"Exposing Chris Mooney’s Attack on Intelligent Design" - Page 6

RichardR · 14th October 2006, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by T'ai Chi

And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing.

I've read your post that says you've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing, and I find it unconvincing.

ponderingturtle · 14th October 2006, 04:24 PM

Originally Posted by RichardR

I've read your post that says you've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing, and I find it unconvincing.

Quite right, we should wait for him to produce something worthy of a reply and then he will get it.

Jeff Corey · 14th October 2006, 05:50 PM

Don't hold your breath.

CACTUSJACKmankin · 15th October 2006, 06:28 AM

This article is really sad, let's start with "Error #1: Mr. Mooney overpraises Darwin"

[quote]Mr. Mooney argues evolution is the “linchpin of modern biology,” and “a bedrock of modern science,” and one of the greatest intellectual achievements of human history.[quote/]
There is nothing wrong with this statement evolution in every significant way is the "linchpin of modern biology". Zoologists and Botanists use evolution to understand adaptations, behavior, and relationships. Molecular biologists can establish perhapse the strongest evidence for evolutionary relationships. Ecologists study the very forces that drive adaptation. So, every field in modern biology is connected through evolution.

"Error #2: Mr. Mooney claims ID traces itself to the theological arguments of William Paley"
Intelligent design is by definition an argument from design so from that point alone it is a decendant of the Paley argument. Also, while they never investigate the nature of the designer they admit that for design to be the case there must be a designer. So from that point it is also a decendant of Paley even though they don't say God both are arguments for a designer.
[quote]Finally, the modern theory of ID has experienced a surge in popularity due to the discoveries in the past 30-40 years in genetics, molecular biology, and cell biology which have revealed a world of complex microbiological machines and the digital language-based genetic code underlying all of life.[quote/]
Is he kidding? Each of those discoveries has done nothing but overwhelmingly confirm evolution, especially common descent. Also, the popularity of ID can be directly traced to the fall of creation science in the courts.

"Error #3: Mr. Mooney critiques a blatantly false, straw-man version of intelligent design"

[quote]Mr. Mooney argues that intelligent design is simply a negative “God-of-the-gaps” argument against evolution which appeals to supernatural.[quote/]
It is! Pointing to a very obscure biomolecular motor as evidence of ID is as GodoftheGaps as you get. They can't talk about ID as making the eye or the wing because the evolution of those organs is fairly well understood, the eye for example has evolved at least 40 seperate times. Also, Behe admitted in court that ID's appeal to the supernatural would open the door to astrology.

That's just the first three arguments. It's sad to see him deny that ID is what it is. Is that enough of a rebuttal for some real discussion?

Piggy · 15th October 2006, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmankin

Is that enough of a rebuttal for some real discussion?

Are you kidding? Even I can see that that's going to be uninteresting. It's just opinion aimed personally at Luskin. Now will someone please address the article?

ponderingturtle · 15th October 2006, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Piggy

Are you kidding? Even I can see that that's going to be uninteresting. It's just opinion aimed personally at Luskin. Now will someone please address the article?

You forgot it is also likely to be so illogical and missinformed that it is not even worth rebutting.

14th October 2006, 03:14 PM	#201
RichardR Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,281	Originally Posted by T'ai Chi And? I'll keep pointing out that I've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing. I've read your post that says you've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing, and I find it unconvincing.
RichardR Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,281	__________________ Read: Skeptico - Critical thinking for an irrational world

15th October 2006, 06:33 AM	#205
Piggy Unlicensed street skeptic Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Ralph's side of the island Posts: 15,371	Originally Posted by CACTUSJACKmankin Is that enough of a rebuttal for some real discussion? Are you kidding? Even I can see that that's going to be uninteresting. It's just opinion aimed personally at Luskin. Now will someone please address the article?
	__________________ . How can you expect to be rescued if you don’t put first things first and act proper?

14th October 2006, 04:24 PM	#202
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,432	Originally Posted by RichardR I've read your post that says you've read the "rebuttal" and consider it unconvincing, and I find it unconvincing. Quite right, we should wait for him to produce something worthy of a reply and then he will get it.

14th October 2006, 05:50 PM	#203
Jeff Corey New York Skeptic Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 13,794	Don't hold your breath.

15th October 2006, 06:28 AM	#204
CACTUSJACKmankin Critical Thinker Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 279	This article is really sad, let's start with "Error #1: Mr. Mooney overpraises Darwin" [quote]Mr. Mooney argues evolution is the “linchpin of modern biology,” and “a bedrock of modern science,” and one of the greatest intellectual achievements of human history.[quote/] There is nothing wrong with this statement evolution in every significant way is the "linchpin of modern biology". Zoologists and Botanists use evolution to understand adaptations, behavior, and relationships. Molecular biologists can establish perhapse the strongest evidence for evolutionary relationships. Ecologists study the very forces that drive adaptation. So, every field in modern biology is connected through evolution. "Error #2: Mr. Mooney claims ID traces itself to the theological arguments of William Paley" Intelligent design is by definition an argument from design so from that point alone it is a decendant of the Paley argument. Also, while they never investigate the nature of the designer they admit that for design to be the case there must be a designer. So from that point it is also a decendant of Paley even though they don't say God both are arguments for a designer. [quote]Finally, the modern theory of ID has experienced a surge in popularity due to the discoveries in the past 30-40 years in genetics, molecular biology, and cell biology which have revealed a world of complex microbiological machines and the digital language-based genetic code underlying all of life.[quote/] Is he kidding? Each of those discoveries has done nothing but overwhelmingly confirm evolution, especially common descent. Also, the popularity of ID can be directly traced to the fall of creation science in the courts. "Error #3: Mr. Mooney critiques a blatantly false, straw-man version of intelligent design" [quote]Mr. Mooney argues that intelligent design is simply a negative “God-of-the-gaps” argument against evolution which appeals to supernatural.[quote/] It is! Pointing to a very obscure biomolecular motor as evidence of ID is as GodoftheGaps as you get. They can't talk about ID as making the eye or the wing because the evolution of those organs is fairly well understood, the eye for example has evolved at least 40 seperate times. Also, Behe admitted in court that ID's appeal to the supernatural would open the door to astrology. That's just the first three arguments. It's sad to see him deny that ID is what it is. Is that enough of a rebuttal for some real discussion?

15th October 2006, 06:40 AM	#206
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 26,432	Originally Posted by Piggy Are you kidding? Even I can see that that's going to be uninteresting. It's just opinion aimed personally at Luskin. Now will someone please address the article? You forgot it is also likely to be so illogical and missinformed that it is not even worth rebutting.