Posted by: Dan | August 5, 2006

What ID Proponents Need to Get Through Their Thick Heads…

Ed on Dispatches from the Culture Wars gets the point across succinctly – the point which ID advocates must get through their heads if they really want to be part of science, and stop being ridiculed for their often-absurd assertions. The post is Interesting Paul Nelson Post, and Ed’s concluding thought sums it up pretty well:

Do the science, and they will come. Show them some actual research that might confirm this idea, and they’ll listen. But short circuit the process with false and exaggerated claims, with empty accusations of unfairness, with dishonest PR campaigns, and you will only get ridiculed. The bottom line for the ID movement is if they want to be taken seriously as an intellectual movement, shut down the PR campaign and get to work. Produce something useful and you’ll be taken seriously. I don’t think it will happen. Hell, I don’t think it can happen. But I know for sure it won’t happen until the whining, the empty rhetoric and the political maneuvering stops and the actual scientific work begins.


Responses

  1. As a former Cornell undergrad once said, “No cat, no cradle.”

  2. Of course, PZ Myers has his own take on Nelson’s piece. I still like Ed’s a little bit better just because it does more than speak to just those that agree with him.

    But PZ’s right – Nelson (and the rest of the Disco crew) have absolutely nothing to go on, and his claims of “research on the way” is an empty promise. There is no hope that Intelligent Design will ever be credible as science, as far as any reasonably-informed individual can see.

  3. the point which ID advocates must get through their heads if they really want to be part of science, and stop being ridiculed for their often-absurd assertions.

    I’m not sure what that practically means. If your opponents would quit disagreeing with you, you would then have agreement? Probably, but so what?

    You want more “science”, meaning more studies, then set aside some small token of monies for ID research. And we’ll see if people step up to apply for the grants.

  4. Roger,
    You just don’t understand the scientific endeavor at all, on a basic/fundamental level, do you?

  5. Gee Dan, why not make this a teaching moment? See if you can actually get something through a thick head. Let’s discuss exactly what you think could be a potential Eureka moment for IDers.

  6. Roger,
    (a) Again, quit whining and take a biology class. This is a discussion site, not a classroom. (however, if you have specific questions (i.e. “teach me something” is not specific), then ask them for the millionth time)

    and (b) The topic of this thread is “What ID Proponents Need to Get Through Their Thick Heads,” the answer to that is get in the lab/field, and actually do some hypothesis testing, with sound methodology, and submit your results to critical analysis by peer scientists. Appealing to the public’s sense of fairness with talk of controversies that don’t exist isn’t science, it’s propaganda.

  7. […] The last several threads that he’s commented on can be found on: What IDers need to get through their thick heads The Design Analogy and Are all IDers Inane Creationists? […]


Categories

%d bloggers like this: