The lack of positive scientific evidence for Intelligent Design is an excusable side-effect of scientists being a lot of stubborn atheist doodie-heads.
This entry was posted on May 15, 2008 at 11:44 pm and is filed under Crackpottery, Shorters/FLs. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Wow; whatta whole keg o’stupid Melton churns out. Some of my favs:
“So, while they give the appearance of the essence of intellectual virtue, they are in fact stacking the proverbial deck in a very unscientific way by creating artificial standards of evidence for ID and then failing to subject their own theories to similar scrutiny.”
Project much, Brian? A hundred and fifty years of evidence for evolution has failed to convince you.
“While there is manifestly less proof to support the idea of extra-terrestrial life than a supernatural God, the general concept at least fits in with Dawkins’s naturalistic biases, and so he finds it acceptable.”
There is? I would say that there’s far more evidence of extra-terrestrial life than there is of God. Note the absence of evidence to back up his claims.
“The straightforward answer is that for most NDs, no amount of proof could ever be enough because their main objection to ID has nothing to do with reason, logic, or facts.”
Replace ‘NDs’ with ‘IDiots’ and ‘ID’ with ‘evolution’, and you’ve got an accurate statement.
Hmm… there’s so much fun to be had here, I may have to blog about this myself…
Wow. It continues to amaze me what the massive amount of vitriol a little disagreement from the status quo can produce. I normally don’t reply to these, but this is just too good:
“Project much, Brian? A hundred and fifty years of evidence for evolution has failed to convince you.”
–Right. and 2000+ years of creationism and related philosophies apparently isn’t enough to convince you. How many years did the best minds in the world think that the sun revolved around the earth? The age of a theory has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is true. Using your argument, Darwin should never have written anything.
“There is? I would say that there’s far more evidence of extra-terrestrial life than there is of God. Note the absence of evidence to back up his claims.”
–I’m sure they’ll be by to pick you up shortly. As for the lack of evidence, I think you’re asking for a bit much from a 1000 word op-ed if you expect me to rehash all of the many evidences for God’s existence that have been and continue to be discovered. I notice you provided no evidence to ETs, but politely gave yourself the pass you denied to me.
BTW, this seems to be a favorite straw man these days: find a short article and then demand that it somehow include the totality of human knowledge on a subject; otherwise the author “obviously” has no proof.
“Replace ‘NDs’ with ‘IDiots’ and ‘ID’ with ‘evolution’, and you’ve got an accurate statement.”
–Ah! the requisite personal insults and attacks that are the hallmark of someone with apparently nothing better to say in response. A slightly updated version of “You’re ugly.” But you are leagues ahead of your brethren: You wrote the entire sentence without resorting to profanity.
If you’re going to blog about this yourself, I would suggest more reading and study of the real ID position, and less insults, characterizations, and stereotypes. We have enough parrots out there as it is.
“Right. and 2000+ years of creationism and related philosophies apparently isn’t enough to convince you.”
Are you really this fucking stupid, Melton? You are putting angel on pinhead counting on the same level as the modern scientific method. I’m sure you’ll be writing an essay defending astrology and alchemy against their academic oppressors sometime soon.
Right. and 2000+ years of creationism and related philosophies apparently isn’t enough to convince you.
Why would it? Notice the word missing from your sentence that was in mine: “evidence”. You’re absolutely right: the age of a ‘theory’ has nothing to do with its truth. But a hundred and fifty years of accumulated evidence beats 2000 years of random speculation and arguments from supernatural authority.
How many years did the best minds in the world think that the sun revolved around the earth?
Lots of years. But, you know what? Once people stopped taking it for granted that the sun revolved around the earth, they realized relatively quickly how wrong that idea was. How did they figure that out? Scientific evidence.
I notice you provided no evidence to ETs, but politely gave yourself the pass you denied to me.
I guess it’s true that creationists have no concept of sarcasm. I know nothing about ET life and quite frankly don’t care much about it, but the existence of other natural organisms is much more plausible than the existence of an omnipotent being who is more hidden and seclusive than Howard Hughes and more petty than, well, you.
BTW, this seems to be a favorite straw man these days: find a short article and then demand that it somehow include the totality of human knowledge on a subject
No, I don’t require total evidence of a subject, but I would love to see any piece of evidence (note that pesky word again) that you can produce on the existence of ‘creation’. Anything? I’ve been waiting for years to see something more impressive than the Virgin Mary on a tortilla.
Ah! the requisite personal insults and attacks that are the hallmark of someone with apparently nothing better to say in response.
Wow, you are dumb. I was pointing out that your statement was an empty, pointless, and hollow one: I can reverse the terms of it and make it my own.
If you’re going to blog about this yourself, I would suggest more reading and study of the real ID position, and less insults, characterizations, and stereotypes.
I would love to study more ID research, but there isn’t any! I’ve read every ‘argument’ your ‘researchers’ have made, and they are all utterly bereft of - wait for it - evidence.
Here, let’s try something - scientific theories are not only explanations, but explanations which have predictive power. If you feel like you’re being treated so unfairly, here’s a challenge for you: use ID to make a testable prediction about nature. Tell me about what sort of fossils a creationist theory predicts, and where to find them. Tell me something new about DNA using creationism. Show me anything new, and testable, where creationism predicts something different than modern biology. You can shut us all up by showing us how ID can be used to predict new and previously unobserved phenomena. If you can’t, then you’re no better than a $5 palm reader, making ‘predictions’ so vague that you can tie any observation to them.
