tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post5722781375475433981..comments2024-03-28T15:39:28.239-04:00Comments on Vital Remnants: A polite response to an impolite Darwinist about why we should uncritically accept DarwinismMartin Cothranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-65734061292102222302007-12-03T11:26:00.000-05:002007-12-03T11:26:00.000-05:00The fact that scientists admit that superstring th...<I>The fact that scientists admit that superstring theory is "new, vague, and still undeveloped" is irrelevant to whether it is science or not.</I><BR/><BR/>No, it is most certainly not "irrelevant:" the honesty with which scientists handle superstring theory is indeed relevant, especially when compared with the consistent dishonesty that underlies the entire ID movement.<BR/><BR/><I>...This is Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16279467981098045433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-90659853551274163772007-11-30T22:12:00.000-05:002007-11-30T22:12:00.000-05:00Motheral,I gave you a specific example of Judgment...Motheral,<BR/><BR/>I gave you a specific example of Judgment Day treating ID unfairly and you come back with:<BR/><BR/>Again, please give specific examples. Just because your side didn't win, and/or came off looking like lying idiots, doesn't mean the presentation was "rigged."<BR/><BR/>I'm just not getting this. They're in the 3rd post down. I said the presentation of evolution was presented Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-79110623343862434172007-11-30T22:07:00.000-05:002007-11-30T22:07:00.000-05:00I said:Scientists are falsely elevating Superstrin...I said:<BR/><BR/><I>Scientists are falsely elevating Superstring Theory to the status of "Theory" without a whisp of proof.</I><BR/><BR/>Motheral said:<BR/><BR/><I>Actually, real scientists have been admitting that superstring theory is new, vague, and still undeveloped</I><BR/><BR/>My comment of course, was simply taking Anonymous's words, and replacing every instance of "ID" with "Superstring Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-28101456764234453272007-11-23T17:54:00.000-05:002007-11-23T17:54:00.000-05:00First, the program had two parallel extended segme...<I>First, the program had two parallel extended segments explaining each position: one on evolution, the other on ID. The segment on evolution was uninterrupted by any rebuttals from the ID side. In the segment on ID, however, a rebuttal from the evolution side was included on every point about ID.</I><BR/><BR/>What, exactly, were those rebuttals the program missed? If none were offered, then, Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16279467981098045433noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-71525256968853811202007-11-21T22:57:00.000-05:002007-11-21T22:57:00.000-05:00Joe,If you're going to say that something is not a...Joe,<BR/><BR/>If you're going to say that something is not a scientific theory, then you're obviously assuming some demarcation criteria for science. I have no qualms in saying that, if ID is science, then it probably should be placed near the border somewhere. But I have yet to see a criterion for what is science that excludes ID and does not exclude something like superstring theory--in otherMartin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-41546367428419142602007-11-21T22:47:00.000-05:002007-11-21T22:47:00.000-05:00All the clever and witty quips aside (and they are...All the clever and witty quips aside (and they are clever and witty), we all know that the 'debate' (which is only a debate in pop culture and not at all in science, unless pop culture tries to force it's whims into science instruction) has at its core. That ID is not, underlined and bold faced, a SCIENTIFIC THEORY. I am seeing repeated tactics from IDists side stepping this claim by evolutioistsJoehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01634493950154973124noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-85534968148310804372007-11-21T21:20:00.000-05:002007-11-21T21:20:00.000-05:00Kurt,I suppose my view would be stronger. It seem...Kurt,<BR/><BR/>I suppose my view would be stronger. It seems to me the central insight of ID is that there are specifiable and detectable criteria for determining whether something is the product of design. The proof for this is simply that we, in fact, make determinations of whether something is the product of design all the time, an indication that there are criteria we consider valid and Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63938746370388587622007-11-21T20:45:00.000-05:002007-11-21T20:45:00.000-05:00I wouldn't, for example, use the term in reference...<I>I wouldn't, for example, use the term in reference to a theistic evolutionist.</I><BR/><BR/>Well, speaking just for myself as a theistic evolutionist, I would prefer the term "Weak IDist" while reserving "Evolutionist" for those who foreclose all thought of divine intervention. <BR/><BR/>The problem is this: My version of ID would appear no different from the evidence available to someone kehrsamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07171116260744108226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-84821301870416274592007-11-21T20:26:00.000-05:002007-11-21T20:26:00.000-05:00Anonymous,Please tell me how Superstring Theory is...Anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Please tell me how Superstring Theory is a theory? What does it predict? How is it testable? Most importantly, what facts explain Superstring Theory?<BR/><BR/>Ideas are not Theories just because you wish them to be. Scientists are falsely elevating Superstring Theory to the status of "Theory" without a whisp of proof.<BR/><BR/>To be a Theory, the idea or hypothesis has to earnMartin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-34071908725971815592007-11-21T17:39:00.000-05:002007-11-21T17:39:00.000-05:00Kehrsam,It's a fair point you make about the objec...Kehrsam,<BR/><BR/>It's a fair point you make about the objective of the show: that it was supposed to be about the debate <I>as it played out on the show</I>. And I would satisfied with that if it were not for the fact that the show itself went beyond the trial in a significant sequence in which it went into the arguments for evolution and the arguments for Intelligent design in and of Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-16102893301464052482007-11-21T16:20:00.000-05:002007-11-21T16:20:00.000-05:00It's always encouraging to see Plato show up in a ...It's always encouraging to see Plato show up in a blog post. Glaucon, of course, was putting forward a straw man with the Gyges argument, but the point is taken.<BR/><BR/>With regard to Ed Brayton, I think he is essentially making the same point I had earlier (this seems much clearer in today's post) that the documentary was attempting to put forward the debate <I>as it played out in the Dover kehrsamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07171116260744108226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-52384248886449442132007-11-21T15:06:00.000-05:002007-11-21T15:06:00.000-05:00In regard to why I didn't rebut every single indiv...In regard to why I didn't rebut every single individual thing you said in your previous post, that is partly because I haven't gotten around to it yet. But you'll be glad to know there's more coming.Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-36485758694244624802007-11-21T15:03:00.000-05:002007-11-21T15:03:00.000-05:00Motheral,You keep saying that I have "yet to provi...Motheral,<BR/><BR/>You keep saying that I have "yet to provide a single instance of unfair treatment of the ID-evolution 'controversy' by the PBS show."<BR/><BR/>Excuse me, but I have provided it several times, in several posts, on several blogs. So here we go again:<BR/><BR/>"First, the program had two parallel extended segments explaining each position: one on evolution, the other on ID. The Martin Cothranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16452612266051351726noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-63834186928036413302007-11-21T14:48:00.000-05:002007-11-21T14:48:00.000-05:00"Here we have a debate between two competing theor..."Here we have a debate between two competing theories of how we got here, and one side wants the rest of us to assume, at the outset of the debate, that it is correct. Then they want the rest of us not to notice when they do it. And if we do notice, then they'll call us nasty names. Finally, despite all this, they demand that we recognize how rational and intelligent they are."<BR/><BR/>Please Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11542449.post-51553632470783954142007-11-21T14:24:00.000-05:002007-11-21T14:24:00.000-05:00You still have yet to provide a single instance of...You still have yet to provide a single instance of unfair treatment of the ID-evolution "controversy" by the PBS show, like a specific fact or incident that the show ignored or misrepresented, despite repeated requests from more than one respondent that you do so.<BR/><BR/>Also, your latest post doesn't even TRY to refute any of the substantive comments I made previously. And you continue to Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16279467981098045433noreply@blogger.com