Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » DOG BITES MAN
  • DOG BITES MAN

    Filed at 9:16 am under by dcobranchi

    ID supporters caught lying— again. I’m shocked! Come on, Dave, spin this one for us.

    13 Responses to “DOG BITES MAN”


    Comment by
    Alex
    November 2nd, 2005
    at 10:55 pm

    Daryl, why should Dave have to spin this? Since you take issue with media generalizations regarding homeschoolers, it seems that you should also apply the same criteria to the ID debate and not generalize in that space. My hunch is that just like with homeschoolers, ID folks are probably all over the map in terms of their background, motivations, etc.

    I particularly am interested in the thoughts of PhD level scientists that accepted Darwinian evolution for much of their careers only to change their position after coming to the conclusion that the evidence points elsewhere. It turns out that many of the signers of the DI 400 fall in that camp.

    I sense that we are witnessing the dynamics of what always happens when the status quo is challenged. Those in control of the current paradigm resist it with great force, while those advocating the new paradigm must quickly demonstrate the viability of their idea or fade away. In the past 10 years, ID has grown not only in its acceptance (or at least tolerance) by scientists, but in the level of opposition by those “fundamentalists” who stand to lose.

    This issue is playing out in a very similar manner as did the emergence of big bang theory. Many scientists dismissed the big bang solely on the grounds that it was consistent with a creationist point of view.

    People conclude without any prodding that televisions, computers, airplanes, and cars are designed. So the question is can science establish specific criteria that can be applied to specific objects to determine if they were designed? I think for this reason only, ID is a provocative hypothesis. I don’t care that there are people that seek to distort ID to support strict biblical creationism or any other notion of who the designer is or what the designers motivations were. I also don’t care that some advocates of ID are Christian or Jewish either. If I did, then I would have to care that some evolutionists are atheists.

    So I ask you, is it possible that some aspects of nature were designed by some intelligence, and is it possible for science to infer design based upon characteristics of objects under study?


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 3rd, 2005
    at 2:05 am

    So I ask you, is it possible that some aspects of nature were designed by some intelligence, and is it possible for science to infer design based upon characteristics of objects under study?

    Is it possibile? Of course. Should the non-existent “controversy” be taught in 9th-grade publis school biology classes? No. That’s the argument. It has nothing to do with the scientific establishment seeking to silence IDers. IDers want to redefine science to fit their creationist beliefs (see Phillip Johnson, father of ID). It doesn’t work that way.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 3rd, 2005
    at 2:10 am

    And the reason I generalize is that, in my experience, all of the advocates for teaching ID (or the non-existent controversy) are lying about their motives. So, yes, ID=creationism. Maybe not YEC but creationism nonetheless. At least Johnson is honest about his motivations.

    And Pandas and People is a creationist text. It states that organisms appeared fully formed with all their features intact– birds with feathers, fish with gills, etc. If that’s not creationism, I don’t know what is.


    Comment by
    Alex
    November 3rd, 2005
    at 10:50 pm

    Why do you think design is possible?


    Comment by
    speedwell
    November 3rd, 2005
    at 10:55 pm

    Forgive me if I’ve rendered myself unqualified to opine om the subject by becoming an atheist…

    But when I was a Christian, I got the impression that belief in God was not supposed to mean disbelief in reality and truth. Truth was God’s. God was Truth. Lies were of the Devil. Opposition to reality was the same as opposition to God.

    I still hold truth with the highest reverence that I once reserved for the Deity. I’m utterly mystified that some of those who supposedly worship the God of truth don’t hold the same or even greater reverence. Do they suppose God will forgive them for lying?


    Comment by
    Alex
    November 3rd, 2005
    at 11:05 pm

    Not sure I follow, Speedwell. But how do you know that there is no designer?

    (Regardless of the designer’s identity)


    Comment by
    Lopezess
    November 4th, 2005
    at 12:35 am

    Alex sounds like a very intelligent man. He raises some good points.

    Dave, would like to hear your comments to Alex’s first paragraph.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 4th, 2005
    at 5:39 am

    Why do you think design is possible?

    Good science is always tentative. Everything is possible. We just look for the best/most-likely explanation that fits within a scientic framework. Did God do it all? As a scientist I have no idea. We can’t studt God. We CAN study the physical laws of the universe. So far. in a little over 150 years scientists have made remarkable progress in understanding life and diversity. And we haven’t had to invoke any myserious Big G to explain away the parts that aren’t quite finished.


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 4th, 2005
    at 5:53 am

    Regarding Alex’s first ‘graf–

    While IDists may be all over the map, the ones trying to push this into te schools are without exception motivated by the SCOTUS decision that scientific creationism was a violation of the Establishment Clause. The term ID was basically re-invented to attempt to get around that decision. So, no, the DI and the Dover Board are not all over the map; they’re conservative Christians who can’t stand the thought that science can explain life without invoking the Big G.

    I’ve said it many times before– science is done first in the labs. Only much later does it move into general society and the schools. The ID supporters playing political games want to short-circuit the process.


    Comment by
    speedwell
    November 4th, 2005
    at 8:50 am

    “But how do you know that there is no designer? (Regardless of the designer’s identity)”

    You don’t truthfully know that there exists any such thing, and I’m not obligated to believe your unsupported assertions. But I am not going to hijack the thread with a defense of atheism, and I am not going to allow you to pretend to “save” me in this venue, either (you may e-mail me if you wish to do your Christian duty to the apostate). There are also plenty of perfectly adequate resources on and offline with answers to your atta–I mean, questions.

    My intent in the above post was simply to express my shock and amazement that people of God, in the very name of God, would stoop to deliberate lies and distortions.

    Magna est veritas et praevalebit.


    Comment by
    Lopezess
    November 4th, 2005
    at 11:37 am

    “We can’t studt God. We CAN study the physical laws of the universe.”

    I always thought that by studying the physical universe, I WAS studying God.


    Comment by
    Anonymous
    November 4th, 2005
    at 11:41 am

    “Magna est veritas et praevalebit”

    Could you translate for those of us who were victims of a public school education?


    Comment by
    Daryl
    November 4th, 2005
    at 11:47 am

    Great is the truth and it will (shall?) prevail.