Utterly Meaningless » Blog Archive » CONCLUSION

CONCLUSION

Filed at 9:01 pm under by dcobranchi

Creationism is undoubtedly a religious concept. The leading intelligent design textbook until 1987 used the term “creation” and all it’s cognates. Since then, it has used the term “intelligent design.” The definitions for these two terms are identical. Therefore– ID is a religious concept, and per the same reasoning as in Aguillard, it cannot be taught in the schools.

OK, folks– Did I make the case that ID is religious?

15 Responses to “CONCLUSION”


Comment by
Dave
December 23rd, 2005
at 9:51 pm

No.


Comment by
Dave
December 23rd, 2005
at 11:21 pm

Of the many logical fallacies Daryl commits, the one that I’d like to emphasize is the “genetic fallacy.”

We don’t discredit evolution even though many of its proponents are atheists and eugenists. And we can’t do that to ID either!

Here is a definition and description of this particular fallacy. (from fallacyfiles.org)

Genetic Fallacy

Type: Red Herring
Exposition:

The Genetic Fallacy is the most general fallacy of irrelevancy involving the origins or history of an idea. It is fallacious to either endorse or condemn an idea based on its past—rather than on its present—merits or demerits, unless its past in some way affects its present value. For instance, the origin of evidence can be quite relevant to its evaluation, especially in historical investigations. The origin of testimony—whether first hand, hearsay, or rumor—carries weight in evaluating it.

In contrast, the value of many scientific ideas can be objectively evaluated by established techniques, so that the origin or history of the idea is irrelevant to its value. For example, the chemist Kekulé claimed to have discovered the ring structure of the benzene molecule during a dream of a snake biting its own tail. While this fact is psychologically interesting, it is neither evidence for nor against the hypothesis that benzene has a ring structure, which had to be tested for correctness.

So, the Genetic Fallacy is committed whenever an idea is evaluated based upon irrelevant history. To offer Kekulé’s dream as evidence either for or against the benzene ring hypothesis would be to commit the Genetic Fallacy.


Comment by
Dave
December 23rd, 2005
at 11:38 pm

I’ll submit one more item, a nice essay by Mike Gene over at Telic Thoughts regarding Creation vs Evolution, also title ID102. (ID101 is not bad either)

telict...?p=381

Here’s an excerpt: “Thus, we can see the clear distinction between Intelligent Design and Creationism. Intelligent design is about detecting the input of an intelligent agent as part of natural history and creationism is one possible explanation that can be offered after the detection has been made.”


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 24th, 2005
at 5:28 am

Dave,
You only get to vote once. The efforts of the DI and other IDists have been entirely aimed at teaching ID (or the “controversy” as the DI likes to put it) in the classrooms. The thought, apparently, is that if they can disparage evolutionary biology, ID will be the fallback position. A logical fallacy, of course. However, as I believe I’ve shown, the ID that supporters want taught in the SECULAR g-schools is biblical creationism, nothing more and nothing less. As such, until Aguillard is overturned, it cannot be taught as science in the schools.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 24th, 2005
at 5:47 am

RED HERRING!

Dave, you know I never said anything about the motives or beliefs of the people who wrote Pandas. For all I know they could be atheists. What I DID show is that the book started out as a creationist textbook and only evolved into an ID one immediately after the SCOTUS held that teaching creationism in the schools was illegal.

But you knew all that. Nice try.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 24th, 2005
at 5:55 am

One final note–

I’ve temporaily gone to moderating all comments so that no one person cannot attempt to drown out any other viewpoints. I won’t post on this thread again unless someone asks me a direct question. And neither will Dave. 🙂

Please vote (if anyone besides Dave and I care about any of this).


Comment by
COD
December 24th, 2005
at 9:14 am

I vote with Daryl. However, I predict anybody that already believed ID was creationism still believes so, and people like Dave will never admit otherwise. They can’t sell their beliefs in the free market of ideas, so they need access to the captive audience of g-school kids to force feed creationism on them.


Comment by
Lopezess
December 24th, 2005
at 10:33 am

I vote with Dave. His calm, intelligent voice is needed in the debate.

Daryl, I can’t believe you’re not letting him post anymore. I hope you reconsider.


Comment by
Daryl Cobranchi
December 24th, 2005
at 10:46 am

Since Lopezess directed this at me–

The point is to allow other folks to express an opinion without it being lost in the noise.


Comment by
COD
December 24th, 2005
at 10:59 am

Dave is welcome to set up his own blog and spread his “calm, intelligent” voice far and wide. Daryl has no obligation to let anybody else use his website as a forum for their views.


Comment by
Lopezess
December 24th, 2005
at 12:02 pm

That’s right COD, absolutely. BUT, until Daryl refuses to let me post here, I can politely voice my disappointment, can’t I? And, as I remember it, Daryl is the one who suggested a debate… or at least opened it up. I don’t have time to check back to all the recent posts, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

Since you brought it up, I’d love to read a HomeEd blog by Dave. Hope he has one or starts one up.

Truthfully, I love Daryl’s blog when it’s about HomeEd. Even though I have trouble following all of his acronyms… took me weeks to figure out what an HEK is.
🙂
Merry Christmas, everyone.


Comment by
Lioness
December 24th, 2005
at 6:43 pm

I thought this squabble was settled 30 years ago when I was taught in Sunday School that evolution was the tool God used for Creation. Why did certain Christians abandon co-option for conflict?


Comment by
Amy K.
December 25th, 2005
at 5:46 pm

I thought this squabble was settled 30 years ago when I was taught in Sunday School that evolution was the tool God used for Creation. Why did certain Christians abandon co-option for conflict?

Certain Christians couldn’t abandon co-option since they never accepted it in the first place.


Comment by
Lioness
December 26th, 2005
at 11:35 am

Actually Tad, Kerkule only had the dream about the ring structure after trying and rejecting every other conceivable hypothesis. You present a false picture of the scientific process if you say he proceeded straight from a dream to a theory without taking into account the years of rigorous scientific research that went on beforehand.

But it appears that presenting a false picture of the scientific process is what your arguement is all about. In your “genetic fallacy” arguement you completely throw out the original data that leads to the original hypothosis. If you do that you can construct any hypothosis you please — but you can’t test it. It is testing by reproducible scientific methods that makes something a scientific theory. “Intelligent Design” can be tested by scientific methods. Therefore it can never, ever be a scientific theory.


Comment by
Lioness
December 26th, 2005
at 11:36 am

Excuse me, I meant ID CAN’T be tested by scientific methods. Sorry, getting called away by children.