Monday, November 19, 2007

If They Are Right, I Don't See How I Could Know It, Just Listening To Them

I'm in agreement with this guy (at least about the credibility of Behe's critics):

Talk.reason essay on Behe,, and Panda’s Thumb, here.

The problem with all this material is that I don’t trust it, and demand an independent arbiter. Once these people start bashing Behe, their credibility falls. The question of Behe’s book is complex, and I hold no brief for the misuse of ID in what is essentially an argument stretching back to Michael Denton. But Behe’s argument can easily survive its undoubted mistakes, especially mistakes generated from his manner of going too far with design thinking. It needs to be properly critiqued, and this the Darwin group is incapable of doing, because their own prior mistakes are far greater.

The fact of the matter is that Darwin defenders are completely untrustworthy in their Behe bashing tactics, and it is not just Behe. We cannot take anything they say at face value, the more so as the sophmoric ad hominem abuse comes forth. These tactics are under suspicion of being intimidation tactics from those whose position has a basic weakness [that] its proponents are compelled to hide behind shouting tactics and ridicule. And if this ridicule is effective, who will risk their career fighting this club of dogmatists?

Behe is commended for admitting to mistakes. Can we ever suspect the same from Darwinists? Clearly not. They are entrenched establishment, and no one can challenge their lies without suffering the fate of Behe.

Darwinism is not science because it is not falsifiable. It is not falsifiable, because there will be hell to pay for anyone who even dares to attempt a falsification. Nothing could be more obvious.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Let me summarize and clarify for you:

"I don't Darwinists because I trust Behe. When they claim that Behe is wrong and explain why, their criticism and 'facts' should be disregarded until Behe or some other upstanding Intelligent Design advocate says they are right! Life is much simpler that way."

Many scientists often make errors of fact that are of similar scale to Behe's; when they realize it, they admit their errors. When that falsifies their conclusions, they recant. (Has Behe recanted in this case?)

The reason that ID proponents have such a hard time in science is not because of some Darwinist mafia: it is because every argument yet proposed in support of ID has one (and usually several) of a few faults: (1) it doesn't support ID -- just criticizes evolution (2) it ignores well-researched science -- usually so it can claim that science has no explanation for that area or (3) it employs faulty logic to reach a conclusion.

These errors indicate muddled thinking, ignorance or fraud, none of which play well with scientists; small surprise, then, that ID's partisans face continued harsh criticism when they repeat the same debunked arguments time and again.