Home » Darwinism, Intelligent Design, Philosophy » I r edumakated

I r edumakated

Science and scientists, especially in America, are wonderful. I am currently laying on my couch, playing music from my laptop, and will probably turn on my HDTV later on to just enjoy a nice relaxing evening. Without scientists none of this would be possible.

However, sometimes scientists need to “know their role.” What I mean by that is how whenever faced with a dissenting viewpoint, some scientists tend to produce massive arguments to discredit the dissenter; one of the problem with this, however, is their arguments are based upon logical fallacies. That might make for a good way to vent, but it doesn’t make it a good argument.

Take, for instance, Dawkins, Panda’s Thumb, et al, and their recent treatment of Dembski’s class curriculum. I could offer quotes, but I’m sure we’ve seen most of them. Rather, what I believe to be an adequate summary of the arguments against Dembski’s curriculum is as follows:

“Bill DUMzki r dum! LOL! Iz Xian + ID = soopid. Dawkins r in Demzkis boat, eatin all hiz cookies! LOL!!!!1111!!1!!11!!!1”

I wish I could say I were exaggerating, but unfortunately the only thing I changed was the composition of the words.

Regardless, everyone is attacking Bill, and subsequently the class and the seminary, for a few issues. Here is what they make fun of (note: they don’t offer a legitimate refutation against it, they merely mock it):

  • Dembski wants students to actively engage anti-ID people by posting on anti-ID blogs. They [the critics] see this as trolling, rather than what it is; forcing a student out of the classroom and out of theory and putting what he has learned into practice (oh the horror!). So apparently forcing the student to engage the opposition (which, from an anti-ID point of view, opens the door to “convert” someone, for lack of a better term) is wrong? No wonder there is so much intellectual inbreeding occurring in American universities.
  • At the PhD level, students are required to write a Sunday School lesson that teaches on ID. No matter what a person thinks about ID, such lessons would encourage people to go research the issue themselves. If ID is so weak then in their research they should learn of such weaknesses. Let’s just pray to science they never read about the Big Bang or how naturalism leads to an infinite regress!
  • It’s William Dembski – need I say more?

So what is the problem with all of this? The problem is all of the attacks, all of the major arguments, are nothing more than logical fallacies! Even the pet names they have for those in the ID movement show the incapacity of the anti-ID movement to even move toward respectable rhetoric, much less actually research this issue. Think about the terms: Bill “Dumski,” Idiots, etc. It’s one thing to disagree with a position, it’s entirely another to result to childish tactics in order to prove one wrong.

The fallacies that are most often engaged in are:

Ad Hominem – I think the above insults should suffice as evidence. If you need more, simply go here or here. This is a fallacy because it could be that Dembski is actually dumb. It could be that everyone in the ID movement is an idiot. But none of that would adequately show that ID is false or that support for ID is false. Let’s face it, there’s a reason Dawkins doesn’t debate educated theists; he’d lose and he knows it. Imagine your entire argumentation and presentation relies upon logical fallacies, specifically ad hominem, and you’re going up against people who will exploit that, would you put yourself in that situation? Hence why Dawkins cowers when it comes to an actual debate with someone who is actually educated (though he has ventured out a few times – and lost each debate I might add).

Appeal to authority – My friend recently had Michael Dowd comment on his blog, attempting to defend his book (Thank God for Evolution) against the criticisms of my friend. His defense? “Lot’s of smart people liked my book!” Mazel Tov!…and? Now, I understand that this fallacy is mostly to keep in check false claims of authority, but regardless, when someone runs behind authority and leaves it at that, it proves nothing. Even if one is an authority on an issue, all that means is that person should be able to put together a better defense – simply being an authority doesn’t make your arguments valid or free from criticisms.

Appeal to ridicule – “Well he believes in ID and that’s just ridiculous, so why listen to what he has to say?” It might be ridiculous to you; but that you see it as ridiculous, or even if a majority of people see it as ridiculous, is completely irrelevant to the truth of ID.

Questionable Cause – “You believe in God, thus you have to believe in ID.” Okay; you believe in no God, thus you have to believe in naturalism. What of it? That says nothing to the truth of the situation. What if someone denied that 2+2=4 to a math teacher. The math teacher could present evidence, but what if the person said, “You’re only saying that 2+2=4 because you’re a math teacher.” Well, that’s true, being a math teacher means the person should know math. But at the same time, what the math teacher claims is still true, regardless of why he might be saying it. Likewise, someone might believe in God, but that belief in God doesn’t magically negate ID, no more than a belief in no God negates naturalism.

