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.

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.

Thursday, May 07, 2009

Debunking the "intelligent design creationism" myth

The term "intelligent design creationism" epitomizes the Darwinists' efforts to conflate intelligent design with biblical creationism. This conflation was debunked in an excellent article by journalist Melanie Phillips, who said,

I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a fair crack of the whip to see where the argument will lead. What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents.

One way of doing so is to conflate ID with Creationism. I wrote below [i.e., previously] that this is wrong, since ID comes out of science and creationism comes out of Biblical literalism. This provoked Charles Johnson on LGF [Little Green Footballs] to accuse me of being either duped or dishonest. Johnson – who has become unhealthily obsessed with ID and Creationism in recent months -- says I am wrong to say that ID is based on science rather than on religion, and wrong to say that it is different from Creationism . . . .
To repeat – I have no particular brief for ID. I am not in a position to judge whether its arguments about ‘irreducible complexity’ and the logic of intelligent design are soundly based or not. But I do know that the attempt to shut down this debate runs against every principle of rationality and scientific freedom; and that the claim that it is rooted not in science but in religious fundamentalism is a falsehood designed to smear and intimidate people into silence . . . .

Dogma is certainly what is on the other side of ID in this fight – a materialist dogma which, posing as the standard-bearer of reason against obscurantism, actually embodies irrationality and a kind of intellectual fascism. It is a secular inquisition – as the reaction to my [previous] post makes all too plain.

Intelligent design is indeed based on scientific evidence and scientific reasoning -- there is nothing in the bible about irreducible complexity, bacterial flagella, the blood-clotting cascade, etc..

The Darwinists' claim that ID is not science because ID proponents have not conducted a lot of experiments is of course wrong. A lot of science is not experimentation but is analysis of existing data -- my studies of coevolution are like that. I have done no experiments and made no field trips in my studies of coevolution.

The Darwinists' charges of guilt-by-association -- that many ID proponents are motivated by religion -- are also improper. Indeed, when it comes to guilt-by-association, the Darwinists live in a glass house because so many Darwinists are (1) atheists and (2) cafeteria Christians who are inconsistent about supernaturalism because they believe the supernatural gospel story but reject the supernatural creation story.

One of the main reasons why Darwinists insist that intelligent design is religion is to enable them to use the Constitution's establishment clause to attack it.

Instead of looking at all the evidence, the Darwinists cherry-pick their evidence, like the following guy who was on trial on a charge of stealing chickens:

Defendant to witness: Did you see me go into the henhouse?

Witness: Yes

Defendant: Did you see me come out of the henhouse?

Witness: No

Defendant: Aha! Ise still in that henhouse!

The full story of the debate is here.



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home