"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

[CFLarsen]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.

Why do you think the article rebuts Mooney's points fairly well?

 

[Brainache]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.

Not in your post.

 

[Piggy]

I believe this site refutes Darwin completely.

You should read it. It's very interesting.

What? No rebuttal?

 

[Mojo]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points.

What were the "important points" that it failed to address? If you can't say what the "important points" were, it is reasonable to assume that you have failed to identify any.

 

[Foster Zygote]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.

Since T'ai seems to have many people on ignore could someone whom he's responded to recently please quote this post in its entirety for me. I absolve you of any association with my opinions.

T'ai, the reason it seems to you that there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here seem to be that you have placed quite a few people on ignore. I call that intellectual cowardice.

Steven

P.S. If someone does post this for me please don't put him/her on ignore too.

 

[CFLarsen]

Since T'ai seems to have many people on ignore could someone whom he's responded to recently please quote this post in its entirety for me. I absolve you of any association with my opinions.

T'ai, the reason it seems to you that there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here seem to be that you have placed quite a few people on ignore. I call that intellectual cowardice.

Steven

P.S. If someone does post this for me please don't put him/her on ignore too.

Done.

We all know that T'ai Chi reads each and everyone of my posts.

 

[Grimoire]

Since T'ai seems to have many people on ignore could someone whom he's responded to recently please quote this post in its entirety for me. I absolve you of any association with my opinions.

Is there anyway to see if someone has you on ignore? In other threads, I've made responses which he has completely ignored. It would be interesting to see if he was reading and ignoring my responses (or possibly not understanding them), or if he had me on his ignore list.

It would explain why a thread with T'ai Chi sometimes reads like a discussion with a doorknob.

 

[Mercutio]

Since T'ai seems to have many people on ignore could someone whom he's responded to recently please quote this post in its entirety for me. I absolve you of any association with my opinions.

T'ai, the reason it seems to you that there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here seem to be that you have placed quite a few people on ignore. I call that intellectual cowardice.

Steven

P.S. If someone does post this for me please don't put him/her on ignore too.

Done again. We know he can't ignore my posts, although he would like to.

 

[delphi_ote]

It seems like the article rebuts Mooney's poins fairly well, since there isn't any evidence to the contrary presented here.

I've come to my senses at long last. The scales have fallen from my eyes! You're right about everything. The light is so beautiful! Everything is so clear to me!

I agree with you completely, T'ai Chi! Let's show the organized skeptical movement what fools they all are! We will charge bravely together head on into the cowardly JREF army on our mighty steeds of truth and scatter our enemies far and wide! Our foes will tremble at our very approach. This is it! Their last stand!

UNITE UNDER OUR BANNERS, OR FALL AT OUR FEET, COWARDS!

P.S. Can you tell me just what it is we believe again?

 

[Foster Zygote]

I've come to my senses at long last. The scales have fallen from my eyes! You're right about everything. The light is so beautiful! Everything is so clear to me!

I agree with you completely, T'ai Chi! Let's show the organized skeptical movement what fools they all are! We will charge bravely together head on into the cowardly JREF army on our mighty steeds of truth and scatter our enemies far and wide! Our foes will tremble at our very approach. This is it! Their last stand!

UNITE UNDER OUR BANNERS, OR FALL AT OUR FEET, COWARDS!

P.S. Can you tell me just what it is we believe again?

You forgot the bit about lightning from your arses.

Steven

 

[Foster Zygote]

Is there anyway to see if someone has you on ignore? In other threads, I've made responses which he has completely ignored. It would be interesting to see if he was reading and ignoring my responses (or possibly not understanding them), or if he had me on his ignore list.

It would explain why a thread with T'ai Chi sometimes reads like a discussion with a doorknob.

From a few thing he's written in the past I'm lead to believe that anyone who annoys him by asking for clarification of what he means, or has the audacity to show that his "interesting" links are demonstrably full of buckets of crap, gets put on ignore. He makes me think of some pudgy guy stepping out of the crowd just in front of the lead runner in a marathon so as to break the tape a few seconds before the actual winner. The imaginary pudgy guy then pumps his fists in the air triumphantly and convinces himself that he's won. I don't know if T'ai is actually pudgy of course but his posts are to critical thought what a pudgy couch-potato is to a competitive runner. 'Tis a silly analogy I readily confess.

Steven

 

[delphi_ote]

You forgot the bit about lightning from your arses.

Steven

I forgot nothing, cowardly skeptical zombie!

ph33r!

 

[CFLarsen]

Is there anyway to see if someone has you on ignore? In other threads, I've made responses which he has completely ignored. It would be interesting to see if he was reading and ignoring my responses (or possibly not understanding them), or if he had me on his ignore list.

It would explain why a thread with T'ai Chi sometimes reads like a discussion with a doorknob.

T'ai Chi has nobody on ignore.

There is not a chance in hell he would want to miss out on someone speaking to him or about him.

 

[T'ai Chi]

As if the tired 'quoting others' tactic is ever taken seriously.

Let's focus on the article, instead of personalities that pseudoskeptic like to try and focus on. What about the article is flawed? This should be an easy task, but apparently people are having trouble with it.

