I don’t think we have to guess. They spelled it out quite clearly in the Wedge. They want to undo The Enlightenment and take us back to a time when the knowledge was assumed to be best premised on divine revelation, rather than on reason and observation. As I suggested in my review of @swamidass’s book, I believe their antipathy is based on the fact that Joshua gives science its due and seeks to have his theological claims be compatible with scientific knowledge. The DI, OTOH, in practice adhere to Ken Ham’s dictate, that if science and Scripture conflict, then science is wrong, period.
So, @Faizal_Ali , on my question, what’s your guess? If they do get their hands on actual authority, do they burn the heretics first, or the infidels? I used to think this was a purely academic question, but after their people got into the Capitol it seemed to me that this may be a practical question as well.
I share about 90% of the same concerns Casey brought up throughout the article and often brought them up privately in the past. (I’d like others to know he’s not the only one.)
In regards to the forum, I agree with his criticisms. I still like to check things out here because 1) I genuinely care about the people here, 2) I decided I no longer needed to get so defensive about what I believe, which makes contentious discussion more enjoyable. I realized once you become more confident in what you believe, you don’t have to get so defensive about it, though I still defend it when I can with my poor layman’s knowledge, 3) I enjoy reading about science and don’t have another outlet to discuss it at length, 4) it’s interesting to see what forum members do not respond to (i.e. don’t have a refutation for), 5) because I’m an odd addition here and it’s fun to be different sometimes and let my little light shine 6) to learn stuff But I can see that very few of these reasons would apply to an ID or creationist professional, and the objective from most of the regulars when those professionals join the forum or comment often seems to be to swarm and refute as quickly as possible lest anyone think they are sane.
IMO that was an odd/poor choice on his part. I read the @ swamidass article he cites which he says contains a rhetorical argument about the genetic similarities between mice and rats and humans and chimps. @swamidass I’m not sure he understands your argument or maybe I don’t. Even as I read the article, it seems to me to be that what you describe is mathematical/scientific argument, and my impression is that you also view it that way - and it is what finally convinced you that common descent with the great apes is true. I don’t think you’re making a rhetorical point at all but genuinely think evolution is mathematically supported. All that is my impression and memory of what you’ve said anyway.
Does the argument fall apart if indeed the similarities are what he suggests?
This is true, but if you don’t stick around here, you can’t know that.
Depends on what you think he suggests. If in fact the similarities are due to common design, not common descent, then of course the argument falls apart. But that’s just assuming the conclusion. If the similarities are all functional (they are not), that still doesn’t make his case, because there’s no reason other than common descent for even functional similarities to be organized into a consistent nested hierarchy. So the answer to your question is “no”.
That article is amazing. Most amazing is the fact that they reject the demonstration that Michael Behe ignores evidence.
What’s this again?
It’s worth pointing out that DI doesn’t have a comparable forum.
I agree that the behavior here is subpar at times. But we aren’t responsible for the behavior of people who are not affiliated with us.
Indeed, there is no longer any forum where meaningful discussion (yes, I know) happens between “Intelligent Design” proponents and critics.
Such a place never existed.
Well, forums such as ISCID and ARN, Telic Thoughts, even Uncommon Descent did host discussions. Meaningful may be a stretch.
Indeed. But this is the pattern: lie, lie, lie some more, lie, and then lie. And then, when you’re accused of lying, act all wounded and complain about incivility.
Lots of people bend over backwards to find a way to square DI claims with SOME hypothesis other than dishonesty. I know that I have stared long and hard at a lot of these things, trying to figure out whether this is somehow possible. When Doug Axe made that bizarre statement about how the evolutionary biologists now claim that evolution has stopped, I found myself just reading it again and again and trying to figure out whether there was SOME way he could merely be that stupid, rather than a pathological liar. But it can’t be done. And that’s just one example in a long, long list.
So what can one do when they claim that being called out on their lies is horrible, and that a place where this sometimes happens is a hostile environment? Shrug, I guess. If the DI wants its claims to be treated as something non-absurd, maybe it should try making non-absurd claims. If it wants not to be accused of lying, maybe it should stop lying.
The ICR had a forum once. Until the ‘moderators’ started editing people’s posts to say something entirely different. Including the poster’s signature!
I do think many of its members and supporters are honestly and sufficiently stupid enough to believe the things they say, not to name names. Otherwise, the best I can do is suggest that they honestly believe that lying is not really lying when it is in service of a Greater Truth.
The imbecility in their supporters is truly bottomless, and anyone who cares to stare into that particular abyss can have some fun reading what those people say in their five-star reviews of DI books on Amazon. But there is too much of the careful craft of lying in the DI’s own works to attribute to mere ignorance.
There’s always Reddit. And I replied to their instagram page post.
That surprises you?
On that: isn’t it a bit odd that the terms “higher truth” and “greater truth” are, in common usage, almost always applied to things we have no reason to believe to be true at all? It’s always seemed to me that the terminology here is reversed. “Higher truths” or “greater truths” should be facts where we have an extremely good basis for claiming them to be true, e.g., the soundness of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Then there’s ordinary truths, the sorts of things we have sound reasons to believe. And then, if one has got to include them in the category of “truths” at all, are all the claims of all the world’s religions: the “lesser truths,” for which we have no good evidence but for which some people insist on using the word. Calling those things “higher truths” is like calling IDC “science.”
Or, from a marketing angle, there are other approaches. “I Can’t Believe It’s Not True!”, a la the artificial butter product, would work pretty well. If the DI would just use that, I think it would resolve a lot of issues regarding their honesty.
This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.