Witness: Movement's roots in creationism (Dover trial 10/6/05)

York (PA) Daily Record ^ | 10/6/2005 | LAURI LEBO

[rob777]

It really makes no difference where the ID "movement's" roots are in evaluating the substance of their argument. When are we going to learn that an ad hominem argument is not logically valid.

[malakhi]

"But it really isn't religion" placemarker.

[Doctor Stochastic]

If "intelligent design" theory fits in with all the facts, would that make it a legitimate theory?

No. Intelligent design also fits all the non-facts, too. ID has no more content than Last Thursdayism (which fits all facts, known, unknown, unknown-unknown, Rumsfeldean, etc.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

[porkchops 4 mahound]

Darwinian fundamentalist, "I'm OK, You're OK!", mutual admiration society, circle jerk, "placemarker", (sic).

[aruanan]

Witness: Movement's roots in creationism (Dover trial 10/6/05)

I think on the face of it this is a fallacy.

[anguish]

Darwinian fundamentalist, "I'm OK, You're OK!", mutual admiration society, circle jerk, "placemarker", (sic).

f.Christian, is that you? :P

[Doctor Stochastic]

Too coherent.

[Right Wing Professor]

When are we going to learn that an ad hominem argument is not logically valid.

What are we going to learn what 'ad hominem' means?

[RadioAstronomer]

Too coherent.

Is that phase-coherent?

[NJ_gent]

"Intelligent Design does fit with all the facts. But that's it's problem, it fits with anything."

That's what's so great about it; it gave birth to Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. :-)

[longshadow]

And is it turtles all the way down, then?

Indeed, it is; until one encounters The Turtle of Special Pleading.....

;-)

[Stultis]

It really makes no difference where the ID "movement's" roots are in evaluating the substance of their argument.

Yeah, but it makes a difference in evaluating the legal case, which requires (in part) that it be determined whether the endorsement of ID advances religion, or whether there is a religious purpose to the law rather than a valid secular purpose, etc.

[Stultis]

It really makes no difference where the ID "movement's" roots are in evaluating the substance of their argument.

Yeah, but it makes a difference in evaluating the legal case, which requires (in part) that it be determined whether the endorsement of ID advances religion, or whether there is a religious purpose to the law rather than a valid secular purpose, etc. (The point being that it doesn't violate the Constitution to teach somethings that's wrong or stupid. So if ID is only wrong or stupid, the courts have nothing to say about it.)

[Oztrich Boy]

I hope those ID people don't think St Peter is as dumb as the people they're selling books to.

I think they're counting on him being sympathetic to people who deny their Faith.

[Oztrich Boy]

Still

Plaintiff's witness: "Intelligent Design is based on the Gospel of St. John"

Dover board attorney: "No it's only a scam to raise money"

Just who are the anti-Christians again?

[Doctor Stochastic]

Entangled even.

[js1138]

ID appears enfeoffed to folie à deux.

[Coyoteman]

CS/ID has the final answer already--God did it--so it does not need a dataset or any of the other methods normal to science.

========

Well that's maybe too strong an objection. Most regular scientists play hunches -- grasping a theoretical framework based on incomplete evidence and then trying to fill it out with additional empirical data.

You are right in that, of course. Many scientists have a flash of genius and then spend their time trying to document that insight. But they don't publish until they do document that insight.

The difference here, I think, is that CS/ID is publishing the insight (based on divine revelation and the bible) without the scientific documentation.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Many scientists have a flash of genius and then spend their time trying to document that insight.

Well, I've been pretty lucky. About one in a thousand of my insights have panned out. Of course, I refuted 998/1000 before finishing the shower.