There are many more, but I think the point is made; we get it, you don’t like ID, but instead of sitting there like little children who just had the unpopular kid get into the sandbox with you, why don’t you actually offer up some civil rhetoric to explain why you object?

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

38 Responses to I r edumakated

  1. /sarc

    Cuz, dey to busy talkin to Dicky Dee’s Space varmits…

    strangers that come every night, those saucer shaped lights

    /off

    The video starts with the famous admission and possibility of intelligent civilizations that may have seeded earth, then at 5:57 mark, “Hey Mr. Spaceman, please take me along” kicks in with Dickey Dee thinking very hard about novel information.

    To funny. Whats good for the goose and all.

  2. Mr Borofsky,

    Without scientists none of this would be possible.

    I’m pretty sure you would have accomplished the laying down part without the help of science! :)

    Shocked, shocked to hear bad language in the blogosphere are you? Never heard a ‘Darwinbot’ or fart noise ever emanate from a fellow of the Discovery Institute? Who was it that compared a scientist to Herman Munster? The name is right on the tip of my tongue…

    I personally think the asymmetry of running a locked down blog while asking your students to witness for ID on hostile blogs is the “big” issue here. How do you feel about that? Is that a logical fallacy, or merely a moral lapse?

  3. * Dembski wants students to actively engage anti-ID people by posting on anti-ID blogs. They [the critics] see this as trolling, rather than what it is; forcing a student out of the classroom and out of theory and putting what he has learned into practice (oh the horror!). So apparently forcing the student to engage the opposition (which, from an anti-ID point of view, opens the door to “convert” someone, for lack of a better term) is wrong? No wonder there is so much intellectual inbreeding occurring in American universities.

    The criticism of trolling is made because we’ve seen the kind of things that ID advocates tend to post on those sites on a regular basis. For example, “From Darwin to Hitler” is a regular pseudohistorical theme, and one that would seem to be encouraged from at least one of Dembski’s other questions that linked acceptance of evolutionary theory with eugenics, etc.

    The policy also seems specifically aimed at promoting trolling, since–as I recall–it does not ask students to engage in protracted conversations. The ten posts can be hit-and-runs, and that’s exactly the pattern we usually see.

    As has been pointed out elsewhere, a better pedagogy would likely be asking students to post 5 pro-evolution posts (on pro-ID websites) and 5 anti-evolution posts (on anti-ID websites). Of course, many pro-ID sites, YouTube channels, etc. (including UD when it was under Dembski’s iron-gloved velvet fist) disallow comments from people with opposing viewpoints, so perhaps the former part of the assignment would be unmanageable.

    And of course 20% is far, far too much weight to place on such a trivial thing as posting on Internet blogs.

  4. Naka – so, you’re dissenting, you’ve mocked UD in two posts (that I’ve read at least), and you’re seriously claiming that UD is “locked down?” If UD were locked down, how could you claim that it’s locked down?

    Tajimas – one constant that I’ve witnessed among students (including myself) is an unwillingness to relent. Once someone takes the time to put 200 words on a hostile site – granted, 200 words isn’t A LOT – my guess is that most students will return to defend their initial statements. Certainly not for eternity, but at least for a few interesting rounds.

  5. Skew, is it really just that simple? Think of it this way:

    How many dissenting views are allowed? I have yet to read a post with more than 20 comments where there isn’t at least one dissenting view.

    So either the moderation is extremely inconsistent, or the supposedly “dissenting” views that are deleted are also rude and uncalled for.

    Just an observation.

  6. Mr Borofsky,

    I’ve been banned at least twice on this site, and only recalled from the dead once. While the site today does still suffer from immoderate moderation (I think anything criticising Lewis or Chesterton is a quick trip to the baños, and God forbid you can’t distinguish Reformed and Lutheran theology!) the criticism is strongest for the semesters during which the course requirement was in place. The ‘sight that dare not speak its name’ has a thread for all the relevant banninations if you would like to review the record in detail.

  7. Joel, UD has opened up considerably since Barry took over. (And especially since he seemingly disappeared???) At least one website maintains a list of some of those who have been “banninated” from UD.

    Quoting Dembski yet again:

    There are plenty of other forums where I mix it up with Darwinists. Think of this blog as my playground. If you have to take a whiz, do it elsewhere.

