• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?

Yes, because the Discovery institue is well-known for their honesty....:rolleyes:

And why would anyone wish to debate a known liar like Behe? I mean, I prefer debating people if there's a chance that they can keep away from lying all the time.

Oh, and where is the scientific evidence for ID? Why are IDers so afraid to show any such evidence?
 
Unfortunately, would-be censors are trying to get the conference banned from campus by ludicrously comparing intelligent design proponents to faith healers or even Holocaust deniers.

Faith healers and Holocaust deniers are not on the faculties of reputable universities. Scientists who support intelligent design are.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's kind of the point. They shouldn't be either. Duh.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Why would you like to censor them?
Click to expand...

He doesn't. He just doesn't want goverment money to support religious movements in universities. And religious movement is what ID is all about, when you strip away all their hideous lies.


That's a vastly different thing than censoring. And presenting it as if it's censoring is just yet another one of your lies.
 
The DI should get their material published in science journals. Once it gets published scientists can debate it as a theory.

Until then there's nothing to debate, ID isn't science.
 
One's right to free speech doesn't imply a requirement on the part of other people to listen to that speech. Nobody's talking about putting court orders on these ID people to shut them up, nor any other form of true censorship.

SMU faculty seems to think ID isn't worth including in their conference. That's not censorship, it's a judgment call. ID believers are welcome to organize their own conference, at their own expense, where they can spout whatever nonsense they want. I support their right to do so.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Here's some

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2640&program=CSC%20-%20Scientific%20Research%20and%20Scholarship%20-%20Science

What are your detailed scientific critique of them all?
Click to expand...
First three publications were in the Journal Darwinism, Design & Public Education Edited by Behe.
A quick search on ISI journal citation reports to find its impact factor revealed no listing for it. These two points raise large red flags in respect to the journal's reliability.
 
joobz said:
First three publications were in the Journal Darwinism, Design & Public Education Edited by Behe.
A quick search on ISI journal citation reports to find its impact factor revealed no listing for it. These two points raise large red flags in respect to the journal's reliability.
Click to expand...

Biological Society of Washington removed the 4th paper, and issued a statement that it was not peer reviewed.

http://www.geocities.com/lclane2/pbsw.html

Papers in Journals of Philosophy do not count as science, by the way.

In addition, what has been cited have not all been peer reviewed. The Discovery Institute has a strange concept of peer review, which disagrees with the scientific peer review process.
 
Last edited:
Why is T'ai Chi afraid to have a comment more substantial then 'interesting'?

T'ai Chi, why aren't you embarrassed by how every article you post is shown to be pure crap?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Here's some

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...Scientific Research and Scholarship - Science

What are your detailed scientific critique of them all?
Click to expand...

I'm not a biologist but I do note that if you go to the discovery.org search page and search for the exact phrase "the theory of intelligent design" in the "Body of the Article" (and excepting blogs) you get exactly zero results. This surely makes it hard to discuss if the Discovery Institute itself does not provide a definition.

Searching the www.talkorigins.org site for "the theory of evolution" gets "about 332" hits. For "the theory of intelligent design", I get "about 103" hits. One of which takes me to Day 11 of "The Dover Trial". Most of that day is devoted to examination and cross-examination of Professor Behe in order to get an acceptable definition of the theory of "Intelligent Design". He never does provide one.

No wonder nobody wants to debate ID. :boggled:
 
I don't think biologists are "afraid" to debate with ID advocates, at all. I think they're simply sick and tired of arguing with people who spew nothing but fallacies, then go on to claim "Victory!" simply because the debate took place, in the first place.

Has any ID advocate ever presented empirical evidence for ID?
Has ID ever made any headway, in fashion that was not underhanded and intellectually dishonest?

I think the reality is that ID is afraid to do any real scientific work. They would rather spend their time inventing creative excuses, such as that article.

Although, I hardly see why I bothered making these points. "Darwinists don't want to debate us" is not evidence of an ID. I hardly see how it makes any difference in establishing facts.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Why are Darwinists Afraid to Debate Us?
Click to expand...


When you say "us", are you suggesting that "Darwinists" are afraid to debate the "organized skeptical movement" of which you claim to be a member, or are you finally admitting that you align yourself with creationists/IDers? Or is there some other group of which you are a member that you claim "Darwinists" are afraid to debate?

I'm sure that if you were simply quoting someone else you would have put the thread title in quotation marks. In any case, the phrase "why are Darwinists afraid to debate us" does not appear in the "itneresting" [sic] article you linked to in the OP.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom