Re: Thank You was: Defending Intelligent Design
- From: AC <mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 31 Oct 2005 23:20:07 GMT
On 30 Oct 2005 19:23:48 -0800,
Thought Provoker <dfcord@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Thank You Everyone,
>
> It was an interesting exercise but I doubt much
> more would be accomplished by continuing it.
>
> Some lessons I learned:
>
> 1. It appears, for the moment, that the Pro IDers are
> in hiding/mourning as far as this newsgroup is concerned.
Sensibe pro-IDers don't seem to stick around for long.
>
> 2. There is some weakness in the area of scientific bias,
> but it's not very exploitable.
> - ID has to claim it is supernatural (bad legal move)
Well, it doesn't have to claim it is supernatural, but if we go with the
"aliens could have done it" then we have simply inserted another entity we
have to explain.
> - String Theory is getting special treatment
No it is not. No one, not even its advocates, are claiming at this time
that they can test it. It is still very much in the world of mathematics,
and a good many physicists either do not feel that it is adequate to the
task or that it is far enough along to be considered a full blown theory.
> - Evolution is not getting special treatment
Other than the fact that, at a century and a half old it is considered one
of the most successful scientific theories ever formulated. But it isn't
left alone, and research in many areas is ongoing.
>
> 3. Claiming the supernatural high ground is getting harder
> with recent events...
> - Black Holes leak information now
> - The Universe may be timeless again
Claiming the supernatural has never been a very good explanation, it's just
than in the last few hundred years we've developed a methodology which,
without invoking ultimately unfalsifiable claims, has been very successful
at increasing in a useful and predictable manner the workings of our
universe.
>
> 4. Claiming the supernatural for ID results in defining all
> intelligence as supernatural.
Well, I don't see this.
>
> 5. Without the supernatural, the primary thing ID has going
> for it is nit-picking evolution.
That's want the main ID advocates want to do. ID was always a smokescreen
for the "teach the controversy" scam. Why do you think (until recently)
Michael Behe was such a star. His performance of late will probably end
that status, of course.
>
> Nothing profound, just observations. We can now go back to
> our regularly scheduled critique of the Dover Trial.
I think their remain plenty of profound questions. I think our
understanding of the universe, particular at the smallest levels and at its
earliest moments, will provide generations of physicists and cosmologists
with work. Even if tomorrow some variant of string theory or some other
theory that finally gives us a unified view of the universe, I'm sure it
will only open a far greater number of questions.
--
Aaron Clausen
mightymartianca@xxxxxxxxxxx
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Rolling Stone: Darwinian Warfare
- Next by Date: Re: Punctuated Equilibrium
- Previous by thread: Re: Rolling Stone: Darwinian Warfare
- Next by thread: Re: Ignorance of ID on display in Dover
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
