My Last word on Intelligent Design
Actually, it's someone else's words, but, whatever. I think I've said about all that needs to be said and I'd just be repeating myself forever. So, read this and, uh, I dunno, stop bothering me. :)
Thank to mg for the link.
Thank to mg for the link.
posted by emeryroolz at 12:00 PM
8 Comments:
There's nothing to discuss about ID until after you've read this article. After that - we can talk.
MG -
Just read it. It´s good.
May I ask you an inflammatory question?
(rhetorical, since I´m going to ask)
Would you have bothered to do that much research on something that you previously described in this way?
Intelligent Design (as Creationism was cleverly renamed in the last 20 years by way of a contest) is lacking is evidence.
And this one...
Intelligent Design = romantic but no evidence.
This article contradicts things you´ve said (ID being Creationism, for example). I don´t think it´s fair to suddenly take the article and act as if you´ve been in agreement all along. You haven´t. And if I had to guess, I´d say the only reason you bothered to research it is because the debate went on this long.
But what if I agree with you? What if I say that ID isn´t strong enough to be a scientific theory yet? What if I say that the article was great, was very fair, and that, though I may disagree about the author´s odd inclination towards insisting that all ID proponents must agree (for Dembski and Behe don´t agree on evolution´s ability to make things), the analysis of the evolution of ID´s arguments is very factually accurate?
Would you say that you won? I hope not. Because I did. I think I just made you do your research. Now we can both say, in agreement, that ID does not deserve to be taught in public schools yet because the scientific arguments it gives don´t hold sufficient weight, even though the arguments are a helluva lot more complex than you imply in your great summary of ID:
"...lacking in evidence. Any evidence at all."
Please forgive my gloating...but you changed your tune. I never changed mine (I insisted that ID proponents have the right to speak, but it looks as though they have, and that ETheorists have responded with something more than ridicule - they´ve responded with evidence).
I won, MG.
I won.
I won I won I won.´
And we´re in agreement.
(Doesn´t it feel good to do your homework before forming an opinion?)
PS - I do appreciate the fact that you occasionally post here, and I´ll be moving this site in a few months to an easier forum with lots more Democrats, nihilists, Fundamentalist Christians, etc., and a lot more moderation. I hope you join us.
I didn't do any research. I just have a subscription to the New Yorker.
a) I didn't know this was about "winning." I thought it was about exchanging ideas.
b) I don't see how you think I've changed my opinion. ID is still, as the article points out, a bogus theory, which shouldn't be taught in science class. It's still a veiled attempt to get religion into the schools. The ID people want to undermine evolution, because for some reason unknown to me, they think evolution is anti-God. They don't care how they do it. Just imagine if we discovered alien life - how badly the religious types would try to suppress that evidence. Just imagine.
c) The term Intelligent Design was named in a contest set up to rename Creationism; the winner went to Disney World. What perfect irony it would have been if they went on one of the gay days.
d) You missed one of the points of the article. He didn't insist that ID people must agree. He said that ID people use disagreement among evolutionary scientists as evidence that evolution is bogus. He then pointed out that just as in evolution, there are disagreement among ID people which the ID defenders seem to ignore.
My initial point still remains - there is no evidence, this author just laid that point out in long form. Basically, ID uses these arguments - look at this complicated thing, which could not have evolved. That's only an attempt to poke holes in evolution, not evidence of its own. Anyhow, this author just came up with some circumstances how even that attempt to poke a hole is bogus; that those things could in fact have evolved on their own.
And thanks to this article, you're that tiny bit more informed. I don't gloat, I'm just pleased that someone has come to see the light. If only I could do it another 100 million times, this country wouldn't be such a shithole of ignorance.
MG -
I´m sick of being nice. And since I´m moving this forum to a much more accessible area in a few weeks, screw it. Let´s end this conversation with a bang.
A suggestion:
If only I could do it another 100 million times, this country wouldn't be such a shithole of ignorance.
You´ve a remarkable talent for pissing people off where it is undeserved. You should probably stop.
Let me try this again: with all due respect, you got lucky.
This is what you said:
Intelligent Design...is lacking is evidence. Any evidence at all.
Considering that the article spent a good deal of time refuting evidences given, I can safely say that, even if the evidences weren´t strong enough, they warranted a response from the scientific community.
Point is, you didn´t even have a clue who Debmski and Behe were before you found the article. So let me ask you this: if I had come at you with any of their arguments before you read this in the New Yorker, would you have had any response?
I´d like to know, because the answer will be telling. If it´s as I think it is, that you wouldn´t have had any refutation, I find it hard to understand why you continue to call people who believe ID participants in a "shithole of ignorance" when in fact you´ve only recently come to understand the arguments the theory makes.
FOr that matter, you misread the article. I quote:
...this author just came up with some circumstances how even that attempt to poke a hole is bogus; that those things could in fact have evolved on their own.
