A big problem: ID in the NYT

[c4ts]

Someone on this board said it best:

"Reason is dead, and we dance on the corpse! La la la la la!"

I still say it.

 

[andrewceo]

Ask a simple question

Screw debunking arguments. I have had 100% success asking this simple question of the ID'ers:

"Please explain your theory of the creation and development of life on Earth?"

I have yet to get coherent reply or even a partial alternative theory that does not invoke either evolution or mysticism. Call them out at every opportunity and let me know if you get an answer.

 

[hammegk]

Screw debunking arguments. I have had 100% success asking this simple question of the ID'ers:

"Please explain your theory of the creation and development of life on Earth?"

You have, huh?

The theory of creation of life is the same for all, wedunno, and evolutionists are quick to state that that question is meaningless wrt The Theory.

Development is the same, although evolutionists seem 100% certain that it all depends on random chance (er, yes ... don't forget random natural selection too) since in their worldview no there can be no other possible explanation; some IDers are not quite that sure.

 

[Bronze Dog]

You have, huh?

The theory of creation of life is the same for all, wedunno, and evolutionists are quick to state that that question is meaningless wrt The Theory.

Development is the same, although evolutionists seem 100% certain that it all depends on random chance (er, yes ... don't forget random natural selection too) since in their worldview no there can be no other possible explanation; some IDers are not quite that sure.

Random. Oldest straw man in the book.

 

[tsg]

You have, huh?

The theory of creation of life is the same for all, wedunno, and evolutionists are quick to state that that question is meaningless wrt The Theory.

Because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the origin of life. ID does.

Development is the same, although evolutionists seem 100% certain that it all depends on random chance

ID strawman. It does not all depend on random chance and evolution doesn't say it does.

(er, yes ... don't forget random natural selection too)

There is nothing random about natural selection and evolution doesn't say there is.

since in their worldview no there can be no other possible explanation;

Not at all. There just hasn't been any other explanation put forward that has quite as much evidence as evolution does.

some IDers are not quite that sure.

But they are entirely sure that there must be an intelligent designer despite the fact that they have absolutely no evidence to support the assertion.

 

[Ed]

I'd say that's more the mindset of his sycophants who post here.

I'll ask again. If Randi does a magic trick that you cannot figure out is your conclusion that it is real magic (ie. supernatural)? A simple question and one that naturally follows from adherence to ID.

 

[fishbob]

I'd say that's more the mindset of his sycophants who post here.

. . . wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. . .

Arguments based on false statements don't count for much.

About the Author:
Lloyd Pye, born in 1946 in Louisiana, USA, is a researcher, author, novelist and scriptwriter. His independent studies over more than three decades into all aspects of evolution have convinced him that humans did not evolve on Earth, or at least are the product of extraterrestrial intervention.

Uh huh. Who is the sycophant?

 

[Cleon]

You have, huh?

The theory of creation of life is the same for all, wedunno, and evolutionists are quick to state that that question is meaningless wrt The Theory.

This makes no sense.

Development is the same, although evolutionists seem 100% certain that it all depends on random chance (er, yes ... don't forget random natural selection too)

Natural selection is not random, by any definition.

since in their worldview no there can be no other possible explanation; some IDers are not quite that sure.

Well, given the basic premise of ID "theory" is "if evolutionary science hasn't explained it yet, goddidit," I'd say they're pretty sure. They're starting from a religious mindset and putting scientific jargon around it--yes, they're pretty sure of themselves.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Well, given the basic premise of ID "theory" is "if evolutionary science hasn't explained it yet, goddidit," I'd say they're pretty sure. They're starting from a religious mindset and putting scientific jargon around it--yes, they're pretty sure of themselves.

[Appeal_to_ridicule] Science, I say! [/Appeal_to_ridicule]