Replies

Not that I am supporting ID. I tend to think both sides are really pursuing Ontology, not science, but neither wants to admit it.

There are no similarities between the two "sides".

The scientific establishment has accumulated masses of information regarding fulfilled predictions of evolution, DNA maps that agree with apparent physiological differences between species. Literally hundreds of thousands of papers presented over the 150+ years that evolution has been confirmed.

While "ID" is primarily a promotional gimmick launched and sustained by the Discovery Institute using large donations by the moonies, among others. ID is popularly supported by the fundimentalist Christian crowd, like the environmental movement is supported by fundimentalist liberals.

The ID movement has much more in common with the environmental movement, which is a parasite of science, and does most of its work in the political/PR arena, not in the truth finding arena.

I think you need to reread what I posted.

You are not "predicting" anything in an empirical sense, and you are not "preforming an experiment."

That is just my point. You are carrying around tactic and unacknowledged philosphical baggage around with you, and you get irked when someone points it out.

If you tried this sort of stuff in say the HEP community you would get laughed of a podium.

This

The scientific establishment has accumulated masses of information regarding fulfilled predictions of evolution, DNA maps that agree with apparent physiological differences between species

is an interpretation that does not "predict" anything, and the logical point rests on consensus and plausible interpretation of evidence, not experiment and prediction. It certainly would not pass muster in the hard sciences.

and this:

Literally hundreds of thousands of papers presented over the 150+ years that evolution has been confirmed.

as an English sentence is incomprehensible, but if I understand your meaning I would suggest that you read some Kuhn. This is again rhetorical and not scientific. Famously we encounter this sort of slide of hand in the Global warming crowd. "Scientist" have often been wrong about matter for centuries, and often a very small group have had to forbear a great deal until the "community" saw the truth of their statements, witness Copernicus.

So, whatever the merits of you position, these are not scientific arguments you are giving, they are Ontological ones (here I mean this in the classical philosophical sense, not the modern logical/linguistic one.) You just do not realize that you are making one, and this is because you think that what you call "science" is somehow free of what you call "metaphysics." It is not however free of this sort of thing at all.

No, the "side" are quite similar (except that the IDers seem to have marginally better manners.

I would say that the whole lot of you have much in common with the Global Warming movement, and I would imagine that if you put out a questionnaire to the members if the AGU you would find that there would be a great many takers for this "science."

I would also point out that much of the valid criticism of the "Global Warming" and the "Earth Science" crowd comes from outside of that "scientific community" that you find so infallible (there is no such thing as "Earth Science," BTW, no matter what the "scientific community" says about it.) This tends to be the case when one must deal with an entrenched "Clerisy."

They no doubt have their opinions too about missile defense.