"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design"

[T'ai Chi]

How about we focus on one claim of Mooney's?

 

[Mojo]

How about we focus on one claim of Mooney's?

How about we focus on the "important points" from the article (you know, the one we're supposed to be discussing) that you claim were not addressed by earlier responses?

 

[T'ai Chi]

Here's the article:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/vi...allingPage=discoMainPage&printerFriendly=true

 

[Hawk one]

And what do you think are its important points?

 

[T'ai Chi]

You're asking? I thought they were supposedly already addressed and refuted? But your question tells me that you don't even know what they are.

You'll have to read the article. Look for bold.

 

[Hawk one]

You're asking? I thought they were supposedly already addressed and refuted? But your question tells me that you don't even know what they are.

You'll have to read the article. Look for bold.

I have read parts of the article, and I didn't find any strong points at all. Since other people have already refuted these points, there is little point in repeating it.

I was asking because I wanted to see if you could tell if there were any strong points, and more importantly, explain why, in your own words, why they are strong points. I should have thought this latter was obvious, but I keep forgetting you need to be spoonfed every little detail.

So, name me one specific strong point, and why you think it's a strong point. That's when you will finally have actually discussed the article. See how easy that can be?

And when you do this, I guarantee that I will respond to that point and your reasons.

 

[Mojo]

You're asking? I thought they were supposedly already addressed and refuted? But your question tells me that you don't even know what they are.

You have claimed that a criticism of the article was not a good response because "it failed to address important points". What "important points" which have not been addressed have you identified in the article?

 

[delphi_ote]

How about we focus on one claim of Mooney's?

Enough of your lazy demands. Piggy already did, and you ignored him. If you want the subject changed, change it. Stop complaining and talk about the article if that's why you're here.

 

[webfusion]

If I may ---

I read throught the entire piece. I pored over the bibliography as well, and followed links to their sources.

The penultimate important point of the entire article is summed up in the following exchange:

Mooney:
"So what is a good editor to do about the very real collision between a scientific consensus and a pseudo-scientific movement that opposes the basis of that consensus? At the very least, newspaper editors should think twice about assigning reporters who are fresh to the evolution issue and allowing them to default to the typical strategy frame, carefully balancing “both sides” of the issue in order to file a story on time and get around sorting through the legitimacy of the competing claims."

Casey Luskin:
According to his view, one side should not be given the same amount of air-time, size of print-space, or numbers of opportunity for rebuttal simply because it goes against the “consensus.” According to Mr. Mooney, such "balancing" isn’t appropriate.

Here is my rebuttal. Take note. This is a rebuttal. It is a rebuttal to a very main and important point of Luskin's article.
Here it comes ----


Plenty of TV airtime, column inches and radio play is devoted to speculation, opinion, fantasy and suppositions. Some of that seeps into the realm of pure reportorial journalism, unfortunately.
The journalism profession is expected by the public to report facts. That is what Mooney is making reference to.

The reporting of a crash of "a helicopter" into a building in Manhattan earlier today is a great illustration of this failure of journalists to step back and look at real facts and NOT just pour out raw, unsubstantiated data.


ID is not a factually-based concept.
Evolution is.

There is, as Mooney says, no reason to pursue a fair and balanced review of both, when one of the two is essentially myth and fantasy, while the other is real and solid.

/end rebuttal.

 

[Foster Zygote]

There is, as Mooney says, no reason to pursue a fair and balanced review of both, when one of the two is essentially myth and fantasy, while the other is real and solid.

/end rebuttal.

I like this Dawkins quote:

"...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong."

Steven

 

[webfusion]

Oh well.

What does that mean?

 

[delphi_ote]

Oh well.

Feel free to ignore it again, but I'm at least going to make you look at it again and consciously ignore it.

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:



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.



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.

But by all means, keep digging your hole. We'll all keep laughing at you.

 

[T'ai Chi]

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

 

[pchams]

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

What is unconvincing? Please explain something.

 

[thaiboxerken]

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

Of course your unconvinced because you lack a basic understanding of reality, evolution, science and logic. Stupid is not a trait that can be fixed.

 

[delphi_ote]

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

So this is all the response you can expect of anyone else to your own posts. We've read them. We find them unconvincing (and intellectually dishonest, childish, incoherent, irrelevant, ignorant...)

You can't make demands of others that you won't accept yourself. We're not here to entertain you. Put up or shut up.

 

[Unnamed]

Perhaps we should ask Mr. Mooney himself?

http://www.scienceblogs.com/intersection/

Responding to the DI
The DI Rebuttal
These Are So Not Good Criticisms

 

[Hawk one]

Where is that one strong point in the article I asked for, complete with an explanation in your own words why it's a strong point?

 

[webfusion]

Oh well, indeed.

 

[Mojo]

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

Yes, but that is not a good response, because it fails to address any of the points made in the rebuttal. You need to say why you consider it unconvincing. If you consider it unconvincing because it failed to address particular points from the article, you need to state what those points were. Otherwise all you are doing is making an unsupported assertion.

Would you consider a statement that the article was unconvincing but which didn't say why the article was unconvincing to be a good rebuttal?