Brain Fertilizer

Wow. That's pretty definitive.

Hear, hear.

The answer is simple: Because science can learn things even by chasing down blind alleys.

The greatest indicator of a scientific breakthrough is not "Eureka!" but rather "Hmmm. That's odd..."

That's also a pretty good indicator of a Sci-Fi horror flick, now that you mention it...

The biggest problem I have with proponents of Intelligent Design is that they never offer and evidence for the theory. Instead they simply attack evolutionary theory, like you just did in this post.

You also make the claim that there's a whole raft of rigorous testing that's been done to advance ID into the realm of actual science. Unfortunately, every single source I've ever read doesn't stand up to even casual scrutiny. Instead the authors make objections to evolutionary theory the centerpiece to their arguement. I've yet to come across any documented experiment that was designed to indicate that ID was a factor in...well, anything.

The fact of the matter is that evolution appears to work, and it stands up to every reasonable test that we've been able to come up with. Saying that we don't know everything about the mechanisms of change since life appeared is certainly true. But to use that as a basis for a claim that there's an unseen, unknowable, untestable force isn't credible.

James

James,
Thanks for the restrained response.
However, I'm not attacking Evolution. Read it again.
I'm criticising the people. As such, I don't see that I need to offer a defense of ID; in fact, such a defense would be useless, because you've already stated you refuse to believe it, regardless of information. Why should I bother to try to convince the close-minded?
The evidence is out there. You refuse to acknowledge it. Or perhaps it doesn't meet your standards?
Well, the same thing applies to Evolution Theory, eh? It doesn't meet many people's standards, but again, the Evolution Theory chauvenism reigns supreme: the only people allowed to have an opinion are those who embrace Evolution Theory and reject ID.
Look, there's no rancor in my stance. I find it amusing, and worthy of note, that's all.
If ID is so ridiculous, why do so many people find it answers questions that Evolution doesn't? If ID is so ridiculous, wouldn't the best way to demonstrate that be to take it seriously? Why do we need to bar it from school? Why do people who consider ID to be intriguing and worthy of study be barred from PhD-level study and research?

Which you didn't address in your response. It's just another variation of "I don't think ID is science, so no one else should, either." That's what I cannot accept. I'm smart enough to make my own decisions, to make my own judgments. You claim that ability for yourself, why will you not allow me that right?

That's the point of this post, NOT trying to prove ID or discredit Evolution Theory, even if you insist on seeing it that way.

I don't see that I need to offer a defense of ID; in fact, such a defense would be useless, because you've already stated you refuse to believe it, regardless of information.

Actually, I think that I made it pretty clear in my previous comment that I've examined the so-called "scientific proof" for ID and found it to be wanting.

The evidence is out there. You refuse to acknowledge it. Or perhaps it doesn't meet your standards?

Maybe you can point me to a scientifically sound study where ID is tested and stands on it's own merits, instead of something that simply attacks evolutionary theory while offering no proof for ID. Simply claiming that "the evidence is out there" isn't compelling.

Well, the same thing applies to Evolution Theory, eh? It doesn't meet many people's standards, but again, the Evolution Theory chauvenism reigns supreme: the only people allowed to have an opinion are those who embrace Evolution Theory and reject ID.

Like I've said, evolutionary theory has held up to every reasonable test while ID proponents have offered nothing viable so far.

Look, there's no rancor in my stance. I find it amusing, and worthy of note, that's all.

Of course! That's why you use terms such as "chauvenism" and "close-minded". There certainly isn't anything that smacks of ad hominem and personal attacks there at all!

If ID is so ridiculous, why do so many people find it answers questions that Evolution doesn't?

You're constructing a straw man. I never said that ID was ridiculous. If you'll be so kind as to go back and take a look at my original comment you'll see that I simply said that I've never seen any scientific justification for it.

You certainly aren't making a very good case for the claim that I'm wrong by avoiding giving me a source and attacking me directly.

Why do people who consider ID to be intriguing and worthy of study be barred from PhD-level study and research?

This is a blatantly false statement. Last time I checked, there isn't any bar on research into ID. Anyone who can find the funding can go right ahead and perform research to their heart's content. The reason why there doesn't seem to be any grant money available for such research goes back to my original point: there has never been any glimmer of proof that ID is a viable theory. The people who are tasked with passing out grant money have a responsibility to fund research that has the greatest chance of producing results, a criteria which ID clearly doesn't meet.

If you feel that strongly about it (and it appears that you do), then why don't you start a charitable foundation in order to fund ID research? I just saw in the news that several museums are opening in the US which presents paleontology in a Biblical light. There should be enough people willing to help out to make it a success.

I'm smart enough to make my own decisions, to make my own judgments. You claim that ability for yourself, why will you not allow me that right?

Another straw man. I never made any statement that could possibly be taken to mean that I'm trying to deny you that right. This is yet another ad hominem attack.

That's the point of this post, NOT trying to prove ID or discredit Evolution Theory, even if you insist on seeing it that way.

You made the claim that ID is supported by a huge body of scientifically sound research, while devoting a fair amount of the post to discussing the reasons why you don't think that evolutionary theory is correct.

I'm pretty hard pressed to find any other point of your post, to be frank.

James

James,
Do you ever listen to yourself?

When you say things like:
Like I've said, evolutionary theory has held up to every reasonable test while ID proponents have offered nothing viable so far.
...you are doing the exact thing you blame me for.

Who's reasonable test? Who defines "nothing viable"? Do you realize you refuse to offer a single point in defense of Evolution Theory that you demand of ID?

When you understand the answers to those questions, you'll understand the point of my post. No matter how many times I repeat that this post isn't about the validity of either one, but about attitudes towards the theories, you still refuse to accept it. If you are "hard pressed to find any other point" in my post, you are ignoring what's right there in print.

Even when I state flatly: "I'm not trying to prove ID or disprove Evolution Theory", you insist that I do so. Talk about a strawman argument!

In your self-righteous indignation, you ignore your own reflexive ad hominem attacks on me as a person, pretending I've insulted you personally to fuel your pique.

But I'll humor your petulant request. If you really want the background information, start here. From there, you could stop by http://www.talkorigins.org/, a pro-Evolution website oft-cited by Evolution Theory supporters that is so filled with contradictions and non-falsifiable evidence that it very nearly qualifies as the Emperor's New Clothes. Other than that, you are welcome to do research on your own. Why should I believe you really want to learn anything when you state so clearly:
I've examined the so-called "scientific proof" for ID and found it to be wanting.

So I guess I'm left wondering what your point is. Other than the preservation of your belief system, that is.

You know, it's pointless arguing over crap like this that's driving me out of the current event/political/news blogging. I'm responding to your complaints, James, because I started it the discussion, so I might as well continue it, even if you are ignoring most of what I say to push your viewpoint.

You will be welcome to discuss football and philosophical musings on my new blog without prejudice. I'm not going to bring up controversial topics like this any more.

Like millions of other people, I find a certain emotional comfort in the idea that an all powerful being is somehow watching over everyone and that everything has an ultimately good purpose. Intellectually, I find the whole concept of monotheism to be ludicrous.

In the past, religion provided answers to unknowable questions and acquired enormous power and authority in doing so. As science increasingly provides people with the answers they seek, the church loses power and credibility. Intelligent Design is an effort to bridge the gap between science and religion and win back a few hearts and minds.

Take a lesson from the Muslims. They openly admit that religion is politics. Arguing over the scientific validity of religious ideas is a waste of time.