• 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"

T'ai Chi said:
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".
Click to expand...

Let's start with this observation by Dr. Adequate from post #19:
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".
Click to expand...

Please tell us why Dr. A did not meet your standards. Explain why his observation is wrong.

Steven
 
The reason I addressed you as Stevarino is that Louis Nye used to call Steve Allen that, as in "Hi. ho. Stevarino.
 
I've read the 'counter rebuttals'; they just aren't very compelling. More like a long list of personal disagreements.

You're free to email me, and I might put up the best ones on my page in an article.
 
T'ai Chi said:
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".
Click to expand...

Very well then, thanks for clearing that up. I'll retract that statement by noting that, in fact, no one has claimed the article is worth reading.
 
T'ai Chi said:
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".
Click to expand...

Ah you seem to be confused on what an opinion is vs what a claim is.

The VW Beetle is the best car ever is an opinion
The VW Beetle is the fastest road car ever produced is a claim and as such it can be tested.

Many of the specific points addressed where claims because they can be objectively measured, not opinions that can not be.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Pseudoskeptic psuedoanalysis babble attacking a person instead of the points raised in the article. Yawn, as always.

Please focus on the article.
Click to expand...
The article has been focused on, specifically in posts 6, 19, 20, 97, 98, 99, 100, and 101, which directly rebut the points raised in the article.

Everyone can see this.

If you believe that these posts do not in fact address the article, then reference them and explain why.

Otherwise, why should we continue here?
 
How stupid are you? There have been many cogent refutations posted. What are you, one of those pseudoskeptics that are blind to the evidence that falsifies your biased view?
 
T'ai Chi said:
Anything is possible.
Click to expand...

That's not an argument against Piggy's points. In fact, that's not really making any sense to anything I just said, because it specifically doesn't adress my point at all. It doesn't adress any points, it's as vague and general and overall useless as it can be.

But let's talk about the article.
Click to expand...

But every single time someone does that, you just ignore their posts and evade answering their criticisms of the article. Are you saying you'll stop doing this and properly adress* the criticisms of the article? If not, then every demand that the thread should stay focused on the article gets more and more hypocritical.

*With properly adress, I mean come up with arguments on why they are wrong. Merely saying "they're not good" enough isn't an argument, it's an assertion. An assertion you have yet to support in any manner, by the way.
 
T'ai Chi said:
Anything is possible. But let's talk about the article.
Click to expand...

We are waiting for you to say anything substantial about the artical. Others have tried, and you have ignored them, so unless you start nothing will happen or you are simply a troll.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom