George Gilder, Metaphysic (Derbyshire refutes another creationist)

National Review ^ | 7/13/2006 | John Derbyshire

[curiosity]

This passage bears repeating:

It’s a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again.

[tallhappy]

Derb's got a new book out. Saw it at the book store. It's about math.

[curiosity]

Hi, I somehow fouled up the title. It should read: "George Gilder, Metaphysic (Derbyshire refutes another creationist)"

Thanks in advance for fixing it.

[xJones]

This thread needs a shameless heretic, so I thought of you first.:)

[Darkwolf377]

I clipped that same section with the intention of writing that it bears repeating. :)

It's belief vs. facts. If someone just believes, there's no reasoning with them, so I rarely bother. It's just like with the Global Warming crowd.

[curiosity]

Yes, Math seems to be Derb's passion.

[blowfish]

It's a wearying business, arguing with Creationists. Basically, it is a game of Whack-a-Mole. They make an argument, you whack it down. They make a second, you whack it down. They make a third, you whack it down. So they make the first argument again.

...and when you whack argument #1 again, they complain that you are spamming the threads with big words...

[tallhappy]

Gilder's article is not available on line. It has this as the synopsis:

‘The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.’

This is a very true and insightful observation.

Talk origins is in fact an excellent example of this drawback of what can be called dogmatic evolutionism.

[tallhappy]

This trivial article is why I don't read Derbyshire anymore. I used to think he was great. But he ran out of gas a long time ago. This is not even in his area of knowledge and it is a terrible article.

There are plenty of arguments against ID, but these are knee jerk regurgiations of the defensive posturings of non-scientists.

[whirleygirl]

The problem I've always had with Creation "Science" is that there's no way to prove it, so it isn't really science and, if you need proof, then it's not really faith either.

[Coyoteman]

===> Placemarker <===

[curiosity]

Guilder's article is available on FR at the following link:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1660216/posts

As to Gilder's assertion:

"The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance."

I don't see how it's true, and he doesn't present any evidence in his article to support this assertion.

[Kenny Bunkport]

Gilder's article is here.

[Kenny Bunkport]

...and when you whack argument #1 again, they complain that you are spamming the threads with big words...

And it's a typical response of the Darwinists to characterize creationists as slack-jawed idiots.

[tallhappy]

I don't see how it's true

One way I have noticed is "evolutionary" terms are used which are euphemistic rather than more accurate terms that describe what has been determined in terms of physical properties. In other the words the interpretation is a priori asigned to observation. It can be an obstacle to discussion or even understanding what was actually done.

[Kenny Bunkport]

The problem I've always had with Creation "Science" is that there's no way to prove it

Same problem macro-evolution has.

[tallhappy]

Thanks to both of you for the link.

I'll take a look.

[js1138]

The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance.’ This is a very true and insightful observation.

The Darwin Mafia: Inhibiting ID research since 1802.

[VOA]

"Gilder's article is not available on line."

Although the linked page below has an "original article" link...
maybe this is a reproduction of the article...
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3631

Or maybe it's just a continuation of Gilder's NRO article?

[muawiyah]

I really liked the report about the bacteria that can grow conductive nanowires. See: http://www.eetimes.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=167101011