Joined: June 2004
[quote=Ftk,April 12 2007,17:30][/quote]
|No, FtK, you don't know what you are talking about.|
Gee, imagine that...something I’ve never heard here before.
Perhaps if you would stop writing about things that you do not know much about as if you knew a lot about them, you would not hear that so much?
It doesn’t sound as though there was actually much debate about the actual science surrounding the issues in that public policy debate.
Perhaps because that was not what the debate was about?
When one looks at the 'scientific' ID meetings - the ones at which they don't invite critics - they don't really discuss science, either. Why is that? Don't you think that a big meeting of the big names in IDcreationism on the 'science' of ID might garner some actual scientific discussion, as opposed to, I don't know, mock interviews by Lee Strobel, of the typical 'Darwin=Hitler' garbage that tends to be the focal points of these things?
Recall, FTK, that ID's own 'peer-reviewed' journal, PCID, has not even been published since 2005! THE ID advocates cannot possibly claim 'anti-ID conspiracy' there, can they?
|The DI is suggesting a whole different critter, a "debate" that is supposed to somehow revolve around scientific legitimacy of "intelligent design" and "Darwinism". The SMU professors are right to shun any such shenanigans.|
Doing so looks very cowardly.
Ahy yes, that old conservative machismo...
Because, after all, 'debates' are how real science is done... at least when opne side does no scientific research of any type - all that is left is public spectacles to woo the fence sitters with flowery rhetoric and fire-up the hard-core supporters.
Perhaps the SMU faculty could invite - challenge - the ID propagandists to discuss the issues face-to-face any time, anywhere... Than, when they take up the offer, the SMU faculty could claim that they can suddenly only meet at specific times that will not be convenient for the IDcreationists, and warn them about their dogs... and their concealed weapons... and their call to the cops... and their chain saws... and how they are all built like football players - no, middleweight boxers...
Because apparently that sort of thing is the antithesis of cowardly in religious conservative circles.
Why not have the SMU professors question the DI a bit more about how the dialogue would be carried out? If it’s unfair, then they have something to complain to the media about. As it is, they just look like they are backing down from something they started.
How about we all wait until the well-funded DI actually produces some verifiable research supportive of their bombastic claims, instead of reading their bravado and rhetoric about public 'debates' and op-eds written by lawyers and theologians?
Ya think it will make ID less legitimate if you line up all of your guys and have them demand that scientists who objectively consider ID are cranks? Not likely, unless you actually engage in debate and show us you're not cowards.
What is to debate?
The DI clowns will declare evolution caused Nazism, that Peppered moths were glued to trees, that Behe is the greatest scientist ever, that Dembski - despite being unable to hold down a job for any length of time - is the greatest Information Theorist ever, that Jon Wells, Spetner, Meyers, etc. disproved evolution, and then when asked what thye have that actuially SUPPORTS thier position scientifically, they will say, Why, we just old you!
What is to 'debate'? Will the stacked audience really stop and think about what is being explained to them - between 'Amens', that is?
Open your eyes. Public debates are for people that have no legitimate scientific support on their side.
It tells us that you’re eager to discuss and attempt to refute ID claims everywhere except when you are asked to actually engage in discussion with ID advocates in regard to the accusations you’ve made against design.
You are conflating a couple of issues here, deary.
There is a difference between making 'accusations' against "design" and calling out the antics of the Intelligent Design Creationism movement. The Movement doesn't seem able to support their claims at all, not scientifically, so they rely on public spectacles and appeals to the masses. They are, as Wes writes, snake oil salesmen.
Here's what I think.....
SMU should replace their mascot with this guy...
??? ??? ??? :D
Where did you get that picture of Springer?