The author said no more than the following: ID criticisms of evolution are incomplete, because there exists arguments that these complex structures could have evolved on their own, and he cites a few examples of how that might be done. But none of those examples are in any way conclusive, nor do most of them even pertain to the specific example - flagelli - that Behe and Dembski are so worried about.
Obviously Evolution still has the upper hand; that´s not the point. THe point is, in whatever drive you have within you to see other people as idiots, you´ve ignored things that are right in front of you - the arguments are complex enough to warrant serious rebuttal by evolutionists, that evolutionists don´t have the question completely answered themselves yet, etc.
Point is, you didn´t do research, and you still don´t. Your opinion on ID has remained more or less the same - these people are shitholes of ignorance - even when you yourself presented a paper that, though it showed with good reason why they were wrong, showed that they certainly weren´t ignorant. And you continue to say dumb things like this:
The ID people want to undermine evolution, because for some reason unknown to me, they think evolution is anti-God. They don't care how they do it. Just imagine if we discovered alien life - how badly the religious types would try to suppress that evidence. Just imagine.
I´m imagining. ANd what I¨m getting is no more than imagination, the same thing you´re using. Almost every time I´ve read you, you´ve displayed some kind of deep hatred for Christianity that, whether or not it is emotionally warranted, is certainly not mentally warranted. Because you don´t know jack.
ID explains away anything that doesn't fit (dinosaur bones) with a lazy excuse (God put them there to fool us).
No.
People are trying to disprove evolution to try to win a nobel prize, but no one has been able to yet.
What section of the Nobel prize would that be?
And my favorite...
The term Intelligent Design was named in a contest set up to rename Creationism; the winner went to Disney World.
Now read this:
Ken Ham, the most well-known Creationist among Protestants today
The article you cited used words like "evilution" and talked about ways to appear more "fair and balanced." I´ve read a lot of Creationist literature, and I´ve never come across the word "evilution" except in the movie Inherit the Wind, where it was an obvious attempt to make Creationists look like idiots. And this article, note, is a little unsure of ID, since it doesn´t explicitly name the God of the Bible. It struck me as either whacked-out peripheral or fake. So I did some searching.
I searched for Institute for Creationist Stretegies on all the major Creationist sites I could remember, and each one came up zero. No one´s ever heard of this group, nor this guy Roy Vananadel. A google search on his name reveals only two hits, both from his own site.
THis guy isn´t mainstream. He isn´t even peripheral. And whoever he is, he obviously doesn´t have the clout to organize a new scientific movement to hide Creationism. I´m really curious how you managed to find him, but if it took any searching at all, I don´t think you would have chosen him, because he´s clearly a nobody.
You didn´t do your homework. You had an opinion, a very angry one, and though you and the author of the article managed to get there from completely different paths (H. Orr, with these arguments are incomplete and therefore unworthy of a new theory, and you with "god, these people are so dumb"), you claim that you were right.
Look, MG - you don´t have a right to your anger against Christianity. You know nothing of it. And I wouldn´t even care, except that you´ve made it very clear that you think they´re all dumbasses, when in fact you didn´t have a clue what you were talking about.
Well-founded anger is great. Ignorant anger is dumb, or prejudicial, or racist, depending on whom it´s directed against.
Don´t be a dumbass.
I don't have anything against Christians or people who practice any religion. I have a problem with people who would have us live in ignorance. Tell me - is it atheists who are trying to have Creationism taught in schools and eliminate evolution from school texts? No? Who is it again? Oh, right - Christians. But that doesn't mean that every Christian is wrong, or lives in ignorance. (Nor does it suggest that there aren't blindingly moronic atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, every color, creed, economic status, and geographical location too.) But the only ones who are trying to deny the facts of evolution in this country are Christians. That may appear from your point of view that I am attacking Christianity, because they are the only people I am attacking. But I'm only attacking willful ignorance. I could just as easily attack the extremist Muslims who would have their women go uneducated. But we just happen to not be talking about that at the moment. I went to Catholic school all the way through high school - by the way.
Now - you need to learn the difference between evidence and some idea. The fact that some flagellum happens to be unexplainably complicated is NOT evidence. It's just a thing that happens to be. But even if evolution couldn't explain it, it still wouldn't prove ID - it would just prove that we don't have the whole story yet, (and we still don't).
Try this analogy on for size: the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. We don't know why. But just because we don't know why it's accelerating doesn't mean it's not expanding. In other words, not being able to explain everything doesn't constitute having to throw away the whole theory. And if I suggested that maybe a superstrong dude was pulling on the edges of the universe with his superhuge fingers - that doesn't constitute evidence, it's just a wild idea to explain something that science hasn't yet explained.
Now, if you recall, the entire premise of the article was this author saying that most scientists don't want to dignify ID with a response because it belittles their life's work to have to respond to ID's junk science - but this author thinks that's the wrong tack. He thinks they should in fact show in excruciating detail exactly how junk their "science" really is. So nothing I've said from the beginning has been wrong.
And finally - "shithole of ignorance" wasn't referring to Christians specifically. Yes, belief in Creationism is one part. But also:
-Iraq was responsible for 9/11.
