“Anti-evolution legislation”?
State Boards of Education do not write legislation.
ok that’ll be my ignorance of US legal processes.
There are many in the first paragraph. The fact that you cannot point this out shows you don’t understand what you are arguing against. You only study the straw man counter arguments and do not take the real ID arguments seriously.
The first claim says ID is pseudo science. Define pseudo science and show why ID meets this category.
The wiki page can’t be fair. It didn’t show this.
That would be ‘game over’ for evolution!
5 Likes
Yes, and it is cited to “Boudry, Maarten; Blancke, Stefaan; Braeckman, Johan (December 2010). “Irreducible Incoherence and Intelligent Design: A Look into the Conceptual Toolbox of a Pseudoscience” (PDF). The Quarterly Review of Biology. 85 (4): 473–482. doi:10.1086/656904. hdl:1854/LU-952482. PMID 21243965. S2CID 27218269. Article available from Universiteit Gent”:
UNTIL ITS DRAMATIC legal defeat in the Kitzmiller v. Dover case, Intelligent Design Creationism (IDC) had been one of the most successful pseudosciences of the past two decades, at least when measured in terms of cultural influence.
Also relevant are the following Wikipedia policies:
-
Wikipedia:Neutral point of view - Wikipedia (Fringe theories and pseudoscience section)
-
Wikipedia:Fringe theories - Wikipedia (Spectrum of fringe theories section)
No. That would simply lead to a long, and completely unnecessary, digression – which seems to be your stock-in-trade for these discussions.
3 Likes
I’d love to hear from Colewd about a couple past theories proposed from within the ID scientific community that he believes are rubbish. After all, we should’ve been well into the revolution of ID science by now, according to pioneers like Johnson and Dembski. But even if things were harder than expected, surely a viable research program would’ve evaluated some ideas by now. If it’s a science, one would expect it to progress and weed out old, bad hypotheses. What about ReMine’s ‘Biotic Message Theory’ or the claims that sequence encoded data fingerprints are encoded in organismal DNA? Is IC version one dead as a reliable indicator of design? Which ones were found wanting and which current approaches seem most promissing?
2 Likes
Ye gods and little fishes – Walter ReMine, now there’s a name I haven’t heard of in a long, long time. Your memory is better than mine sir. 
I guess you agree this is an unsupported assertion without any substance as you cannot defend the political nonsense you cited.
No. 
Addendum – clarifying:
- “No”, I do not agree “agree this is an unsupported assertion without any substance”.
- “No”, what I cited was not “political nonsense”, but the opinion of a reasonably prominent Philsopher of Science.
But also “no”, I am not in the least bit interested in going on that digression. Speaking for myself, it is sufficiently self-evident that ID is pseudoscience that I am not interested in going down this rabbit-hole. If you are genuinely ignorant as to why ID is widely regarded as pseudoscience, then I would suggest that you read some of the approximately 4000 scholarly articles that discuss ID and pseudoscience.
1 Like
Hi Tim
Yet one of our best and brightest cannot support the claim as the claim is political rhetoric. This is just the first sentence of the article I would be embarrassed for the 4000 scholars you cited.
The claim that maybe pseudo science is universal common descent. See @Argon diagram.I have yet to see a test based on the scientific method that reproduction can create thousands of genes.
That’s not an example.
That’s not an example either, since you haven’t shown that it’s a misrepresentation. You haven’t even noticed that a definition of pseudoscience is available on that page.
1 Like
Please take any discussion of that diagram somewhere where it is relevant.
1 Like
Hi Roy
Your star athlete Tim was not able to defend the claim. There are many more if you understood what you are competing against.
This statement is another example of your lack of understanding ID.
You have not shown it’s a misrepresentation, so there’s nothing to defend.
2 Likes
William Cole:
You have asserted, without substantiation that:
& that
With the implication that one of these misrepresentations is:
You have presented no evidence that any of this is a “misrepresentation”, but instead demand that we allow you to take us on a lengthy digression to prove you wrong.
However it has been said that:
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
You have presented your assertion that (i) the article mispresents ID, and (ii) that its labelling of ID as pseudoscience is one such misrepresentation, without evidence.
I am therefore completely justified in dismissing these assertions, without presenting any evidence of my own.
But I did in fact present evidence, the fact that it was the opinion of a prominent Philosopher of Science, published in a peer-reviewed journal. I have also presented evidence suggestive that this opinion may be widespread in Academia.
You have presented nothing that would suggest that a “defin[ition of] pseudo science and [a] show[ing of] why ID meets this category” is necessary to carry this argument.
I will also ignore your rather blatant and childish attempts at baiting.
2 Likes
Someone’s failing to point things out, but it’s not Roy.
Both Roy and I evaluate arguments using evidence, which you avoid.
Easy. No ID proponent has ever advanced or tested a single scientific hypothesis. It’s all rhetoric and no science, evidenced by your framing above.
2 Likes
You are a bright guy and if this was true you could explain it. You know you cannot because it is a false claim. ID is not pseudo science because we can test the claim using humans as a test bed. You can use the scientific method to directly test it. This is not true for most of macro evolutionary theory.
We have discussed Behe/Snoke’s model here. There have been years of knock out experiments on the flagellum. There is Winston’s paper we discussed. There is also Axe’s experiment. Are you really taking an unbiased look at ID?
Discussion doesn’t count. They haven’t tested it empirically.
You’re just making my point for me, Bill.
So what? What’s the alleged ID hypothesis and its empirical predictions?
No hypothesis testing there.
A fatally flawed test of a straw-man evolutionary hypothesis, not an ID hypothesis.
I am. Are you?
You don’t seem to be able to distinguish between rhetoric and hypothesis testing.
2 Likes
Yes they have John read the papers.
That when we see a arrangement of parts where we can infer a purpose we can also infer it is the work of a mind. It has shown to be very reliable.
Sure there was. Did you read the paper?
So now you agree that ID has performed tests? I disagree that it is fatally flawed.
I think so John. I was not in favor of ID for several years due to its limitations. Someone was able to show its value to science. It is a good counter argument when random or no identifiable cause is not a viable null hypothesis.
Evolutionary science has a big problem if common descent of all vertebrates is not true as most papers written assume it is. The Howe diagram makes the theory very suspect. The use of weak testing alternatives has put science in this position.