My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

May 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

« Google's New Misstep | Main | Making Books of Blogs »

May 07, 2005


Ran Talbott

"They may be wrong in their interpretation of fact, may be wrong in their conclusions, may be wrong in their actions, but that doesn't make them dishonest or their followers ignorant."

When the "actions" are dishonest, and the "followers" are unable to see that because they're not acquainted with the facts, it does. By definition.

Don't assume that merely because they claim to be "people of faith" that they're acting in _good_ faith.

Menlo Bob

Not that ID presents a well rounded theory--it doesn't--but what it does do is present challenges to Darwinian (Gould, Dawkins etc.) evolution. The huffing and puffing about daring to question any aspect to evolution is interesting. I understand that within evolutionary science there is disagreement. Scientists who so fervently believe in the unproven seem to present themselves as people of faith.

Jim M

Menlo Bob,
Evolution, like any other scientific field, does loads and loads of questioning; this is an essential part of any science. The claim by ID proponrnrts that this doesn't happen in evolution is false, and if they have any knowledge of the subject at all they know it's false, and therefore they are being dishonest. They could instead be ignorant, of course, but neither ignorance or dishonesty is likely to be helpful in science, so ID is not helpful.

And the idea that evolution is unproven is based on the same basis -- the claim can only be made by someone who is ignorant of the subject or who is dishonest.

Daniel Conover

I don't see anybody huffing and puffing about daring to question any aspect of evolution.

I question them. I know scientists who question them. I know scientists who want to toss classical evolution on its ear.

ID challenges Darwin, but is not science. That is not a value judgment on ID. That is not putting the kibosh on criticism. That is not claiming that evolution is more than what it is: theory.

As soon as the ID people figure out how to devise an experiment to test their theory, then it can become science. Once it becomes science, I'll have no problem with it being in textbooks. This is not about what it says or who says it. It's about what it is.


The Christian precision complex in overdrive… why does no one talk about gravity as being ‘just a theory’?

Oh well, enjoyed your thoughts very much, thanks!

The comments to this entry are closed.