"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

[RichardR]

And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing.

I've read your post that says you've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing, and I find it unconvincing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I've read your post that says you've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing, and I find it unconvincing.

Quite right, we should wait for him to produce something worthy of a reply and then he will get it.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Don't hold your breath.

 

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

This article is really sad, let's start with "Error #1: Mr. Mooney overpraises Darwin"

Mr. Mooney argues evolution is the “linchpin of modern biology,” and “a bedrock of modern science,” and one of the greatest intellectual achievements of human history.[quote/]
There is nothing wrong with this statement evolution in every significant way is the "linchpin of modern biology". Zoologists and Botanists use evolution to understand adaptations, behavior, and relationships. Molecular biologists can establish perhapse the strongest evidence for evolutionary relationships. Ecologists study the very forces that drive adaptation. So, every field in modern biology is connected through evolution.


"Error #2: Mr. Mooney claims ID traces itself to the theological arguments of William Paley"
Intelligent design is by definition an argument from design so from that point alone it is a decendant of the Paley argument. Also, while they never investigate the nature of the designer they admit that for design to be the case there must be a designer. So from that point it is also a decendant of Paley even though they don't say God both are arguments for a designer.

Finally, the modern theory of ID has experienced a surge in popularity due to the discoveries in the past 30-40 years in genetics, molecular biology, and cell biology which have revealed a world of complex microbiological machines and the digital language-based genetic code underlying all of life.[quote/]
Is he kidding? Each of those discoveries has done nothing but overwhelmingly confirm evolution, especially common descent. Also, the popularity of ID can be directly traced to the fall of creation science in the courts.

"Error #3: Mr. Mooney critiques a blatantly false, straw-man version of intelligent design"

Mr. Mooney argues that intelligent design is simply a negative “God-of-the-gaps” argument against evolution which appeals to supernatural.[quote/]
It is! Pointing to a very obscure biomolecular motor as evidence of ID is as GodoftheGaps as you get. They can't talk about ID as making the eye or the wing because the evolution of those organs is fairly well understood, the eye for example has evolved at least 40 seperate times. Also, Behe admitted in court that ID's appeal to the supernatural would open the door to astrology.

That's just the first three arguments. It's sad to see him deny that ID is what it is. Is that enough of a rebuttal for some real discussion?

 

[Piggy]

Is that enough of a rebuttal for some real discussion?

Are you kidding? Even I can see that that's going to be uninteresting. It's just opinion aimed personally at Luskin. Now will someone please address the article?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Are you kidding? Even I can see that that's going to be uninteresting. It's just opinion aimed personally at Luskin. Now will someone please address the article?

You forgot it is also likely to be so illogical and missinformed that it is not even worth rebutting.