    I think it’s more than a little hypocritical for him to maintain a website that disallows criticism, while at the same time requiring his students to post criticism elsewhere.

  8. Mr Borofsky,

    Wander over to ‘that other place’. There are entire threads laid out for FtK, etc to post. Try to imagine UD with a thread just for Zachriel!

    ‘Nuf said.

  9. “Go to this site!”
    “There’s been people banned in the past!”
    “It used to be really bad!”

    And yet, here you are, offering dissent.

  10. And yet, here you are, offering dissent.

    No one is denying that. As we’ve said, UD has opened up considerably. However, the person in question is Bill Dembski. When _he_ was in charge of the site, he disallowed virtually all criticism, by his own admission. Combine that with the requirement for his students to post criticism elsewhere and you get a recipe for hypocrisy.

  11. 11

    Though there are always reasons other than dissent that comments are deleted (I know this for a fact), let’s for one second assume you are correct. Let’s assume that Dembski is nothing short of a hypocrite who stifles free speech on his private blog (he doesn’t, but let’s assume).

    How does the above negate anything I said in my post? How does the above negate the fact that more often than not, naturalists turn to logical fallacies in order to justify their position? In fact, pointing out that the moderation here doesn’t allow for free speech is a faulty form of argument…how is the moderation at UD in anyway relevant to what I said?

  12. 12

    Nakashima,

    Once again, even if UD is diving into the depths of hypocrisy, how does that negate anything in my post? If you were to actually prove that Dembski and others were being hypocrites, the only thing you would succeed in proving is the need for reform at UD. *throws confetti*

    But in the end, it still doesn’t address a single thing that I brought up. Rather, you’re actually PROVING my point; the only way naturalists and anti-ID proponents can argue against ID is to use fallacious arguments.

  13. 13

    Skew,

    I’ve read some of the books. Some of them are good and fair. They do offer somewhat challenging arguments (only on the grounds of biological development; when it comes to cosmology, it seems naturalism is only surviving on a hope and prayer).

    Regardless, even in some of the more popular level books and even some academic books/articles, there are still quite a few fallacious arguments put forth.

    However, I digress. This might be anecdotal, but most of the anti-ID group I’ve dealt with falls far more into the group I was posting about rather than into the academic, “Hey let’s sit down, research this, and talk it out” group.

  14. Mr Borofsky,

    Rather, you’re actually PROVING my point; the only way naturalists and anti-ID proponents can argue against ID is to use fallacious arguments.

    I think you should be careful of conflating Dr Dembski’s choice of pedagogic practices and ID in general. If there are rude people out there in the blogosphere that are willing to heap scorn on a theologian for being hypocritical, don’t assume their criticisms of ID are all equally unthinking. You wouldn’t want me to “judge” ID by the Flash animations produced by some people, now would you?

  15. “The mocking, ad hominem, and calling people dumb only comes after the fact, when Intelligent Design advocates listen to absolutely nothing we have to say.”

    In four years here, we have listened to everything. If you dispute this, then add to the things we should listen to.

  16. Tajimas D,

    I think it’s more than a little hypocritical for him to maintain a website that disallows criticism, while at the same time requiring his students to post criticism elsewhere.

    How many times do I have to say it? Do you dissenters just not get it? Dr. Dembski also said that the new moderation policy provided for a “kinder gentler” treatment of dissenting opinions. His words, his choice. Here you are dissenting, and saying that it’s tantamount to you dissenting on a site that doesn’t allow dissent. You’re making a criticism on a website that you say doesn’t allow criticism and calling Dr. Dembski a hypocrite for it. You don’t make any sense. And for the hypocrite comment, you can credit me, and me alone, for moderating you. You’re lucky I don’t ban you outright on principle.

  17. “No, no, Jerry – not hear…

    Listen.”

    I have no idea what you are saying.

  18. Let me get this straight, the Dawkinsbots want parents rights banned to raise their children in religious faith, yet the dissenters are whining about UD?

    LOL… what a farce of hypocrisy.

  19. He means, jerry, that ID proponents must not be listening to their opponents. Because if they did, well then clearly they just wouldn’t be ID proponents any more! It’s that clear cut!

    After all, in all those years he hasn’t heard anything that made him change his mind. Of course, he could always try listening. ;)

  20. As a quick aside – the idea that Dawkins engages in “science for the most part” is hilarious. The man put practicing science behind him quite a long time ago. He has a different calling now.

