the human body, some of it guided by will, such as adding muscles through weightlifting, has been shown to be an undeniable reality, central to the basic logic of how the human biological organism works. Except that immunity to local water-borne diseases or large muscles are not heritable characteristics. The author thinks that Lamarckian evolution is a central tenet of modern biology! It only gets worse:This combined with the vast observable history a |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2005 : 22:54:14 [Permalink]
|
Holy fucking god. Is this guy serious? So his whole venus fly trap thing is the lamest attempt ever to refute Darwinian evolution (indeed-- it's a great example of it!). Worse is his notion-- one shared by the ID community as a whole, it seems-- is the idea that the "I" part of ID, i.e. who the designer is, is not important:quote:
What that intelligence is is open to debate. It may be a Supreme Being, such as the Judeo/Christian God. It may be aliens who designed our planet or universe like a farm or a science experiment . . . It may be that the intelligence that directs evolution is within us, within our DNA, within our spirits.
But if we were designed by aliens, who designed them? Indeed, ultimately, for ID to work, the designer must be supernatural, and invariably this supernatural force has to be Yahweh and/or his once-dead son Jesus.
This is what pissed me off about IDers-- they always portray themselves as non-theistic scholars and scientists asking superficial questions unanswerable only to the most disinterested lay-public. Yet, in reality theirs is a distinctly theistic agenda, all quietly couched in clever disguise.
Fuck 'em. That's what I say... |
|
|
|
jneutron
New Member
2 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 12:51:47 [Permalink]
|
I wrote him two emails. Does anyone here participate in any forums that mix Creationists/IDers and Skeptics, and does anyone ever make any progress in convincing someone to rethink their fallacies? I've noticed that some IDers about the web are getting quite versed in logic and fallacies, and are quick to call Skeptics on it (relatively easy ones like ad hominem and ad vericundiam), and so some do at least seem to be eliminating the smaller fallacies from their rhetoric. Hopefully we can whittle our way down to the Big One someday.
I sent the guy two emails, I am wondering if I made any errors or if I was just wasting my time.
Email #1
Mr. Bico,
I ran across your website recently looking for moderate
voices in political analysis. You may recall a recent email
of mine criticizing the tone of some of your articles, but
overall I liked some of the content. You wrote back to me
using terms like "you gotta hit back" and "slam" your
political rivals, etc. I thought this an amusing WWF way of
looking at political discussion; how demeaning a diatribe
sounds could add little more damage than the truth spelled
out in plain language, in my opinion. But, I would still
give the site a chance.
And now I run across your little ditty about Darwin and your
attempts to reconcile Intelligent Design and Evolution and
realize that you are fearless about talking about subjects
that you have little idea about. Your analogy of the venus
fly-trap is so fraught with fallacy it is hard to know where
on the logic train you got off. You are trying to handle
scientific terms in political ways. You can see things from
other points of view; that doesn't make them true. You do
not understand evolution. You do not understand Darwin.
And you do not understand science. You may have misgivings
about some teacher's agenda to overstress the importance of
evolution or Darwinism in your liberal college class, but
that does not make it less true.
The reason why scientists are concerned that ID will be
taught in schools is that the science overwhelmingly
supports evolution, that children will be taught the fallacy
that evolution is only a theory, and ID is a theory too, so
they have equal footing, and it's only a matter of
interpretation, and these few brave underdog scientists are
trying to get their work heard against the Sheep-like bulk
of scientists. After all, scientists used to believe in
leeches and all kinds of crazy things, right? This is
political fantasy, not science. Aside from any theological
implications, ID is bad science and it teaches bad thinking
to accept it as good.
The literature that explains elegantly and in as much detail
as you want exists to refute soundly intelligent design and
to support evolution, and to describe what Darwin was
really saying. It is an adventure in logic. It has
elegance and beauty, and it need not conflict with a
theistic worldview, only a supernatural one. I recommend,
for beginning, the works of Michael Shermer and publications
of the Skeptic Society. The book Why People Believe Weird
Things is a great lay primer about what science really is.
Scientific American has, on their website, several articles
about the debate, and a good list of reasons why ID fails.
There are several books on the subject; Amazon accordingly.
Please do not attempt to enjoin me in a point-by-point
discussion of your article or a discussion on evolution. I
am no science teacher. Consider me a friendly voice who is
only saying... "go back and do some more reading and
thinking. You've made some mistakes." I am only bothering
to write because you seem intelligent and not afraid to
read. I am a fan of Will Durant as well, and I figure
someone who can get through all those volumes couldn't be
half bad.
Email #2 (after the response article):
I really hope that the many polite intelligent people that
spent time responding to your article didn't waste that much
time trying to make you see the cage of fallacy you have
built for yourself, considering that you have little but
contempt for them, as evidenced by the following statement:
"Although intelligent and well-meaning, not a single one –
not one – actually responded to the article I wrote."
But not intelligent enough, in other words, to at least
REALLY respond to your article. Leading off with dismissive
rhetoric to begin an argument in logic shows your lack of
familiarity with the basic methods of scientific discourse.
Either that or not one of the dozens of biologists that
responded to your article failed to give a logical critique
of your points with references and instead relied on
rhetoric. I will only take time to respond in kind.
In response to your article, to quote the physicist Wolfgang
Pauli:
"That's not even wrong."
Evolution is not a three-legged stool. Disprove one detail
or another and it does not fall over. Cherry-picked quotes
from a handful of scientists is not a body of evidence.
Claiming that we haven't disproved that we can't choose
which sperm gets to the egg is not the same as disproving
that it is a random process. It's like a new-ager saying,
"well, you can't PROVE that ESP doesn't exist." But the
burden of proof is on the claimant. And the proof just
doesn't stand up, for ESP or ID. You can't prove that
little green men don't run the world, but is it really
plausible? Look up Occam's Razor.
