DIYbanter - View Single Post

wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:

charlie b wrote:
...

One of the arguements the ID folks present is
"this organism is extremely complex, too complex
to merely just happen by accident. therefore
it had to be designed by some intelligent entity".

That is their *conclusion*, but they claim they
have a Scientific case to make to support that
conclusion. We may well never know, because
the Science Establishment today it putting huge
resistance up (dare I say, with "religious" fervor)
to avoid having this debate.

What on Earth do you mean by "we may never know"? They
can certainly establish their own journals, societies and
hold their own conferences just like homeopaths, chiropodists,
astrologers and polygraphers have.

Nobody is silencing them any more than the Southern Baptists
silence a polymer chemistry by not inviting a chemist
to give a sermon about semipermeable membranes.

You are indulging yourself in some sly rhetorical tricks here
but it doesn't wash. The IDers are making claims of *science*
(or at least they say they are). "We will never know" whether
or not those claims are founded if there is no *scientific*
peer review of those claims. This is fundamentally different
than "not inviting a chemist to give a sermon about semipermeable
membranes." Because theology and chemistry are not both scientific
disciplines and thus not open to similar review processes. The essence
of the ID claim is that (at least part of it) is that it is *science*
so why shouldn't the existing infrastructure of science be called
upon to review it?

Just because an 'Iders' _says_ he is not religiously motivated
doesn't make it so. One only has to consider the rapant
dishonest of the overtly religious organisations pushing their
agenda to at least wonder if birds of a feather do not,
in reality, flock together.

Ad hominem

SNIP

Today, the ONLY supporters of 'ID' are the likes of Pat Robertson,
Oral Roberts (damn I wish that check had bounced) and their
minions. Even you don't claim to support ID, you seem only
to be arguing for 'equal time' based on some sort of misplaced
multicultural sense of fairness that might be appropriate if
they wanted to publish in YOUR journal but certainly not in
someone else's!

No. I'm arguing that specialists in a field are most suited
to evaluate claims made in/against their field.

You seem to believe that the 'IDers' at least honestly think
they have a legitimate scientific claim but the people you
are asking to publish those claims seem to have a different
opinion, that they are dishonest, deluded, or both.

No, I think the science establishment appears to be terrified
the IDers might have a point.

I certainly do not believe the 'IDers' are honest. I believe
they are as dishonest as their vocal political and religious
supporters.

You can believe what you like. Among any group of people, *including
scientists* there is wide variability in honesty, intellectual clarity,
and motivation. Dismissing the honor of an entire group of people
because you don't like what they say strikes me as pretty reactionary.

For example, evolution *within* a particular species,
over time, is demonstrable. But evolution from
less complex lifeforms to more complex lifeforms
is still undemonstrated. These upward jumps in
biocomplexity are *inferred* from observation, not
demonstrated by direct experiment. If they
were, the discussion about Evolution would
truly be over. IOW, all the Science Establishment
has to do to shut up the IDers is to show
(experimentally) an primordial soup becoming
a reptile which, in turn, evolves into, say,
Ted Kennedy.

And that is a self-serving argument because it purposefully
ignores the practical matter of the time required for the
process to occur.

A similar criticism can be made for many other natural processes
like plate techtonics or the stellar lifecycle.

Speciation is inferred from the fossil record and by extapolation
from the natural developement of varietals within a species just
like plate techtonics is inferred from the geological record and
by extrapolation from present day motion.

All true. The point here is that the science by direct experiment
is far stronger than science by inferrence or induction alone.
The science establishment appears to reject even the possibility
that IDers have a point to make, and is doing so on the weaker
of the methods available to science. All I have ever argued for
in this thread (and elswhere) is that, since no experimental
verification is possible, there needs to be a more open attitude
towards alternative explanations and the rapid destruction of new
bad theories as they arise.

If the AGU refused to accept "Intelligent Navigation" papers
on continental drift would THAT upset you?

If the claimants that were rejected argued that they had new
science to bring to the table and couldn't even get a hearing,
yes it would.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/