  21. Clive said:

    How many times do I have to say it?

    I may be wrong, but looking back in the last thread, it appears as if you said it only ~once~ and in a comment that wasn’t even addressed to me (or sourced, if that counts for anything), so you’ll excuse me if I missed it.

    You’re lucky I don’t ban you outright on principle.

    Let me get this straight. In order to uphold the “principle” of kinder and gentler moderation–you know, the very thing that is being touted here as disproof of the charge of hypocrisy–you’re going to ban me outright…

    Seriously though, it doesn’t strike you as odd that–as you’ve just demonstrated–this website STILL has a far more oppressive, arbitrary double standard for a moderation policy than Pharyngula or richarddawkins.net, even after it has been made “kinder and gentler”? Critics here are under constant threat of the “banhammer” for even mild disagreement.

    Why not adopt PZ’s “Bring ‘em on — they’re great for a laugh” policy, especially if you’ve got the truth on your side?

    Putting it another way:
    If, as a pro-evolution university professor, I wanted to institute a marking scheme similar to Dembski’s, which “hostile” websites would you recommend that my students post on that have a moderation policy as open as Pharyngula or RD.net?

  22. Absolutely! The energy it takes to now and then engage in public debates for considerable speaker’s fees! The courage it takes to maintain a website!

    No, your assumption is wrong. Dawkins hasn’t been “defending science” for years either. If I recall, he gave up his mostly botched day-job position as a kind of PR rep for scientific issues – running around raging about the evils of theism and endorsing atheism summer camps isn’t “defending science”, any more than McDonalds “defends science” by selling burgers in a neighborhood with a considerable number of testy anti-theists.

    Listen, Skew Jones. You just have to listen more. And then maybe you’ll see why you’re wrong about Dawkins. Among, perhaps, other things.

  23. 23

    Skew, all that creationist nonsense that was shoved at you…was any of it ID related by chance.

    Please do give us a list.

  24. Skew Jones, didn’t I tell you to listen? I didn’t call Dawkins an abomination. I didn’t even, really, say much negative about him – I pointed out the obvious. Listen, my friend. Don’t just hear me. Not the same thing.

    I pointed out that Dawkins is not “engaged in science for the most part” nowadays, and hasn’t been for years. You yourself had to qualify that Dawkins, indeed, is not practicing science – he’s “defending science”! A different beast. What a shame that he’s not really doing that either – unless running around raging against theism and the existence of God is now “defending science”. In which case, wow! – McDonalds sure has been doing a lot for science this year. Think of how many biology majors and scientists they’ve served food to!

    What specific arguments from Dawkins are unscientific? Where to begin? Are you saying that.. what, anti-theism is scientific? That arguing that God does not exist is a scientific endeavor? Is making moral judgments about the actions of theists (and atheists) “science” too? Are his sloppy, rather cringe-worthy philosophical/logical musings, arguments, and stances now science?

    Frankly, why are you even arguing with me about this? You yourself said that “much of what they do could be regarded as just pop naturalism; appealing to the masses.” Unless you meant that pop naturalism = science, you’ve ceded most of the argument here to me anyway.

    But who cares? You seem to think that simply pointing out that “Dawkins” left practicing science behind a while ago, and doesn’t “defend science” unless that term has been crazily redefined, is tantamount to raging about what a monster he is. That’s simply silly.

  25. Oh, Skew. Skew, Skew, Skew. See what happens when you don’t listen? You end up not saying anything of value.

    I gave you specific examples: His advocacy of anti-theism. His arguing that God does not exist (or, more precisely, that God is “extremely unlikely to exist”). His moral judgments. His philosophical arguments.

    You want specific quotes? By all means, let’s play that game.

    “‘Religious people split into three main groups when faced with science. I shall label them the “know-nothings”, the “know-alls”, and the “no-contests”.’”

    Science, Skew?

    “”Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of, the lack of evidence.”"

    Skew – is this science?

    “”We should take astrology seriously. No, I don’t mean we should believe in it. I am talking about fighting it seriously instead of humouring it as a piece of harmless fun.”"

    Declaring war on the astrology page. Maybe fortune cookies too. Is this science? (Bonus question: Is it funny?)

    “”What are all of us but self-reproducing robots?” he asked. “We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot ­ a child.”"