 

[Mojo]

As if the tired 'quoting others' tactic is ever taken seriously.

Let's focus on the article, instead of personalities that pseudoskeptic like to try and focus on. What about the article is flawed? This should be an easy task, but apparently people are having trouble with it.

Some criticisms of the article have been posted. You have claimed that they were not good criticisms because they "failed to address important points". You have been asked several times what these "important points" are, and have so far failed to identify any of them. What conclusion should we draw from your apparent inability to identify these "important points"?

 

[delphi_ote]

As if the tired 'quoting others' tactic is ever taken seriously.

Let's focus on the article, instead of personalities that pseudoskeptic like to try and focus on. What about the article is flawed? This should be an easy task, but apparently people are having trouble with it.

Oh, I'm all over the insolent pseudoskeptics that dare to question you, T'ai Chi. Just tell me what it is we believe, and I'll whip them from start to finish!

 

[Piggy]

First of all, the term "Neo-Darwinism" is itself a misrepresentation. Rather, it would be more intellectually honest to refer to the Modern Synthesis. To choose the term "Neo-Darwinism" is to suggest that Darwin's model is somehow fundamentally flawed and had to be overhauled, when in fact, Darwin's model was roundly confirmed by the modern studies of genetics and embryology. For a complete explanation, see Gould's The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. It's interesting.

More to come....

 

[Piggy]

Because it goes against consensus opinion, Mr. Mooney thinks that intelligent design is waging a “war” on science.

This is a lie. Mooney has never claimed that ID is wrong "because it goes against consensus opinion". Rather, Mooney points out that ID is not valid science.

Luskin seems very enamoured of Kuhn, whom he cites at the top of the article:

No part of the aim of normal science is to call forth new sorts of phenomena; in deed those that will not fit the box are often not seen at all. Nor do scientists normally aim to invent new theories, and they are often intolerant of those invented by others.

This citation by Kuhn is somewhat accurate, but not completely.

The process of "normal science" can be credited with discovering all manner of previously unknown phenomena, such as the CMB, DNA, accelerated universal expansion, QM, etc etc etc. All these were the result of "normal science".

While it's true that scientists are often blinded by their assumptions (not seeing what doesn't fit in the box), science itself provides the remedy. Although it had been long assumed that the rate of universal expansion was slowing, the process of "normal science" discovered otherwise... and, in fact, did so when not actually looking for any such phenomenon.

If Kuhn were correct, then Hawking and Hertog would not be proposing a quantum cosmology.

It's true that scientists do not frequently propose new theories. It would be a very poor reflection on the state of the art if it were possible to toss out new theories every few weeks.

And it's true that new theories meet a great deal of skepticism. This is how science works. You have to pony up. You have to show the money. So far, ID doesn't have a chip to toss in the pot. And that is Mooney's complaint about ID.

 

[Piggy]

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.

This is simply a lie. There's nothing else to call it. Luskin has made this up out of thin air. Note that he provides no citations here. The reason is, there are none to offer.

 

[Piggy]

In the section Error #1, Luskin makes the following claims:

First, Luskin admits that "it is a simple task to find quotes from scientists or scientific organizations saying evolution is crucial or key to all of modern biology."

Here is how he attempts to counter this fact:

Over twenty years ago an Australian anthropologist explained in a secular journal why he thinks this is true:

[M]any scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian Theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator from yet another area of material phenomena, and not because it has been paradigmatic in establishing the canons of research in the life sciences and the earth sciences.

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.

Dr. Walker's statements from Quadrant (81) do not, in fact, explain why evolutionary theory is unlikely to impress people who are not already convinced of its accuracy.

First of all, thousands of students every year are indeed convinced of the truth of evolutionary theory.

Second, it is simply not true that scientists generally support evolution merely because it is Godless. There are many scientists who understand the Modern Synthesis and who also believe in God. And even if this were not the case, it would not explain why the MS, rather than some other Godless theory, is the only game in town. Darwin's theory came to dominate over other evolutionary theories (most famously, that of Lamarck) because it is verifiable. It works.

Next, Luskin cites some scientists who state that they would have been able to achieve their discoveries without direct reference to MS.

These include the discovery of the DNA double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries.

He chooses his battles well, here, citing discoveries which are chemical and mechanical. No one, Moody included, is claiming that every scientific development depends on direct reference to evolution.

Yet DNA research confirms Darwinian theory. And Darwinian theory explains why plants and animal do evolve in the wild, when there is no farmer or rancher there to guide things by artificial selection.

To understand why the MS is in fact central to biology, try reading this article, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". It's interesting.

Luskin then asks "can [evolution] yield commercial benefits?", and answers "No". Bizarrely, he then cites Jerry Coyne: "truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits." The key here is the term "many". Coyne is saying that the commercial benefits are few, not nonexistant.

And in any case, a lack of commerical benefit is not a standard for truth. What commerical benefit has the discovery of universal expansion brought us?

If you'd like to read a full review of a Creationist text by Coyne, please see his review of Icons of Evolution. It's interesting.