We have enough parrots out there as it is.
Ah, I’m glad to see you taking the high road, after complaining about all the insults you must suffer! :)
May 16, 2008 at 9:46 am
Wow; whatta whole keg o’stupid Melton churns out. Some of my favs:
“So, while they give the appearance of the essence of intellectual virtue, they are in fact stacking the proverbial deck in a very unscientific way by creating artificial standards of evidence for ID and then failing to subject their own theories to similar scrutiny.”
Project much, Brian? A hundred and fifty years of evidence for evolution has failed to convince you.
“While there is manifestly less proof to support the idea of extra-terrestrial life than a supernatural God, the general concept at least fits in with Dawkins’s naturalistic biases, and so he finds it acceptable.”
There is? I would say that there’s far more evidence of extra-terrestrial life than there is of God. Note the absence of evidence to back up his claims.
“The straightforward answer is that for most NDs, no amount of proof could ever be enough because their main objection to ID has nothing to do with reason, logic, or facts.”
Replace ‘NDs’ with ‘IDiots’ and ‘ID’ with ‘evolution’, and you’ve got an accurate statement.
Hmm… there’s so much fun to be had here, I may have to blog about this myself…
May 24, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Wow. It continues to amaze me what the massive amount of vitriol a little disagreement from the status quo can produce. I normally don’t reply to these, but this is just too good:
“Project much, Brian? A hundred and fifty years of evidence for evolution has failed to convince you.”
–Right. and 2000+ years of creationism and related philosophies apparently isn’t enough to convince you. How many years did the best minds in the world think that the sun revolved around the earth? The age of a theory has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is true. Using your argument, Darwin should never have written anything.
“There is? I would say that there’s far more evidence of extra-terrestrial life than there is of God. Note the absence of evidence to back up his claims.”
–I’m sure they’ll be by to pick you up shortly. As for the lack of evidence, I think you’re asking for a bit much from a 1000 word op-ed if you expect me to rehash all of the many evidences for God’s existence that have been and continue to be discovered. I notice you provided no evidence to ETs, but politely gave yourself the pass you denied to me.
BTW, this seems to be a favorite straw man these days: find a short article and then demand that it somehow include the totality of human knowledge on a subject; otherwise the author “obviously” has no proof.
“Replace ‘NDs’ with ‘IDiots’ and ‘ID’ with ‘evolution’, and you’ve got an accurate statement.”
–Ah! the requisite personal insults and attacks that are the hallmark of someone with apparently nothing better to say in response. A slightly updated version of “You’re ugly.” But you are leagues ahead of your brethren: You wrote the entire sentence without resorting to profanity.
If you’re going to blog about this yourself, I would suggest more reading and study of the real ID position, and less insults, characterizations, and stereotypes. We have enough parrots out there as it is.
May 24, 2008 at 7:25 pm
“Right. and 2000+ years of creationism and related philosophies apparently isn’t enough to convince you.”
Are you really this fucking stupid, Melton? You are putting angel on pinhead counting on the same level as the modern scientific method. I’m sure you’ll be writing an essay defending astrology and alchemy against their academic oppressors sometime soon.
May 24, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Why would it? Notice the word missing from your sentence that was in mine: “evidence”. You’re absolutely right: the age of a ‘theory’ has nothing to do with its truth. But a hundred and fifty years of accumulated evidence beats 2000 years of random speculation and arguments from supernatural authority.
Lots of years. But, you know what? Once people stopped taking it for granted that the sun revolved around the earth, they realized relatively quickly how wrong that idea was. How did they figure that out? Scientific evidence.
I guess it’s true that creationists have no concept of sarcasm. I know nothing about ET life and quite frankly don’t care much about it, but the existence of other natural organisms is much more plausible than the existence of an omnipotent being who is more hidden and seclusive than Howard Hughes and more petty than, well, you.
No, I don’t require total evidence of a subject, but I would love to see any piece of evidence (note that pesky word again) that you can produce on the existence of ‘creation’. Anything? I’ve been waiting for years to see something more impressive than the Virgin Mary on a tortilla.
Wow, you are dumb. I was pointing out that your statement was an empty, pointless, and hollow one: I can reverse the terms of it and make it my own.
I would love to study more ID research, but there isn’t any! I’ve read every ‘argument’ your ‘researchers’ have made, and they are all utterly bereft of - wait for it - evidence.
Here, let’s try something - scientific theories are not only explanations, but explanations which have predictive power. If you feel like you’re being treated so unfairly, here’s a challenge for you: use ID to make a testable prediction about nature. Tell me about what sort of fossils a creationist theory predicts, and where to find them. Tell me something new about DNA using creationism. Show me anything new, and testable, where creationism predicts something different than modern biology. You can shut us all up by showing us how ID can be used to predict new and previously unobserved phenomena. If you can’t, then you’re no better than a $5 palm reader, making ‘predictions’ so vague that you can tie any observation to them.
Ah, I’m glad to see you taking the high road, after complaining about all the insults you must suffer! :)