Show Me the Science [Critique of Intelligent Design, by Daniel Dennett

New York Times ^ | August 28, 2005 | Daniel C. Dennett

[AZLiberty]

...

Is "intelligent design" a legitimate school of scientific thought? Is there something to it, or have these people been taken in by one of the most ingenious hoaxes in the history of science? Wouldn't such a hoax be impossible? No. Here's how it has been done.

...

[PatrickHenry]

certain playing cards make me want to go jump in the lake.

Why don't you play a game of solitaire?

[VadeRetro]

Your attitude has been noted before this.

[dynoman]

I asked those questions because I wanted to see what the answers would be. There were no surprises, people performed as they have been programmed. I found The Blind Watchmaker to be a barrel full of laughs, the other thing it did was increase my personal incredulity. You see I was never pre-programmed with status quo thinking re evolution, (or id for that matter).

That's right, I have not been programmed with the "proper understanding" of the Theory of Evolution.

Poor me, confined to out-of-the-box, original thinking on the subject.

Revolutionary, original, out-of-the-box thinking will always challenge status quo.

Revolutionary, original, out-of-the-box thinking is the catalyst for major advances, not in-the-box, pre-programmed, evolutionary thinking.

Here a few examples;

The Wright Brothers were flying their airplanes in Dayton when, at the exact same time, evolutionary, in-the-box, preprogrammed (educated), thinkers were quoted in the Dayton newspapers saying heavier than air machines would never fly.

When Charles Kettering presented his automobile electric starter invention to a meeting of evolutionary thinking, in-the-box, preprogrammed (educated) electrical engineers, they were offended and arrogantly accused him of “violating known laws of electrical engineering” something they “would never do”. Poor Charles, he obviously missed out on receiving a “proper understanding” of electrical engineering.

John Ronz the designer of the Voyager airfoils (and many more) did not receive a “higher education” in aeronautical engineering. He is on record saying this is to his advantage because he wasn’t “taught what couldn’t be done”. In other words he wasn’t preprogrammed by “higher education” with the in-the-box aeronautical engineering status quo.

This is what I was talking about on this thread.

So there!

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I asked those questions because I wanted to see what the answers would be."

No you didn't. If you had you would have answered ONE of our points. Instead, all you can do is talk about *thinking outside the box*, and showing your complete lack of anything resembling an arguments.

"The Wright Brothers were flying their airplanes in Dayton when, at the exact same time, evolutionary, in-the-box, preprogrammed (educated), thinkers were quoted in the Dayton newspapers saying heavier than air machines would never fly."

You are seriously trying to argue that it was the belief in evolution that made those thinkers (who you never actually mentioned by name; they were as likely to be creationist) doubt the ability of airplanes to fly? You need to stop smoking that wacky tobacky.

At any rate, you performed as well (badly) as we could have expected, or hoped for. :)

[dynoman]

I don't know if you are a evolutionist, creationist, but you sure are a projectionist. I don't have to answer any "point" to simply want to see what answers to my questions would be.

You are seriously trying to argue that it was the belief in evolution that made those thinkers (who you never actually mentioned by name; they were as likely to be creationist) doubt the ability of airplanes to fly?

Where is the world did *THAT* come from??

Where did I say or imply *anything* about them being evolutionists or creationists??

That's right I didn't. That is just an imaginary strawman *you* created in *your* mind.

Projection, personal attack, kill the messenger, strawman all in one reply, and all this no big surprise either.

[dynoman]

Goodness, it should be obvious I was talking about revolutionary vs evolutionary thinking *processes* - the *way* we think.

But then I was never into spoonfeeding either, swim, or sink into personal opinion - where you can always right.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Where is the world did *THAT* come from??

Where did I say or imply *anything* about them being evolutionists or creationists?? "

You said it very clearly,

""The Wright Brothers were flying their airplanes in Dayton when, at the exact same time, EVOLUTIONARY (my emphasis), in-the-box, preprogrammed (educated), thinkers were quoted in the Dayton newspapers saying heavier than air machines would never fly.""

Why did you mention *evolutionary* thinkers when talking about those who said that air machines would never fly? That's a pretty explicit statement. Please name some of these people too, as it is very easy to say *people* said so and so without saying who they were or what position in science they held.

"That's right I didn't. That is just an imaginary strawman *you* created in *your* mind."

It's the words you chose to use. Unlike you, I actually read what I write, and what you write. You obviously never read Dawkins but felt justified in ripping his book. This seems to be a pattern with you.


" Projection, personal attack, kill the messenger, strawman all in one reply, and all this no big surprise either."

Yes, your response was no surprise, I agree.

[RobRoy]

Heh, heh.

Science as god - interesting.

Science is fun, interesting and all that, but so is hang gliding and Chess. It is not the noblest of human endeavors and should not be treated as such.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Goodness, it should be obvious I was talking about revolutionary vs evolutionary thinking *processes* - the *way* we think."

In a discussion on evolution it is no innocent mistake to say *evolutionary* when you are trying to be derogative. The whole *revolutionary* vs. *evolutionary* modes of thinking is just a lotta crap anyway. It is no argument against anything we have said to you; it is an evasion. And an obvious one.

[dynoman]

*Sigh*

....always *be* right.....

(preemptive defense against a grammar attack)

[dynoman]

The whole *revolutionary* vs. *evolutionary* modes of thinking is just a lotta crap anyway. Whatever you say man.......you win.

[dynoman]

You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You. Have. Got. To. Be. Kidding."

Hey, whatever you say man, you win.

[dynoman]

Then this what is called a win-win situation?

I think you are a pretty cool dude after all.

:-}

[RobRoy]

As one of those programmed, you predictably missed, or chose to ignore, his whole point.

It's ok, airplanes still fly, and electric starters still work.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"As one of those programmed, you predictably missed, or chose to ignore, his whole point. "

Nice to know... now, who the h*ll are you talking about? What post are you referencing? This thread died 2 weeks ago. I know I never posted to you in it. Do you normally go back to dead threads and post to people randomly?

"It's ok, airplanes still fly, and electric starters still work."

Again, nice to know. :) This thread is deceased! Let it rest in peace.

[muir_redwoods]

"This is sheer speculation and is not science."

"Each of these creatures' eyes were designed by God.

And the "designed by G-d" is science?

[plain talk]

"Designed by God" (there - I will spell it out for you) is probably not science. At least it is not classical science. Topics like ID and macro evolution seem more like analytical philosophy to me.

[muir_redwoods]

Topics like ID and macro evolution seem more like analytical philosophy to me."

I am unfamiliar with laboratoty experiments in Analytical Philosophy such as the ones biologist do in studying evolution.

[plain talk]

There are no experiments being conducted in macro evolution.