tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post7891770922894123347..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: What She SaidLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-67516949141313099982007-11-23T15:10:00.000-05:002007-11-23T15:10:00.000-05:00Well said, Prof. Moran! I have encountered so many...Well said, Prof. Moran! I have encountered so many people who claim that god did it because of something they cannot understand or explain with evolution. In that case I always wanted to ask those people, say, in an unresolved homicide case, should the police officers claim that god did it because they can't explain what was going on? The logic creationists use against evolution is just ridiculous.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33265351203709103722007-11-23T11:34:00.000-05:002007-11-23T11:34:00.000-05:00lee_merill says,I certainly agree, I believe Intel...lee_merill says,<BR/><BR/><I>I certainly agree, I believe Intelligent Design is a misnomer, the end of the argument should be "evolution didn't do it."</I><BR/><BR/>But proving a negative is very difficult. Whenever you end your argument with a conclusion like that you get yourself into lots of trouble. <BR/><BR/>There are lots of very stupid ideas out there leading to the conclusion that evolution is impossible. For example, you could say that a structure is irreducibly complex and such structures can't evolve. Therefore evolution didn't do it. <BR/><BR/>That's not acceptable because it assumes that your premise is correct and in this case it isn't. As a general rule, when your hypothesis conflicts with a naturalistic explanation you must assume that there's something wrong with your hypothesis before invoking the supernatural. This is how science is supposed to work and there are excellent reasons for assuming that the adoption of methodological materialism is a necessary part of good science.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-85179971073597408082007-11-23T06:41:00.000-05:002007-11-23T06:41:00.000-05:00As far as alternatives, there is Gert Korthoff's w...As far as alternatives, there is Gert Korthoff's web pages on "Was Darwin Wrong?"<BR/><BR/>http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/<BR/><BR/>Moreover, it is worth pointing out that "intelligent design" is <B>not</B> an alternative, because it does not offer anything about how, or what, or when, or where, or why, or who. Whatever difficulties the advocates of ID claim about standard evolutionary biology, ID does not claim to offer a resolution. For example, if evolution is highly improbable, how probable is ID (maybe it is even more improbable)?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-46316827185156561532007-11-22T22:31:00.000-05:002007-11-22T22:31:00.000-05:00> In reality, there are a lot more than two choic...> In reality, there are a lot more than two choices.<BR/><BR/>I certainly agree, I believe Intelligent Design is a misnomer, the end of the argument should be "evolution didn't do it."<BR/><BR/>So I nominate as an acronym, EDDI.<BR/><BR/>> Mutation produces new information.<BR/><BR/>Yes, agreed, it can.<BR/><BR/>> Natural selection is neither directed by God nor random at a particular time and place.<BR/><BR/>This is (alas) typical claim of virtually supernatural knowledge by of all people, a naturalist. We may of course have a working hypothesis that there is no supernature, but to state this uncategorically is to claim knowledge that no one can have.<BR/><BR/>Which is why I might call them EGOists! :-)<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>Lee<BR/><BR/>P.S. EGO: Evolution Gets Omnipotentlee_merrillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757197085138422700noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51335066527730368992007-11-22T21:14:00.000-05:002007-11-22T21:14:00.000-05:00Think about it - a whole not-so-cottage pseudoscie...Think about it - a whole not-so-cottage pseudoscientific industry full of people too insecure to say "I don't know." 'Cause that's the honest answer if the prevailing theory is wrong.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-49278587101707719142007-11-22T20:38:00.000-05:002007-11-22T20:38:00.000-05:00Good points. It must never be forgotten that a sci...Good points. It must never be forgotten that a scientist's agenda is to the truth wherever that may take him or her. A creationist/IDer's agenda is to only convince. They feel they are quite correct to lie, suppress data and invent falacious data to achieve their own ends.Acleronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03742380713377801576noreply@blogger.com