Freethought & Rationalism Archive

babelfish · 07-23-2002, 05:56 AM

Speaking of favorite snippets, here's mine:

Quote:

The evidence against evolution amounts to little more than "I can't imagine it," Ewald adds. "That's not evidence. That's just giving up."

A very succinct way to sum up the entire field of ID, in my opinion.

Darwin's Finch · 07-23-2002, 06:24 AM

Excellent article! Maybe the best mainstream journalistic treatment of the subject I've read. Now for the $64 question: How many hours will it take for AIG and ICR to post "rebuttal" articles on their sites? Step up and place your bets. I say no later than early tomorrow morning.

bluefugue · 07-23-2002, 06:24 AM

Quote:

But, I don't think it will be an issue. They give both sides of the arguement which they should do.

Which points out the success of creationists in making it seem as if there is an argument. Imagine an astronomy article that had to have a section on Ptolemaic cosmology in order to be "even-handed."

Liquidrage · 07-23-2002, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by LordValentine:
<strong>

I think you are overreacting here. The article is not pro-ID unless stating the position of a politically very significant movement in a magazine that is supposed to cover politicaly significant movements is to be considered an endorsement.</strong>

I don't think I'm overreacting either.

Did you read the ID article? It was pro ID. It is the great "get out of jail free card" for the issue.

I hardly consider it a triumph of science when ID needs to be present as a viable alternative just to include a few article about evolution.

Sure, they did what they have to do as you point out. But then, why the big deal about the article?

The Dionysian · 07-23-2002, 05:33 PM

"(Not the kind of materialism that results in impractical shoes but the philosophical backbone of science: that everything can be explained through natural laws and physical phenomena)."

I must read something blatantly stupid at least once everyday on the internet. It's a natural law. Why can't some people separate philosophical materialism and the necessary methodological materialism of science? AHHHHHHHH!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-23-2002, 06:24 AM	#12
Darwin's Finch Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Gardnerville, NV Posts: 666	Excellent article! Maybe the best mainstream journalistic treatment of the subject I've read. Now for the $64 question: How many hours will it take for AIG and ICR to post "rebuttal" articles on their sites? Step up and place your bets. I say no later than early tomorrow morning.

07-23-2002, 05:33 PM	#15
The Dionysian Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: who knows Posts: 154	"(Not the kind of materialism that results in impractical shoes but the philosophical backbone of science: that everything can be explained through natural laws and physical phenomena)." I must read something blatantly stupid at least once everyday on the internet. It's a natural law. Why can't some people separate philosophical materialism and the necessary methodological materialism of science? AHHHHHHHH!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.