| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Iain" |
| Date: |
11 Aug 2004 01:03:19 PM |
| Object: |
The Trouble With The Creationism "debates" |
If I went to a newsgroup on an arcane subject such as microbiology and
claimed that osmosis didn't exist, the responses from every college
professor there would make the post look silly and out of place.
This group, however, is more accessable and politicised. Vocal
idiocy(and therefore New-World-style creationism) is more welcome
here.
Those who have more than a high school understanding of evolutionary
biology don't consider creationists worthy of response here, and so
the debate rages on between idiots and people who are aware of the
truth...
....but make weak arguments in its favour. Note recent stuff about
yawning chimpanzees, etcetera.
Iain
.
|
|
| User: "Dixit" |
|
| Title: Re: The Trouble With The Creationism "debates" |
11 Aug 2004 03:06:27 PM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
If I went to a newsgroup on an arcane subject such as microbiology and
claimed that osmosis didn't exist, the responses from every college
professor there would make the post look silly and out of place.
This group, however, is more accessable and politicised. Vocal
idiocy(and therefore New-World-style creationism) is more welcome
here.
Those who have more than a high school understanding of evolutionary
biology don't consider creationists worthy of response here, and so
the debate rages on between idiots and people who are aware of the
truth...
...but make weak arguments in its favour.
You are forgetting that nobody has to come up with any argument that ID
is false. The burden of proof cannot be shifted, much as Dembski and
Company would like to get away with that kind of logical fallacy.
Creation/ID is nothing but logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_).
Dembski argues _ad ignorantiam_:
<quote>
Is intelligent design falsifiable? ... Intelligent design is eminently
falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity
in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers
of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like
the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and
integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which
by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified
on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when
purely natural causes will do.
</quote>
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html
See how he argues that there is no proof his theory is false (argument
_ad ignorantium_)?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: The Trouble With The Creationism "debates" |
11 Aug 2004 06:08:53 PM |
|
|
"Dixit" <dix@nospam.com> wrote
You are forgetting that nobody has to come up with any
argument that ID is false.
Coincidentially, there is no "Theory of Intelligent Design"
to disprove.
You have to actually build a theory before anyone can
shoot it down. As is, all you've got is nonsense that just
as ineffectively argues that aliens "created" us.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: The Trouble With The Creationism "debates" |
11 Aug 2004 06:05:57 PM |
|
|
In article <7%uSc.240786$%_6.64809@attbi_s01>, Dixit <dix@nospam.com>
wrote:
Creation/ID is nothing but logical fallacy (argument _ad ignorantiam_).
Dembski argues _ad ignorantiam_:
<quote>
Is intelligent design falsifiable? ... Intelligent design is eminently
falsifiable. Specified complexity in general and irreducible complexity
in biology are within the theory of intelligent design the key markers
of intelligent agency. If it could be shown that biological systems like
the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and
integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which
by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified
on the general grounds that one doesn't invoke intelligent causes when
purely natural causes will do.
</quote>
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html
See how he argues that there is no proof his theory is false (argument
_ad ignorantium_)?
Dixit, aka Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies), again
proves his illiteracy. Dembski nowhere in the quote argues that there is
no proof that ID is false, what he is arguing is that it is falsifiable,
which is quite a different thing. I find his argument unconvincing, but
it is NOT an argumentum ad ignorantiam, which requires a particular form
that does not occur in it.
Septic (of the Magically Invisible Space Pixies) has this habit of
accusing anyone with whom he disagrees of committing the fallacy of
argumentum ad ignorantiam, regardless of the appropriateness of that
accusation. It is only one of his many annoying bad habits.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
