I'm from Missouri

This site is named for the famous statement of US Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver from Missouri : "I`m from Missouri -- you'll have to show me." This site is dedicated to skepticism of official dogma in all subjects. Just-so stories are not accepted here. This is a site where controversial subjects such as evolution theory and the Holocaust may be freely debated.

Name:
Location: Los Angeles, California, United States

My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments, no closing of comment threads, no holding up of comments for moderation, and no commenter registration hassles. Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged. My non-response to a particular comment should not be interpreted as agreement, approval, or inability to answer.

Saturday, November 24, 2007

The "contrived dualism" fallacy of Darwinism v. intelligent design

Judge Jones' Kitzmiller v. Dover opinion said,

The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism. (page 21-22)

. . .the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's. (page 64)
.
ID is at bottom premised upon a false dichotomy, namely, that to the extent evolutionary theory is discredited, ID is confirmed. (5:41(Pennock)). This argument is not brought to this court anew, and in fact, the same argument, termed "contrived dualism" in Mclean, was employed by creationists in the 1980's to support "creation science." (page 71)

Though Judge Jones condemned proponents of intelligent design and creation science for allegedly promoting this "contrived dualism" fallacy, the chief promoters of this fallacy today are the Darwinists. Because intelligent design (including irreducible complexity, which is considered to be part of ID) was the only criticism of evolution that Judge Jones mentioned by name, the Darwinists have been trying to mislead the public into thinking that ID is the only criticism of evolution -- for example, the Ohio evolution lesson plan's non-ID criticisms of evolution were falsely labeled "ID" by the Darwinists. Many non-ID criticisms of Darwinism are not necessarily arguments in favor of ID. I have argued that co-evolution -- which is supposed to be the mutual evolution of co-dependent organisms such as bees and flowering plants -- is a dilemma for evolution theory because in co-evolution there may be nothing to adapt to because the corresponding co-dependent trait in the other organism may be initially absent. That is a non-ID argument. Jonathan Wells' books The Icons of Evolution and Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design contain non-ID criticisms of Darwinism. The Darwinists have tried to reinforce this contrived dualism idea by coining the term "intelligent design creationism," eliminating creationism as a 3rd alternative. Judge Jones himself showed that he really accepts the contrived dualism fallacy because his Dover opinion made a blanket prohibition of criticism of evolution ("we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants . . . . from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution," page 138), even though ID was the only criticism of evolution that he reviewed (this prohibition was stated in the conclusion section but for some unknown reason was not included in the final order).

IMO many critics of Darwinism have also been promoting this "contrived dualism" fallacy, both deliberately and inadvertently, though to a lesser extent that the Darwinists. I heard of the concepts of ID and irreducible complexity decades ago, though not by those names. In the last few decades, ID got a big boost from the discovery that cells are not just amorphous blobs of protoplasm but contain amazingly complex and sophisticated nanomachines (e.g., the bacterial flagellum), chemical factories (e.g., the blood-clotting cascade), and informational databases (e.g., the DNA code). Even many non-fundies could not help thinking that these things appeared to be designed rather than the result of blind chance. Unfortunately, many people now believe or pretend to believe that there are only two possibilities or considerations, Darwinism and ID.

Judge Jones made another error. As noted above, he said,

The court in McLean stated that creation science rested on a "contrived dualism" that recognized only two possible explanations for life, the scientific theory of evolution and biblical creationism, treated the two as mutually exclusive such that "one must either accept the literal interpretation of Genesis or else believe in the godless system of evolution," and accordingly viewed any critiques of evolution as evidence that necessarily supported biblical creationism.

In making scientific (or pseudoscientific) arguments for biblical creationism, it is necessary to use the "contrived dualism" fallacy because independent scientific arguments cannot be made from the biblical account of creation because that account has no scientific ideas. However, independent scientific (or pseudoscientific) arguments can be made in creation science and intelligent design and hence -- contrary to what Judge Jones assumed -- the "contrived dualism" fallacy is not necessary in those fields.
.

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous Voice in the Urbanness said...

> However, independent scientific (or pseudoscientific) arguments can be made in creation science and intelligent design <

Then why has no one ever made them?

Saturday, November 24, 2007 2:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A better title would be "The Contrived Controversy of Larry Fafarman".

Saturday, November 24, 2007 4:42:00 PM  
Blogger Herman Cummings said...

A Scientific Prediction From Genesis

Besides myself, all others that try to tell us what Genesis says do not understand the text, and are speaking from ignorance. I’m sorry to have to take this position, but there are too many false teachers and unqualified people talking about “creation\evolution debates” (when no such contest exists), and proclaiming false doctrines about Genesis, such as Creation Science, theistic evolution, progressive creation, and “gap” theories. There is even the fad of “Intelligent Design”, which is a big waste of time, and has almost nothing of value to offer.

There are no “creation accounts” in Genesis. The opposing view of evolution is what I call “the Observations of Moses”, which were visions of six days from the past, given to Moses by God, on Mt. Sinai in 1598 BC. Each day was taken from a different day of the week, each week being the first week from a different geologic age of mankind.

Having said that, I am now making this declaration, so that mankind may know that the words and events written in Genesis are true, and the humanist theories of our origins are false. I predict that secular science shall soon find, if they have not already, solid evidence of prehistoric mankind, which is earlier than 30 million years in age. The book “Moses Didn’t Write About Creation!”, states from Genesis that mankind has been in his present likeness for over 60 million years. Moses wrote about extinction and restoration.

Herman Cummings
PO Box 1745
Fortson GA, 31808
Ephraim7@aol.com

Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just when you thought that Larry was alone on his planet!

Sunday, November 25, 2007 5:20:00 AM  
Anonymous Bookstore Activist said...

The evolutionists are going overboard.

"Evolving In Kansas", run by "mousie cat"...board member Liz Craig of Kansas Citizens for Science...has one of the most heavily moderated blogs here in Kansas; except perhaps for Reasonable Kansans by FTK.

Craig now has forbiddin ANY mention of Hitler in ANY context but is allowing posts to remain up that argue Hitlers soldiers "did not know what they were doing".

This allows Holocaust Denial pure and simple. This was set off by a discussion...now deleted...of how much Hitler and the Nazis were influence by Darwinian thought in the first part of the 20th century.

Craig...uh, "mousie cat"...was obviously badly defeated by one particular poster and promptly deleted the posts (letting them up in the first place was a tactical error but she obviously thought they would be easy to refute)and announced...and this is still up...that the very name of Hitler is not allowed on her board.

Makes Holocaust Denail a snap...Darwinian thought can't have influenced Hitler if he can't even be mentioned, now can it?

I tried to mention this to FTK but she will not put up posts anymore...something has happened over there. Seriously, I am worried, her faith may be cracking.

The promotion of atheism over there will require Holocaust Denial because it always gets back to the influences.

Sunday, November 25, 2007 6:11:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kansas, Missouri... geez didn't anybody pay attention in high school science class?

Sunday, November 25, 2007 7:00:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home