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.

...

[Junior]

Actually, it might have been. At least one of the suspects was a creationist who wanted nothing more than to discredit evolution.

[b_sharp]

"But Dawkins wrote a book on it."

He wrote 'The Blind Watchmaker' which is a critique and a debunking of the 'watch on the ground' analogy many Idists and creationists love, as well as a discussion of the many IDist errors.

You have been mislead.

[b_sharp]

"Good grief you have a lot of work ahead of you if you are going to critique every subject at that site. I think you should send your piece to the site's author, I think he would be interested in what you have to say."

You did ask where there errors were didn't you? I thought you might be interested in the author's little prevarications.

[b_sharp]

"Five minutes on Google. That would be all it would take for your average creationist to not embarrass himself. I suppose it's too much to ask, though."

I think the problem is, DM did spend 5 minute on the Web and ended up at the wrong site.

I have an advantage not available on the web when it comes to local geology. My wife has worked with the provincial Geologists for the last 29 years and brings home piles of documents and even takes ol' hubby on day trips to various sites. (Not to mention a number of university geology classes 20 years ago)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Richard of Cosima or Robert of Jill?

[VadeRetro]

The one that scares heck.

[VadeRetro]

Oh, wait a minute! Yeah. No whirly-bird. I had a nice ride on a titty prink keapup.

[RadioAstronomer]

LOL!

[dynoman]

He wrote 'The Blind Watchmaker' which is a critique and a debunking of the 'watch on the ground' analogy many Idists and creationists love, as well as a discussion of the many IDist errors.

In what specific way is it a critique and a debunking of the "watch on the ground" analogy?

Does Dawkins say there are no watches on the ground?

[RadioAstronomer]

Did they demonstrate "Whisper Mode" (usually done by feathering the oars.)

No No No.... You are two generations back! Whisper mode now uses little sock thingies on the ends of the blades so they cannot "shout" their way thru the air!

Oh wait a minute--- you are a Doctor! Here is a better description...The sock thingies (called vortex cavitation inhibitors) do not allow the blades to produce the supersonic shockwave as the blade tips exceed the speed of sound. The vacuum left in the wake of the blade collapses in a chaotic way not allowing the characteristic "Whop" you get with an ordinary blade.

Oh and BTW, the helicopters are not black anymore. Too many folks looking for black. They are now fuchsia. Ooops... Should I have said that?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"In what specific way is it a critique and a debunking of the "watch on the ground" analogy?"

Perhaps you should read it first before bringing it up in a debate criticizing it.
The entire book is a refutation of the intelligent design hypothesis, best exemplified by Paley (in that way it is a modern version of The Origin Of Species, which is the classic refutation of Paley).

"Does Dawkins say there are no watches on the ground?"

Are you even trying to be taken seriously?

[Gumlegs]

In light of your last post, "former senior member of Darwin Central" is more appropriate.

[PatrickHenry]

Darwin Central knows all, controls all ... and doesn't use fuchsia helicopters.

Fuchsia Placemarker

[Gumlegs]

Oh, well, you would post that.

[Doctor Stochastic]

ID (aka creationism) is not an explanation, merely a crutch. Azathoth wanted it that way explains nothing though it may simple and consistent with the evidence.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Sky colored with some bright lights isn't bad either. That's what the anti-submarine planes used during the Great Patriotic War.

[dynoman]

I *know* what the book is about.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I *know* what the book is about. "

Now try reading it so you can make intelligent comments about it. If you had you would not have asked the question, "In what specific way is it a critique and a debunking of the "watch on the ground" analogy?"

:)

[2ndreconmarine]

Get through a course or two .... snort. I challenge you, slide rules at 20 paces.....

Fair enough. You're actually old enough to know how to use a slike rule?? Well, me too. Not many left.

So, given that you have the credentials, may I suggest that you not lend credence to ID. ID is fundamentally a fraud at its core. Given that you have a scientific background, you will see this with just a little thought on the subject. The last thing we need is someone with an education giving them intellectual cover.

Then, we are left with just the dingbats with an 8th grade education who tell us: "there is no scientific basis to evolution" or "evolution is a religion, just like ID", or "ID is science, just like evolution", or "dinosaurs roamed the earth with the cavemen 7,000 years ago", or "5+2 does not equal 7". These are all statements made here on FR by ID and creationist proponents.

[VadeRetro]

It was teacups. That's why they were foosha.

That's what I think now, anyway. I'm not saying somebody's messed with my mind, but certain playing cards make me want to go jump in the lake.