More evidence than not supports evolution and natural
selection. Evolutionary theory doesn't exist because people
want to venerate Darwin and belong to some cult which uses
evolution as a dogmatic tool to support a worldview. And
don't be thinking, "It's only a theory." Theory in science
doesn't mean temporary hypothesis.
Ah, I'm probably repeating somebody else in your inbox
anyway. It would be interesting to see a forum with these
letters published, as an argument with progress about this
subject, in the Socratic ideal of discovering the truth via
logical discourse, would take point-by-point argument,
rather than an essay and response cycle.
"Whom the Gods would destroy they first make prideful."
John Clements
Colorado Springs |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 13:38:49 [Permalink]
|
| Good letters, I think. Both of them. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 19:34:31 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jneutron
Does anyone here participate in any forums that mix Creationists/IDers and Skeptics...
Welcome to the SFN, jneutron. This is a forum which mixes those two groups (though not as frequently as other forums).quote:
...and does anyone ever make any progress in convincing someone to rethink their fallacies?
I think we've had some success in that a couple of creationists who've come here have - at least - toned down their rhetoric and become less sure of themselves.quote:
I've noticed that some IDers about the web are getting quite versed in logic and fallacies, and are quick to call Skeptics on it (relatively easy ones like ad hominem and ad vericundiam), and so some do at least seem to be eliminating the smaller fallacies from their rhetoric.
Don't miss out on Arguments we think creationists should NOT use from Answers in Genesis. It's a pretty big step forward, even if half of the rationalizations in it are also wrong. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2005 : 20:52:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jneutron
I wrote him two emails. Does anyone here participate in any forums that mix Creationists/IDers and Skeptics, and does anyone ever make any progress in convincing someone to rethink their fallacies? I've noticed that some IDers about the web are getting quite versed in logic and fallacies, and are quick to call Skeptics on it (relatively easy ones like ad hominem and ad vericundiam), and so some do at least seem to be eliminating the smaller fallacies from their rhetoric. Hopefully we can whittle our way down to the Big One someday.
Hey, jneutron-- if you want to have a good time, go through this thread, where the topic of ID came up and was defended (if you could call it that) by JerryB. He ultimately gave up posting here because, if I recall, our math skills just weren't up to speed (though to this day I'm fairly certain that we were right. Alas...) |
|
|
|
verlch
SFN Regular
781 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 01:48:33 [Permalink]
|
| Why should anybody be forced to study a veiwpoint nobody believes? Why can't we study ID and not have men like you complain about it? Your living in a pipe dream guys. Evolution can't hold water! I can't understand something that has sunk so far under the quicksand it was built upon! Evolution is a dream, something that was planted in the human race with plans to take root after time passed. Too bad evolution asks more questions than it has answers to. |
What came first the chicken or the egg?
How do plants exist without bugs in the soil, and bugs in the soil without plants producing oxygen?
There are no atheists in foxholes
Underlying the evolutionary theory is not just the classic "stuff" of science — conclusions arrived at through prolonged observation and experimentation. Evolution is first an atheistic, materialistic world view. In other words, the primary reason for its acceptance has little to do with the evidence for or against it. Evolution is accepted because men are atheists by faith and thus interpret the evidence to cor-respond to their naturalistic philosophy.
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. II Timothy 4:3,4
II Thess. 2:11 And for this cause God shall
send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
You can not see the 'wind', but you can see its effect!!!!
Evolution was caused by genetic mistakes at each stage?
Radical Evolution has 500 million years to find fossils of fictional drawings of (hard core)missing links, yet they find none.
We have not seen such moral darkness since the dark ages, coencides with
teaching evolution in schools. (Moral darkness)
For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places, EPH 6:12.
"Thus, many scientists embracing naturalism find themselves in the seeming dilemma recently articulated by biochemist Franklin Harold: "We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity [i.e., Darwinian evolution]; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 02:37:07 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jneutron
New here, hello to all.
It's sad when seemingly intelligent people support ID.
Welcome jneutron!
I have found that it is easier for me to respect a biblical cretinist than an ID-iot.
I can feel sorry for a science minded fundie who try to fit his assumption of an inerrant bible into an unimpressed reality.
The ID-iots seems to start with the assumption that they are smarter than everybody else, including the experts. Such assumptions deserves only ridicule.
"Stupidity has a certain charm - ignorance does not."
-- Frank Zappa |
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 02:42:27 [Permalink]
|
I like this bit:
quote:
Originally posted by jneutron
And now I run across your little ditty about Darwin and your
attempts to reconcile Intelligent Design and Evolution and
realize that you are fearless about talking about subjects
that you have little idea about.
Fools rush in, eh?
Good letters. |
|
|
|
Siberia
SFN Addict
Brazil
2322 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 09:12:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by verlch
Why should anybody be forced to study a veiwpoint nobody believes? Why can't we study ID and not have men like you complain about it? Your living in a pipe dream guys. Evolution can't hold water! I can't understand something that has sunk so far under the quicksand it was built upon! Evolution is a dream, something that was planted in the human race with plans to take root after time passed. Too bad evolution asks more questions than it has answers to.
Of course it is, because we all live in the Matrix, right? |
"Why are you afraid of something you're not even sure exists?"
- The Kovenant, Via Negativa
"People who don't like their beliefs being laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs."
-- unknown
|
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2005 : 11:01:10 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Why should anybody be forced to study a veiwpoint nobody believes? Why can't we study ID and not have men like you complain about it?
You can study ID all you want to verlch. Nobody gives a flyin fuck.
The problem arises when you type wants to teach ID as science in our public schools.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
