Friday, February 11, 2005

More Kool-Aid (TM) over at "CSC"

Here's the untruths, omissions and just plain BS I've counted just in a rough scan:

  • Were they refuted exclusively with metaphysical arguments? No. Leading Darwinists often rebut ID arguments with scientific arguments. Then when a design theorist rebuts the Darwinist’s scientific arguments by pointing to contrary evidence in the natural world,...
Can you give us an example? Or are you relying on early versions fo the theory? And why not address the fact that "intelligent" "design" is not a a science at all because its premises are not testable?

  • You see, Darwinism does a horrible job of explaining all sorts evidence in biology and paleontology (e.g., irreducibly complex devices like the mammalian eye, the bacterial flagellum, and blood clotting, the sudden appearance of numerous animal phyla in the Cambrian Explosion, the lack of any examples of macroevolution).
And the "ID"-ers' response is basically "It's magic!" But it turns out evolution does have answers to all the above; and speciation has been observed. The fact that every link in the chain may be missing now does not mean that the chain is not at least theoretically reconstructable. And it's that aspect that's most troubling to these folks.

  • Quoting "philospher" and non-scientist Meyer: To assert that such theories are not scientific because they are not naturalistic simply assumes the point at issue. Of course intelligent design is not wholly naturalistic, but why does that make it unscientific?
Because it's not dealing with observables. If you don't know that, I'd consider an alternative career path than philosphy.

  • Some say it isn't science because the proposed design isn't observable. Well neither is common descent. Others say design theory isn't science because it can't be tested in a lab. On this point, Derbyshire and design theorists are in agreement.
Actually, speciation has been observed (go to and search there) , and therefore common descent has been observed. Nice try, creationists!

Thanks to Mr. Carter for pointing out this new bit of dishonesty from the creationists.

No comments: