Negative Arguments

[Vincent Vega]

In fact, ‘intelligent design’ seems to be merely a negative theory, meaning it only criticizes evolution and doesn’t propose anything scientific of its own. In William Saletan’s words:

" They won’t say how ID works. They won’t say how it can be tested, apart from testing Darwinism and inferring that the alternative is ID. They won’t concede it to be falsifiable.

Sound familier? All the arguments in favor of MIHOP/LIHOP are negative arguments. The fact is that Truthers have much in common with Creationists.

http://warrenreports.tpmcafe.com/blog/devincarpenter/2007/jan/31/intelligent_design_and_kitzmiller_v_dover

[Reality Believer]

Looks like someone was watching Nova last night :) Very good program.

I agree, the similarities to belief in supernatural intervention in biology and supernatural govt. powers are very interesting. Both require a blind faith in the ultimate power with no big picture theory or any organized method for testing the hypothesis.

[Vincent Vega]

Looks like someone was watching Nova last night :) Very good program.

I agree, the similarities to belief in supernatural intervention in biology and supernatural govt. powers are very interesting. Both require a blind faith in the ultimate power with no big picture theory or any organized method for testing the hypothesis.

Yes I did, and I couldn't help butsee a correlation between creationists arguments against Evolution and the 'Truther's' arguments against the "Official Theory".

[Furi]

I would agree that truthers and creationists and woo in general have many things in common,

The ability to shift or appoint blame to other agencies = God, Aliens, Gubmint, NWO, Illuminated Penguins from the planet Zob.

The complete reliance on Faith : That's what God wants you to think (Huh!) Just look at the facts it's all common sense, D'uh Chemtrails, Vitamin D capsules

The hatred to opponents of beliefs and descriptions of various penalties for being a Shill, Atheist, Sheeple, Penguin lover

they are also reet good for a larf, right up until they start to affect the edumacation of the youth by having their ideas touted as fact, or by forcing those that may not have the research skills / material to question or are persuaded by a item of faith that by questioning you will Get Microchipped the moment you go to a library, Internet sprays chemicals to force you to think your parents are hammers, Go to Hell, Be forced to work in a Zobian Sashimi bar Performing lewd and vile acts for your Penguin overlords

They also seem reliant that they only have to produce a series of unrelated nitpicks with a theory or scenarion, rather than any form of interlated realstice. Often (almost certainly) contradicting themselves and other bleefers in their theories, to form chaotic splits within the group and often warring among themselves (Dragging innocents in with them that couldn't really give a flying one who believes what).

[nicepants]

I agree, the similarities to belief in supernatural intervention in biology and supernatural govt. powers are very interesting. Both require a blind faith in the ultimate power with no big picture theory or any organized method for testing the hypothesis.

Indeed. The difference is, belief (at least in Protestant Christian faiths) is admittedly faith-based. If Christianity (or other religions for that matter) could be proven scientifically, they would require no faith. (If God just showed up and said "peek a boo", it wouldn't really take much "faith" to believe, now would it?)

With 9/11 truth, the truthers try to push it off as "scientifically proven" yet it is anything but that. It requires blind faith in out-of-context quotes, inconsistencies in official accounts, sprinkled with a few heaping loads of paranoia.

It's one thing to be faith-based...it's a whole other thing to be faith based and claim to be fact-based.

I do see the similarities between 911 truth and creationist arguments, though most Christians I know realize that there are plenty of other things to be concerned about.

[Liszt]

I find it stomach churning when people talk about evolutionary theories as if there is only 2 of them. check out my bookshelf - 30 - 40 books on various evolutionary theories (including 2 by beardy weirdy Darwin himself)

For example - try reading Howard Bloom's Global Brain (it is on Amazon). References make up half of this book. It is, in places, jaw dropping - and it should be taught at university. It is not exacly "proof", but it is pretty close.

[Vincent Vega]

In particular the case involved natural selection. The point was that ID was just as much science as NS because 'Evolution' was 'just' a theory.

[tsg]

I don't find it at all surprising that two groups of people who want something to be true engage in the same logical fallacies to try to prove it.

[Furi]

Logical fallacy or not, Random NS through ability has a certain beauty behind it, and can even explain the persistance of religion if we included sociotype as opposed to genotype as well (note dunno if those are exactly the words I mean, I am neither a socialolgist or a geneticist (would rather be branded a Thatcherite than a sociologist)) and if anyone does have further readings on other theories of evolution I wil Gladly (just short of sexual favours) take a few ISBN refs or pointers, though I might fall short of anything that includes omniescent being creation as a given point, Evolution is a fact of existance not of creation, the 2 are completely seperate arguments

Liszt would happily like to read your bookshelf by the sounds of it.

[Liszt]

Logical fallacy or not, Random NS through ability has a certain beauty behind it, and can even explain the persistance of religion if we included sociotype as opposed to genotype as well (note dunno if those are exactly the words I mean, I am neither a socialolgist or a geneticist (would rather be branded a Thatcherite than a sociologist)) and if anyone does have further readings on other theories of evolution I wil Gladly (just short of sexual favours) take a few ISBN refs or pointers, though I might fall short of anything that includes omniescent being creation as a given point, Evolution is a fact of existance not of creation, the 2 are completely seperate arguments

Liszt would happily like to read your bookshelf by the sounds of it.


Definately read the Bloom book, as it is just so well written. My favorite evolution theory (based on the Vedas!! (Hindu holy book)) Is Michael Cremo's Human Devolution - A Vedic Alternative to Darwinian Theory. (it is sold on Amazon)

Cremo also wrote books on archeology (forbidden Archeology) but it does not include his theory in these. Not in my version anyway, which is the abbridged...300 page edition (!)

Of course, he does not present many proofs, but it makes a change from the usual endless Darwin bashing with no alternative that many books go into.

Also, check out this guy, Alfred Russel Wallace (this was posted in another section today, coincidentally)

http://www.wku.edu/~smithch/index1.htm

He has slightly different views to Darwin. A forgotten hero.

Then, of course, you can step into the truely weird. for example, the quantum physics theory, by people such as Amit Goswami, in The Self Aware Universe.

Great entertainment. not much in the way of proof though (although some of Cremo's findings are very puzzling, to say the least)