Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Clutch · 12-02-2002, 11:38 AM

E_muse, you can be an ex-pro-wrestler, for all I care. It has nothing to do with the topics of these last few threads, in which people have been explicitly asking for a positive characterization of ID.

Now, if you don't have a positive characterization of ID, if you don't know of anyone who offers a positive characterization of ID, and if you are not concerned to provide a positive characterization of ID, then it seems rather straightforward that the thing to do is say so -- or, better, say nothing (on those particular threads).

What you've done, rather, is to offer a variety of things that are transparently not positive characterizations of ID, then get cross when this is pointed out to you repeatedly, with increasing frustration, as you continue to reply in the same vein.

The point of blowing raspberries over Koons is not that he's a theist, nor incompetent, nor even that he's dismally wrong -- though he certainly is all three. The point is that it does not even purport to be a positive presentation of evidence. Even were his argument for the failures of non-ID-science (aka, "science") a good one, it would amount to: Your iron bar can't float, therefore my lead bar does.

So be as ex-fundie as you like. The question is why, when everyone had taken a deep breath and prepared to focus upon positive evidence for ID, you have offered post after post that singularly failed to provide anything of the kind. That you never meant to provide any, as you now claim, hardly makes sense of it.

The take-away lesson, in any case, is still more clearly that nobody has any idea what a positive characterization of ID would look like.

Xeluan · 12-02-2002, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by E_muse:
<strong>

I've provided the arguement from Koons for criticism. I'm sure people can do this by whatever means they wish. However, Koons' comments do not concern evolutionary theory but physics.

Lastly, the objective of this site is to "encourage the avid pursuit of philosophy and the scientific enterprise" so I cannot see where there would be any justification in limiting the discussion to science only. You will also notice that we are under the heading, "Philosophical Forums".</strong>

Gee. Then a lot of other threads on Evolution/Creation must be really way off topic. I hereby ask the mods to crack down on any science discussion in this forum. ;-)

If you are playing devil's advocate then you are doing a good job. This sort of pointless distraction involving semantics etc is what I expect from IDists.

While philosophy can enter the ID/Evolution debate, as others have pointed out,the philosophical waffling you presented is not evidence. I am after scientific evidence for ID whether it be physics, biology, geology etc.

Is there any?

Xeluan

Bubba · 12-02-2002, 04:00 PM

The sad thing is that we need to be "winning" (to use a fundy Christian idea) people to rational thought and a belief in science weather they are thiests, agnostics, diests, or whatever.

What I still really would like to see is a good debate in the debates forum of here in E/C on some of the present concepts of ID. I think that we could probably help some people at ARN see just how Damned irrational arguements like Dembski's really are.

Plus, thinking about this beats watching pro wrestling with my 9 year old son...

In Darwin

Bubba

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

12-02-2002, 11:38 AM	#31
Clutch Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 3,751	E_muse, you can be an ex-pro-wrestler, for all I care. It has nothing to do with the topics of these last few threads, in which people have been explicitly asking for a positive characterization of ID. Now, if you don't have a positive characterization of ID, if you don't know of anyone who offers a positive characterization of ID, and if you are not concerned to provide a positive characterization of ID, then it seems rather straightforward that the thing to do is say so -- or, better, say nothing (on those particular threads). What you've done, rather, is to offer a variety of things that are transparently not positive characterizations of ID, then get cross when this is pointed out to you repeatedly, with increasing frustration, as you continue to reply in the same vein. The point of blowing raspberries over Koons is not that he's a theist, nor incompetent, nor even that he's dismally wrong -- though he certainly is all three. The point is that it does not even purport to be a positive presentation of evidence. Even were his argument for the failures of non-ID-science (aka, "science") a good one, it would amount to: Your iron bar can't float, therefore my lead bar does. So be as ex-fundie as you like. The question is why, when everyone had taken a deep breath and prepared to focus upon positive evidence for ID, you have offered post after post that singularly failed to provide anything of the kind. That you never meant to provide any, as you now claim, hardly makes sense of it. The take-away lesson, in any case, is still more clearly that nobody has any idea what a positive characterization of ID would look like.

12-02-2002, 04:00 PM	#33
Bubba Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orient, OH USA Posts: 1,501	The sad thing is that we need to be "winning" (to use a fundy Christian idea) people to rational thought and a belief in science weather they are thiests, agnostics, diests, or whatever. What I still really would like to see is a good debate in the debates forum of here in E/C on some of the present concepts of ID. I think that we could probably help some people at ARN see just how Damned irrational arguements like Dembski's really are. Plus, thinking about this beats watching pro wrestling with my 9 year old son... In Darwin Bubba

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.