Reflectorites
On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 14:42:25 +0100, Richard Wein wrote:
[...]
>SJ>I would like to actually *thank* Richard and Wesley for their strong
>>criticisms of ID in general and Dembski's Design Inference in particular.
>>Such criticisms are only to be expected and are in fact a back-handed
>>compliment to the perceived threat of ID. In the end such criticisms
>>will *help* ID become more robust. So to Richard and Wesley and other
>>critics, keep 'em coming! :-)
RW>You have to admire Stephen's optimism.
It is not "optimism". It is *realism*! I am by nature a pessimist.
RW>No matter how damning the arguments against ID,
The problem for Richard is that his best "arguments" are not "damning ...
against ID". At some level Richard and his colleagues must realise this
because they would not work so hard trying to stop ID even getting a fair
hearing, and be constantly using ad hominems like "irrational", "nonsense",
"absurd", against IDers.
RW>he can always convince himself that they will work to ID's
>advantage.
It is *Richard* (and Co.) who seems to be "always" trying to "convince
himself". IDers just use rational *arguments* and *evidence*. It is
*Richard's* side who uses ridicule, abuse and power politics.
It doesn't take much of this to "convince" myself "that they (these tactics
and so-called "damning the arguments") will work to ID's advantage."
RW>Perhaps he's right, though. When it comes to marketing, whether
>it's hairspray or ID, they say that "any publicity is good publicity". ;-)
In a sense this is true. For a long time evolutionists tried to ignore ID but in
the end they found they couldn't. So now they are caught on the horns of a
dilemma. The more they try to use dismissive tactics against ID (without
fairly dealing with IDers arguments), the more IDers will be encouraged
and the more the public will think that evolutionists must have something
to hide!
So again to Richard I say. Keep it up!
[...]
RW>"Do the calculation. Take the numbers seriously. See if the underlying
>probabilities really are small enough to yield design."
> -- W. A. Dembski, who has never presented any calculation to back up
his
>claim to have detected Intelligent Design in life.
It is the use of misleading arguments like this that will also work to ID's
advantage. What is Richard going to say when Dembski produces such a
"calculation"? Or is Richard predicting that Dembski never will produce
such a "calculation"?
Steve
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces
me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes
possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue
their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best
arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda
and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does
it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the
official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would
welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would
want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them
as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable
methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E., "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting
the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL.,
2000, p.141)
Stephen E. Jones | Ph. +61 8 9448 7439 | http://www.iinet.net.au/~sejones
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 30 2000 - 17:43:21 EST