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.

...

[WildTurkey]

I'm sure that there's enough stubbornness on both sides of the issue to cover almost everyone.

But at least scientists work to improve their knowlege discarding bad for good.

Creos only discard their good money for bad DVDs they order from the creo websites.

[DBeers]

I guess ID is so feared that the secular and moral liberals in both poltical parties, the MSM media, morally devoid scientists etcetera are all up in arms. Well the IDers must be doing something right! LOL

[skr]

An interesting quote. A man doesn't want to believe in God so he chooses to believe in something he knows is scientifically impossible. Not the most scientific approach I've ever heard.

[furball4paws]

Baloney.

This guy was so convinced that his idea was right, that he prayed and told everyone that if they only wanted it bad enough that it would be that way. I guess he convinced himself through prayer so much so that he wrote reports that were pure fabrications. Of course, he got caught eventually causing a lot of grief and pain.

But the attitude of avoiding evidence, ignoring facts and theoretical bases for the work and making up data (facts, quotes, etc.) is right out of the Creationist playbook.

[b_sharp]

"YEC INTREP - what an ignorant article. The author displays a total lack of understanding of what ID advocates, an ignorance of the design of the eye, and a total unawareness of irreducible complexity and information theory. It is easy to burn down a strawman - a lot more diificult to deal with reality."

I suspect Dennet has a great deal more understanding of ID, the design of the eye, IC and information theory than you would like to give him credit for. I suggest you read his "Darwin's Dangerous Idea".

[WildTurkey]

I like most engineers and I think they are a very valuable commodity, but my experience shows that the "I want it that way" attitude is much more prevalent in them. I attribute it to their relative lack of training in theoretical aspects of Science and I guess "objectivity". I certainly may be wrong. Maybe I've just met the wrong set of engineers from the wrong schools working at the wrong places (mostly US government labs).

Perhaps you are mistaking a "I want it that way" attitude to a "God, we have a schedule to meet" attitude.

[furball4paws]

And, by now, I hope you know the quote was fabricated.

[catpuppy]

I wrote, "I'm sure that there's enough stubbornness on both sides of the issue to cover almost everyone."

To paraphrase your response: Scientists good and smart--Creationists bad and dumb.

Thank you for proving my point.

[WildTurkey]

I guess ID is so feared that the secular and moral liberals in both poltical parties, the MSM media, morally devoid scientists etcetera are all up in arms. Well the IDers must be doing something right! LOL

We don't want to be subject to another set of Salem witch trials or victims of another 'crusade'.

[killermosquito]

Your source claimed that a camera-like eye could occur natually in as few as 364,000 years.

You claim that it took millions of years and you were not present to witness it. Your evidence is circumstantial.

[WildTurkey]

To paraphrase your response: Scientists good and smart--Creationists bad and dumb. Thank you for proving my point.

I didn't know your point to be that creos were bad and dumb. Whatever.

[furball4paws]

In some cases I am sure that is true, but I know for a fact in others it was (intentional) ignorance of fact. The facts contradicted what they wanted so they ignored it. Working with these people was very frustrating. Not so frustrating as these threads are though.

[WildTurkey]

You claim that it took millions of years and you were not present to witness it. Your evidence is circumstantial.

Circumstantial evidence is valid evidence. But perhaps have a misunderstanding of the meaning of circumstantial evidence. Don't worry. Many ignorant people also have that misunderstanding.

[WildTurkey]

The facts contradicted what they wanted so they ignored it.

Engineers are made up from the human gene pool. But, generally, I find engineers very open to reviewing the facts.

[catpuppy]

... the attitude of avoiding evidence, ignoring facts and theoretical bases for the work and making up data (facts, quotes, etc.) is right out of the Creationist playbook.

Why is every other post or so from your side of the ball a claim--thinly veiled or otherwise--that those who question some of Evolution's more wobbly pillars are liars? Is that based on science or something else?

[killermosquito]

I didn't say they were. But they do know something about creating things and know enough not to count on random chance to assemble a wrist watch.

[Oztrich Boy]

The only ammunition Creationists have is the retelling of Fabricated quotes

Dr. George Wald, "Nobel Prize winner in Biology" never said it.

[WildTurkey]

Your source claimed that a camera-like eye could occur natually in as few as 364,000 years.

No, my source said it took 550 MILLION years.

[furball4paws]

BTW, it's not engineers I find trouble with in Scientific Research. I also have trouble with M.D.S doing research. I think the basic problems are the same. People trained in a practical discipline trying to "branch out" into an area they are not adequately prepared for.

Some places are obviously better than others. I'd give 10 years of my life to spend 1 year with Edison at his prime. I understand Stanford Medical School turns out high quality research MDs. But the regular places turn out good, practical engineers and good practical physicians.

[WildTurkey]

Thanks. It seems like we have caught some more 'pretending Christians" bearing false witness.

These guys must be paid by George Soros!