Birds are (or aren’t) dinosaurs, but it’s nothing to do with Bill Dembski
|July 11, 2014||Posted by News under Culture, Evolution, News|
Further to “Birds not descended from dinosaurs but from common ancestor with them?”, a leading light (and typical representative) of the Internet evolutionary elite today, holds forth against Alan Feduccia’s interpretation of a fossil:
In my post to Feduccia’s quackery, and those I linked to it, I discuss what science entails, and how to do it well. Science is a process whereby you add and then collate data (additive) and formulate an observation, and then through the process of removing elements (reduction) of the hypothesis until it fits the facts. However, some scientists feel, because some processes require partially removing data from datasets, that they can do this to the data itself. That is, they remove whole swaths of data, and by this fit the data to their theory. This is neither reductive, deductive, nor science.
Feduccia’s work, and that of Stephen Czerkas, has been cited by other quackaloons in the past, but most of these have sought to either fix their unsound logic, or ran with it to their own perceived goalline, including but not limited to William Dembski at Uncommon Descent, the blog of the Discovery Institute, which peddles the “Intelligent Design” bullshit. I won’t link to it here, but hope that when you Google it, you end up reading all the bad stuff about these arguments. Long story short, it’s about creationism and sowing strawmen of the dissent among scientists.
The contemporary Internet-based evolutionary biologist has evolved to the point of thinking that profanity and bluster are the highest form of argument.
See also: That bird really IS a dinosaur, says paleontologist. The arguments and interpretation of the evidence otherwise are selective and strained.
Follow UD News at Twitter!
Hat tip: Pos-Darwinista