• 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.

"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

I assume that by 'interesting' you mean it as an example of what a sophist ought to avoid. I must admit such a density of logical fallacies and outright lies is impressive.

Let us begin with the second paragraph of the introduction:

Mr. Mooney always adopts scientific consensus as the gospel truth (...) Because it goes against consensus opinion, Mr. Mooney thinks that intelligent design is waging a “war” on science.
Click to expand...

Bold assertion.

While intelligent design may be a persecuted minority viewpoint within the scientific community, it is nonetheless receiving increasing levels of scientific support and its proponents continue to publish their research in scientific publications which develop and extend the theory.
Click to expand...

Lie.

Let us continue: Error #1:

It is a simple task to find quotes from scientists or scientific organizations saying evolution is crucial or key to all of modern biology. Over twenty years ago an Australian anthropologist explained in a secular journal why he thinks this is true
Click to expand...

Quote-mine.

This explains why Mr. Mooney’s statements about the grandeur of evolution are unlikely to impress those who are not already convinced of the accuracy of Neo-Darwinism.
Click to expand...

Non sequitur.

Writing in The Scientist, Philip S. Skell, member of the National Academy of Science and Emeritus Professor at Pennsylvania State University
Click to expand...

Quote-mine.

If evolution won’t save the world, can it yield commercial benefits? In August, 2006, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne wrote in an article entitled “Selling Darwin” in Nature, explaining that the answer is again, “No”:
Click to expand...

Quote-mine.

Only two logical fallacies and four counts of intellectual dishonesty thus far. I still have thirteen 'errors' and one concluision to go. Does it get any better?
 
Last edited:
T'ai Chi said:
An interesting article titled

Whose “War” Is It, Anyway?: Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design
Click to expand...

Interesting, indeed. Interesting how many outright deceptions and logical fallacies can be crammed into such a small space. Another poster has gone into the details of some of the problems found in "Error 1" (though it's not a comprehensive listing of the errors/lies/fallacies in that section alone), so I won't go any further into it. Suffice it to say I made it through the first four "errors" and had to close the page before I laughed so hard that I snorted milk through my nose.
 
Too much BS to read and too little time. I've just started Mooney's book and it's a very good book. This however is just mumbo jumbo.
 
T'ai Chi said:
No good critique so far. Keep trying. :)
Click to expand...

This is reminiscent of when Albert Knabe - much better known here as "King of the Americas" - called Howard Stern on his show.

Albert wanted to promote one of his lengthy tracts, where he expanded on one of his many crackpot ideas. Howard Stern did not want to spend time on something he didn't know what was, so he asked Albert if he could give a brief summary of what he had written.

Albert refused. He insisted that Howard Stern read the whole thing, and then get back and discuss it. After some back-and-forth, Howard Stern simply hung up.

If you won't explain what you mean, then we won't understand what you are saying, T'ai.

If you can't explain what you mean, then you don't understand what you are saying.

Why do you write reviews on Amazon?
 
T'ai Chi said:
No good critique so far. Keep trying. :)
Click to expand...
No, that is not the way things are done.

First, you present yout point. You did that by simply referencing an article and demand we read it. That is basically bad style, but it will somewhat defeat your own purpose, since it allows your opponents to pick whatever they like to critique.

Now, some have done just that, and delivered a rather heavy critique of the article.

You now have two options:

1) Counter the critique given.

2) Say something like "No, that was not the part I wanted to discuss", followed by a specification of what you wanted to discuss (of course, now the cat is out, you will have to accept that people continue discussing other parts as well).

Your present display, however, is arrogant and non-constructive. Serious and relevant points have been brought up in a debate you started yourself. You have to address them.

Hans
 
Yes, I do have a summary critique of it, T'ai, as requested: It's all crap.

Now...

What's your response to that?
 
thomps1d said:
Not meaning to descend into ad hominem territory here, but does T'ai Chi remind any else here of a slightly more adult version of the kid that used to clap his hands over his ears and sing "la la la la la la, I can't heeeeeaaaar you" when you said something he doesn't want to hear?
Click to expand...
No, I see nothing more adult in T'ai Chi’s behaviour.
 
Mojo said:
That would require him to have one.
Click to expand...

He has one, he just will not present it in any way that would make him say anything definite enough to be demonstrated wrong. His point is that the article makes some points he concidered interesting. But he will not say what they are, because he will not commit himself to anything where he can be shown to be wrong.

That is why he just dismisses detailed rebuttals of his interesting paper, actualy refuteing them is something he knows he can not do.
 
One obvious howler is their claim that ID does not rely on God-of-the-gaps reasoning. The quotes they use to try to substantiate this show the very opposite.

"Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks--almost by definition--are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality--with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation."

"Molecular machines display a key signature or hallmark of design, namely, irreducible complexity. In all irreducibly complex systems in which the cause of the system is known by experience or observation, intelligent design or engineering played a role the origin of the system. Given that neither standard neo-Darwinism, nor co-option has adequately accounted for the origin of these machines, or the appearance of design that they manifest, one might now consider the design hypothesis as the best explanation for the origin of irreducibly complex systems in living organisms. ... Although some may argue this is a merely an argument from ignorance, we regard it as an inference to the best explanation, given what we know about the powers of intelligent as opposed to strictly natural or material causes. We know that intelligent designers can and do produce irreducibly complex systems. We find such systems within living organisms."

You will also notice that they have to lie about the existence of the "gaps".
 
For more dishonesty, consider their Dembski quote.

"Thus, leading ID-theorist, philosopher and mathematician William Dembski, explains that intelligent design does not try to address questions about the identity or nature of the designer:

By contrast, intelligent design nowhere attempts to identify the intelligent cause responsible for the design in nature, nor does it prescribe in advance the sequence of events by which this intelligent cause had to act. . . . Intelligent design is modest in what it attributes to the designing intelligence responsible for the specified complexity in nature. For instance, design theorists recognize that the nature, moral character and purposes of this intelligence lie beyond the remit of science."

Well, he did indeed say that. But he also said:

"Intelligent design is just the logos theology of John's Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory."

The fact is that ID is religious, but that in order to smuggle it into schools, ID proponents such as Dembski are prepared to lie about this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom