Experts and users discuss intelligent design, evolution, religion in society, religion and science: Hypocrisy: NCSE Uses Religious Arguments—to Advocate for Evolution!
Email addresses will be used to email the information on your behalf and will not be collected, shared, sold, or used by Opposing Views for any other purpose. See our privacy policy.
Hypocrisy: NCSE Uses Religious Arguments—to Advocate for Evolution!
- From Discovery Institute
By Discovery Institute - A Positive Vision of the Future
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Fascinating self deception
--Casey
Late last night I posted my final rebuttals to the NCSE on OpposingViews.com. This makes 12 total rebuttals for the pro-ID side and zero for the anti-ID side (though Americans United did post a sur-rebuttal tellingly titled “You Lost the Case -- Get Over It”).
---
Over 375 comments, mostly showing the vacuity of ID, the NCSE need not respond. Casey's description of the NCSE's position is as usual full of empty accusations and yet fail to address the simple fact that
ID is scientifically vacuous.
Casey's response shows the full extent of the self deception and appeal to fallacies.
Sad really but par for the course.
Nuff said
- PvM
September 18, 2008 9:39PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
And did anyone notice
Casey relies on the fallacy that undermining evolution somehow provides merit to ID. Funny that he decided not to address the lack of merit of ID.
Come to think of it, perhaps understandable, as a lawyer, what else is left to do but to attempt to impugn the witnesses.
It did not work during Dover v Kitzmiller where Casey and the DI were outclassed by the NCSE and the many witnesses, and it will not work here.
It should be clear to all now that ID is unable to defend itself against even the simplest observations that ID has remained scientifically vacuous. I bet that is by design.
- PvM
September 18, 2008 9:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Silly, silly Luskin
Luskin says:
"In the title of its first opening statement, the NCSE charges that ID should be rejected because it "is a Religiously Motivated Attack on Science.""
The NCSE says that "intelligent design is a religiously motivated attack on science", but the NCSE does not claim that is WHY it should be REJECTED. Luskin just made that part up so that he could beat up on a straw man. Of course ID should be rejected because it's non-science nonsense.
"how can they maintain consistency when they argue that the allegedly religious motives of ID proponents make ID unscientific?"
But this is crazy of course. Religious motives of ID proponents help keep non-science nonsense out of the public high school classroom. But ID is unscientific for entirely different reasons (as explored in the other articles on this site).
So I assert that Luskin's erroneous rebuttal and claim of "hypocrisy" are irrelevant to the overall question - does intelligent design have merit?
- onein6billion
September 19, 2008 11:05AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
silly silly onein6billion (approaching 7)
"The NCSE says that " intelligent design is a religiously motivated attack on science", but the NCSE does not claim that is WHY it should be REJECTED. Luskin just made that part up so that he could beat up on a straw man."
You must be joking, do you really think the idea (with no proof) that ID is a religiously motivated attack on science is not a claim used to reject ID??? Speaking of Straw man attacks......
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/03/a_list_of_selected_responses_t.html
"Religious motives of ID proponents help keep non-science nonsense out of the public high school classroom. But ID is unscientific for entirely different reasons (as explored in the other articles on this site)."
After a long and repetitive debate with PvM on the issue of religious motivations, I think there might be a ray of hope for you guys when it comes to the notion that ID is unscientific. Can you explain the rationale behind the notion that ID is not science?
"Of course ID should be rejected because it's non-science nonsense."
How so? (see above)
- F2XL
November 6, 2008 8:33PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID is not science
ID is not science because it can never make a prediction that is meaningful.
ID simply tries to pretend to match any and all observations of reality.
But there's no "why" there. Why should ID match reality? What do we know about the designer that would lead us to believe that his "design" actually matches reality?
Nothing --- here is reality and here is a silly "claim" that ID supports or is supported by that reality.
So ID has no merit because ID fits anything and everything.
And there was tiktaalik.
- onein6billion
November 7, 2008 6:30AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID is science
"ID is not science because it can never make a prediction that is meaningful."
Sure..., except:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/08/function_for_endogenous_retrov.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/05/another_intelligent_design_pre.html
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/wired_magazine_unashamedly_mix.html
"ID simply tries to pretend to match any and all observations of reality."
Sounds like Neo-Darwinian theory to me.
"What do we know about the designer that would lead us to believe that his "design" actually matches reality?"
Why would we need to know anything about the designer to draw conclusions?
"So ID has no merit because ID fits anything and everything."
So then Evolution has no merit because it fits anything and everything in biology.
"And there was tiktaalik."
Common descent neither supports, nor refutes ID.
- F2XL
November 9, 2008 11:43AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
ID is meaninglessly irrelevant
"Common descent neither supports, nor refutes ID."
Because, of course, ID really does not mean anything significant.
- onein6billion
November 9, 2008 1:44PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Your comment was meaninglessly irrelavent
"Because, of course, ID really does not mean anything significant."
That's seriously your response to everything I said before???
Well, to dive into my point(s) a little further (at least with the only one you seem to be concerned with), showing verification of common descent in the biological studies does not affect the validity of ID in any way:
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2007-01-01T16_23_44-08_00.mp3
http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/enclosure/2007-01-05T12_05_59-08_00.mp3
http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestions.php (see #2 in "Questions about Intelligent Design")
http://www.discovery.org/v/2
http://www.uncommondescent.com/comment-policy/put-a-sock-in-it / (part of the faq goes into what common descent means for ID)
- F2XL
November 10, 2008 8:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
As I said - ID is meaninglessly irrelevant
You continue to quote dishonest sources. Why should I waste any time even reading them, much less bothering to reply. Your "authorities" are not.
- onein6billion
November 11, 2008 10:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.