    Purely scientific stuff here, Skew?

    By the way: One more time, you have to listen. You take a desperate “I gotta say something haughty” swipe at ID, even though I haven’t had word one to say about it. And you know what? I don’t think ID is science. I’m an ID-critic of sorts around here, even if I think their arguments have tremendous philosophical and intellectual value.

    Of course, that may tweak any Dawkins fan. Since he seems to disagree: “A universe with a God would like quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different.” Rather sounds like he’s saying ID is a scientific endeavor, eh? I’ll just have to respectfully disagree.

    Listen, Skew. Don’t just hear. Listen, or you’ll keep making these mistakes, fighting phantoms, and failing to understand what your opponents are really saying.

  26. Skew,

    “After years of having creationist nonsense shoved down my ears it’s no small wonder I haven’t lost the ability to hear, or listen for that matter”

    Truly? Where and when did this occur? Did you report the abuse to the police?

    Sound like you have a big chip on your shoulder and very angry. Please, let it slide off. The burden you bear is overwhelming.

    I’ll listen.

    Was it your parents? A private school? Sunday school? At what age did you finally escape the harrasment and indoctrination? How many years did it last? Did you attend a public school? Because that is certainly a place of light and good balance for young people today.

  27. Nullasalus

    “I’m an ID-critic of sorts around here, even if I think their arguments have tremendous philosophical and intellectual value”

    True Dat… I’ve seen you ranting against National ID cards for sometime now… ;-)

    lol… night guys.

    Ps. get over your past Skell, we all eventually do sooner or later.

  28. Tajimas,

    Seriously though, it doesn’t strike you as odd that–as you’ve just demonstrated–this website STILL has a far more oppressive, arbitrary double standard for a moderation policy than Pharyngula or richarddawkins.net, even after it has been made “kinder and gentler”? Critics here are under constant threat of the “banhammer” for even mild disagreement.

    It’s not mild disagreement, it’s when you vilify and start calling names like “hypocrite” or did you forget you said that, or do you consider that kind of name calling to be mild disagreement, the kind you might have with your friends when you are disagreeing with them mildly? I don’t think so.

    I don’t care to adopt anything from PZ Meyer.

  29. Skew Jones says ID is making “constant advances”! (Don’t tell Dawkinsmyersharris.)

  30. Mr Hayden,

    I’ve just been called hypocrite myself on this blog. In the big picture of the blogosphere, yes, that is pretty mild, and I’m not asking you to moderate the person that called me that. Short of flaming and expletives, I would ask you to let people choose their own language, and let other readers make their own judgement on that basis. Thank you.

  31. Clive, you should not use quotation marks to attribute words to me that I did not say.

    I did not “call him names like ‘hypocrite’”, I said one of his actions seemed “hypocritical” or like “hypocrisy”. It may seem like a minor difference, but I assure you it’s not; you can criticize something that someone has done without characterizing them entirely by that action and using it to insult them.

    And if you don’t mind, I would appreciate a reply to my question. What pro-ID websites could an evolutionary biology professor send his/her students to that have an open moderation policy? It would be unfair to recommend to the students any website with a moderation policy like UD’s. Imagine that they spent a deal of time writing their comment only to find that it had failed to be approved, or worse–as sometimes happens–had later been deleted so that the supporting URL they sent the prof was useless.

  32. The title of Dawkins’ last book is the perfect example of how well he is defending science. Or as his official job title puts it, helping the “public understanding of science”.

    I mean, does anything get more scientific than “The God Delusion”? It says it right there how scientifically sciencey it is.

  33. re: 40
    There is no scientific proof of atheism.

  34. Skew Jones 29, though I find it is rather unscientific to assert that Darwinism is scientific, I nevertheless relish the way that Richard Dawkins clarifies matters. We need more like him and less like these—would you agree?

    As for Sr. Nakashima’s plea, I’m with him. The foible of folks who stand for the good is all too often to be too nice, to just want to get along, to refrain from calling a spade a spade lest the other side be offended. Notice, however, that this is never a problem on the other side. But inasmuch as this blog is a platform for reasoned and interesting debate, it is also essential it not be bogged down by the same old same old—some should be directed to Frequently Raised But Weak Arguments Against Intelligent Design before they rage on.