-Global warming needs more research.
-Environmental protections = economic suffering.
-Fox News is "fair and balanced"
-"Just say no" is effective in the wars on sex and drugs.
And so on. There are tons of ways in which Americans keep themselves oblivious to fundamental truths. Yes, that frustrates me. As a species we have always, and should always be striving to seek knowledge, not undermine it. And when knowledge is buried, it diminishes us all. And yes - that makes me angry.
The really funny thing about this is that MG and I agree.
...the entire premise of the article was this author saying that most scientists don't want to dignify ID with a response because it belittles their life's work to have to respond to ID's junk science - but this author thinks that's the wrong tack. He thinks they should in fact show in excruciating detail exactly how junk their "science" really is.
That´s all I wanted. Seriously. That someone would stop calling the scientists idiots and take their arguments seriously, even if it was just for a refutation.
And it looks like someone did. And that makes me happy.
But you didn´t, MG. And that´s what pissed me off.
I´m surprised, actually, that you still (or so it seems from your writings) believe that I am or ever was defending ID. The fact that some flagellum happens to be unexplainably complicated is NOT evidence. It's just a thing that happens to be.
I didn´t claim that it was, nor did I claim agreement with the scientists that claimed it was evidence. I did, however, agree that it was an interesting question, one which Evolutionary Theory still has not resolved. I don´t understand, however, why finding that question interesting lumps me into a category of people who would rather latch onto a theory about a big guy pulling the universe apart rather than wait for a more rational explanaton. I could easily lump you together with Michael Moore, but it wouldn´t be fair, since you´d be too busy defending yourself to point out to me that we probably agree on the Iraq War. Nothing pisses off people so much like being lumped together with dumbasses that they don´t hold any real association with.
Your insinuation has been fairly consistent - if you don´t believe this, you´re an idiot. And you´ve implied this even before you had heard out the arguments for ID.
That pisses me off. Especially when, given the history of this debate, it seems that giving people the benefit of the doubt is a far more efficient strategy for defeating them then calling them idiots.
good thing I'm not a politician, eh?
and your comment about Durban displays for all, James, your own ignorance. I bet you don't even know what he actually said. I bet you only know what Rush and Sean and Bill told you to believe he said. And that's exactly the ignorance I'm talking about.
quack quack quack, right James?
"However, a majority of voters also think that Democrats don't believe that America is the greatest country on earth."
Which is a stunning testament to the effectiveness of the right-wing propaganda machine, which does such things as paint decorated war veteran John Kerry as patriotically inferior to draft-dodging G.W. Bush. Usually through misquotes, taking quotes out of context, or the old stand-by of outright makin' shit up. This is exactly the kind of campaign of willful "ignorance-making" that's plaguing this country, and that's turning it (or trying at least) into the proverbial shit-hole of ignorance. Like telling kids in sex ed that you can get AIDS from tears or that condoms fail 31% of the time, or that evolution is a lie, or that there's no such thing as global warming. There is a deliberate campaign in this country right now to manufacture ignorance, and it is absolutely appalling. We got into a war based on ignorance, for heaven's sake, how much lower can we sink?
And I too am curious as to whether you actually know what Durbin said, in context, or whether you heard a snippet of the quote on some TV or radio show and took it to mean what the "anchor" told you to take it to mean. I don't mean to pick on you, really, I'm just curious about how people form these kinds of opinions.
As an example: I have a very right-ward-leaning uncle who likes to send out mass email forwards that he gets from other right-wingers, usually about how evil the Clintons are and enumerating all their supposed crimes. After dutifully (and very easily) refuting the claims of one particularly nasty and ridiculous email, I asked him why exactly he hated Hillary Clinton (of whom I have no strong opinion for or against) so much.
His response was basically that she was a liar, a criminal, and that she stayed married to her husband purely for political gain. I asked him to reply with a few examples of what exactly she had lied about, what crimes she had committed, and what inside knowledge he had regarding the Clintons' private marriage. What came back was the same easily-refutable b.s. that Rush Limbaugh has been spewing on his show for years. In fact, most of it was stuff that the Republican-led Starr Commission had investigated a few years earlier and found no evidence of.
Hearing him parrot back this stuff, I was struck by the realization that all he knew about this stuff was what he had heard, and that what he had heard was total crap. He was the victim of a system designed to keep him ignorant of the facts. A system designed to obscure the facts at all cost. A system that screams accusations in 30-point font on Page 1 and prints the retraction of those accusations in 1-point font on Page 30, if it prints them at all. A system so worried about seeming fair and balanced that if they point out the real failings of one candidate, they feel compelled to tear down the other for dubious reasons, simply to quell the screams of bias from the other side. A system so eager to seem fair and balanced that it’s become complacent, compliant, more concerned with pleasing the current administration than holding them accountable, and more concerned with pandering to the lowest common denominator amongst the American public with stories about missing white women and Michael Jackson than with telling people what they need to know about their country and their world.
I welcome your comments.
Post a Comment
<< Home