"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

[Piggy]

In Error #2, Luskin denies that ID is necessarily God-related:

Moreover, leading ID theorist and biochemist, Michael Behe, explains that ID differs from Paley’s argument in crucial respects which make ID scientific, in contrast to Paley’s arguments which explicitly attempted to address theological questions:

The most important difference [between modern ID and Paley's arguments] is that [ID] is limited to design itself; I strongly emphasize that it is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley's was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. … [A]s regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton's phrase hypothesis non fingo .10

Intelligent design was also cited as a real possibility by the co-discoverer of natural selection. Alfred Russel Wallace, and the term “intelligent design” was even used by contemporaries of Darwin as an alternative to Darwin’s viewpoint.11 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.12 ID clearly does not have solely religious origins, as Mr. Mooney would suggest.

First of all, Behe is a crank. If you would like to see scholarly refutations of his hypotheses, please read these articles. They're interesting.

Secondly, it is certainly interesting that this "alternative to Darwin's viewpoint" was defeated a century ago by Darwinian theory. That's hardly a recommendation for resurrecting it.

Third, Luskin's claims that recent scientific discoveries support ID, and his insinuation that there is an increasing scientific interest in ID, are totally bogus. His footnote #12 at the end of that sentence does not lead us to any references for these alleged discoveries, but rather to Behe's book.

 

[Piggy]

Given what I've posted so far, I don't see any point in continuing with a debunking of this 30-page article. When this many errors and falsehoods are crammed into the first 2.5 pages, nothing that comes after can be of any... well... interest.

 

[Mojo]

Given what I've posted so far, I don't see any point in continuing with a debunking of this 30-page article. When this many errors and falsehoods are crammed into the first 2.5 pages, nothing that comes after can be of any... well... interest.

Perhaps T'ai Chi can suggest some specific points from the article that he thinks are interesting enough to be worth discussing.

 

[Spektator]

Perhaps T'ai Chi can suggest some specific points from the article that he thinks are interesting enough to be worth discussing.

Yes. And perhaps, as usual, he won't.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

...

 

[bjb]

Perhaps T'ai Chi can suggest some specific points from the article that he thinks are interesting enough to be worth discussing.

I asked him the same thing back in post #50. He did respond to some other posts, but not to mine.

His technique is to make general, vague accusations, this way, any rebuttal can be said to be not specific enough. In other words, we can't hit a target when he won't tell us what the target it. T'ai Chi will not make specific claims because then we can address them directly and he will have nowhere to hide. This is not the same as lying but it is a very dishonest way to hold a discussion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

People have addressed the article you haven't.

 

[Complexity]

Justin - I would never waste my time reading anything that you suggest.

All that we're left with, then, is your tacky personality.

 

[Foster Zygote]

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.

Well, thanks to CF and Mercutio. I'm not sure if this is a response to me or not. If not then it seems rather hypocritical as T'ai rarely does anything but post "interesting" quotes from others. If it is directed at me I wonder what he means by "tired tactic". I'm sure it's not unprecedented but I've never seen it before on any forum. I suppose that was the best rebuttal he could come up with.

Steven

 

[fishbob]

It was not a really good response (definitely not a rebuttal). It failed to address important points. A lot of readers around here must think that 'fallacy spotting', even if they aren't true fallacies but just their opinions that the are fallacies, constitutes a rebuttal. It doesn't.

I'm sorry you irrationally interpret the pointing out of a non-rebuttal to be a non-rebuttal to be dodging.

Name one.
People have been asking, none are obvious, so help us out.

 

[AWPrime]

T'ai Chi can you get banned for being willfully ignorant and a bad person?

 

[Piggy]

Where'd T'ai Chi go, btw?

 

[Hellbound]

Piggy:

He took his toys and went home, because we weren't making interesting* points.

From the Tai Chi Dictionary of Alternatve Meanings:
in-ter-est-ing--[adj]--in agreement with or supportive of Tai Chi's personal views or theories; see also synchophant.

 

[petre]

I find T'ai Chi's claim that the article is worth reading insufficient evidence of such until he indicates that he has indeed read every piece of available literature regarding the subject and provides a short commentary on each, including reasons why this particular piece is of interest.

It seems it should be easy to do.

 

[delphi_ote]

Where'd T'ai Chi go, btw?

I PMed him to draw his attention back to this thread and to your posts.

When he comes back, maybe I'll finally figure out what it is we believe.

 

[Piggy]

When he comes back, maybe I'll finally figure out what it is we believe.

In Spain they have a saying... no te compliques la vida. Don't complicate your life. If understanding is not required for belief, then hey, why bother? It can only lead to trouble. Believe on, my friend!

 

[T'ai Chi]

I find T'ai Chi's claim that the article is worth reading insufficient evidence of such until he indicates that he has indeed read every piece of available literature regarding the subject and provides a short commentary on each, including reasons why this particular piece is of interest.

It seems it should be easy to do.

That's pretty much irrelevant. Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it. Can you?

Apparently you're (just) another who strongly believes an opinion is a "claim".

 

[T'ai Chi]

T'ai Chi can you get banned for being willfully ignorant and a bad person?

I understand you value my opinion, but you'd have to ask the moderators a question only they can answer. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[Mojo]

That's pretty much irrelevant. Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it. Can you?

Some criticisms of the article have been posted. You have stated that they were not good criticisms because they "failed to address important points". Can you say what these "important points" are? Then we can talk about the specific points you consider to be important.

 

[Piggy]

Let's talk about this specific work, and critique things from it.

By all means, let's.

Which means it's your turn to address posts 97-101, not to mention posts 6, 19, and 20.

I don't see any reason for any further posts until you do.