  35. The criticism of trolling is made because we’ve seen the kind of things that ID advocates tend to post on those sites on a regular basis. For example, “From Darwin to Hitler” is a regular pseudohistorical theme, and one that would seem to be encouraged from at least one of Dembski’s other questions that linked acceptance of evolutionary theory with eugenics, etc

    because its the truth, darwinism is the basis of eugenics, and Darwin’s influence on Hitler is a historical FACT.

    The Darwin-Hitler connection is no recent discovery. In her classic 1951 work The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote: “Underlying the Nazis’ belief in race laws as the expression of the law of nature in man, is Darwin’s idea of man as the product of a natural development which does not necessarily stop with the present species of human being.”

    The standard biographies of Hitler almost all point to the influence of Darwinism on their subject. In Hitler: A Study in Tyranny, Alan Bullock writes: “The basis of Hitler’s political beliefs was a crude Darwinism.” What Hitler found objectionable about Christianity was its rejection of Darwin’s theory: “Its teaching, he declared, was a rebellion against the natural law of selection by struggle and the survival of the fittest.”

    John Toland’s Adolf Hitler: The Definitive Biography says this of Hitler’s Second Book published in 1928: “An essential of Hitler’s conclusions in this book was the conviction drawn from Darwin that might makes right.”

    In his biography, Hitler: 1889-1936: Hubris, Ian Kershaw explains that “crude social-Darwinism” gave Hitler “his entire political ‘world-view.’ ” Hitler, like lots of other Europeans and Americans of his day, saw Darwinism as offering a total picture of social reality. This view called “social Darwinism” is a logical extension of Darwinian evolutionary theory and was articulated by Darwin himself.

    link

    truth hurts

  36. Tajimas,

    And if you don’t mind, I would appreciate a reply to my question. What pro-ID websites could an evolutionary biology professor send his/her students to that have an open moderation policy?

    This one. I can’t speak for the moderation policy for any other site. I appreciate you thinking that I am completely knowledgeable about all moderation policies at all ID sites, but unfortunately, I’m not.

  37. Skew

    Because Joel, the fact that you’ve skimmed blog message boxes for examples of ad hominem and other logical fallacies by “Darwinists” just supports the idea that you’re desperate to make us look bad even further. There are plenty of books, sites, and other resources out there that offer a civil criticism of Intelligent Design’s body of work. The mocking, ad hominem, and calling people dumb only comes after the fact, when Intelligent Design advocates listen to absolutely nothing we have to say.

    Skew, do you realize how absolutely arrogant this sounds? I’m sure you don’t mean it that way, but that is how it sounds. Basically, what you’re saying is that once ID advocates have read what the critics have to say, they should totally accept it and agree. If they continue to argue, then they deserve whatever scorn they receive.

    The problem is that, even in the more polite and thoughtful responses to ID, there are questionable assumptions, assertions stated as “just obvious” when they aren’t and other such claims that leave lots of room for criticism and refutation. Those ID advocates who persist in pointing these out will find themselves on the receiving end of the sorts of comments Joel has indicated. I myself have often been in that boat.

    More than once at, say, The Panda’s Thumb, when I’ve challenged either the logic or the assumptions of some claim or other, and then continue to point out that my actual criticism had not been answered (because it wasn’t) I’ve been told things like “why do you continue to rant even after we’ve explained it to you?”….Which is very much like the comment you’ve made here.

    Here’s a prime example. For years I’ve challenged the entire natualistic assumption on scientific grounds. I’ve repeatedly asked, in the context of various discussions, “How do you know scientifically (not philosophically, theologically, or metaphysically) that the properties of the cosmos are such that any apparent design we observe in Nature can not actual design, even in principle?” Besides the fact that no one has ever provided a scientific answer to that question, just by asking it I’ve had all sorts of ad homs and the like hurled at me. Basically, I’m “ignorant” for just asking the question! The same thing has happened when I’ve challenged the assumption that so-called methodological naturalism is somehow different from full blown philosophical naturalism. Besides the fact that no one has ever provided any sustainable argument that a science built on MN is substatantively different from one built on PN, by just challenging the assumption I’m called “stupid”, “uninformed”, “unedcuated”, “illlogical” or that I simply don’t understand. Again the comments run along the lines of “we’ve explained it to you, and you refuse to accept what we’re telling you.”

    The arrogance involved is palpable. I find it ironic that those who claim the high road of logic and reason so quickly abandon both when it comes to defending their arguments or responding to criticism of their claims. But that is exactly what happens. Joel is exactly right!

Leave a Reply