Thursday, May 04, 2006
If You Screw Your Eyes Up Just Right . . .
.
There is an article in the Oregon Daily Emerald, the student newspaper of the University of Oregon, about a presentation made for the University Christian Fellowship by Dr. Geoffrey Simmons, author of What Darwin Didn't Know; Tom Alderman, a local attorney; and Jim Long, a chemistry professor at the University.
.
Based on the report, the presentation contained all the "usual suspects" as far as arguments go: talk about the "intellectual totalitarianism" of scientists who ignore proponents of Intelligent Design, a comparison of IDers to Galileo, and claims about gaps in the fossil record (giraffes and blue whales chosen for some reason in this instance). They even trotted out the most silly of anthropic arguments:
[T]he location of our planet in relation to the sun -- the perfect distance to avoid scalding off our skin or freezing it the (sic) bone -- shows a designer as well.
Somewhat refreshing was the admission of Long that he "would not want intelligent design taught in (K-12) schools as a science." But he apparently goes on to say that "he does not include evolution in his curriculum; instead, he teaches that a creator designed the cell with impressive power and subtlety." Based on the schedule, the course seems to be in biochemistry but it isn't obvious why evolution is coming up at all, other than as part of the professor's personal religious beliefs.
.
Being who I am, I'm more interested in this from the lawyer:
[Alderman, who is a Christian] also spoke about the recent court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, in which the judge decided that intelligent design was a religious theory that has no place in public school classrooms. Alderman said the lawyers did not handle the case well and that the loss set back the movement by years.
So it was bad lawyering, was it? It had nothing to do with the mountain of evidence Judge Jones had?
.
Can you say cognitive dissonance, boys and girls? Good . . .
__________
.
P.S. For a really thorough dissection of the "arguments" of the Three Stooges, wander over to John Wilkins' blog, Evolving Thoughts, to see just how vicious philosophers can actually be.
.
Comments:
<< Home
They even trotted out the most silly of anthropic arguments:
https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=50189
Creationists and ID theories aside, I think that it is extremely telling that the puddle example is only given by counter-ideologically motivated people to groups of like-minded individuals as a rebuttal to creationists that are pushing the anthropic principle as evidence for god.
It has little if anything to do with the physics of the anthropic principle.
For example, does the analogy fairly represent the diametrically opposing runaway nature of all of the vast array of the the anthropic coincidences?
Because if it isn't "fairly" represented, then it necessarily harbors unfair prejudice against science.
I don't make the rules... nor do I tell people whom to associate themselves with, but that doesn't mean that the lame rationale of fanatics doesn't make a statement about people that get their information from them.
Can you do that for me, Catshark? Can you please show me how the puddle example represents a fair analogy of the physics for the anthropic principle... ?
... or will you prove my point?
https://ideotrope.org/index.pl?node_id=50189
Creationists and ID theories aside, I think that it is extremely telling that the puddle example is only given by counter-ideologically motivated people to groups of like-minded individuals as a rebuttal to creationists that are pushing the anthropic principle as evidence for god.
It has little if anything to do with the physics of the anthropic principle.
For example, does the analogy fairly represent the diametrically opposing runaway nature of all of the vast array of the the anthropic coincidences?
Because if it isn't "fairly" represented, then it necessarily harbors unfair prejudice against science.
I don't make the rules... nor do I tell people whom to associate themselves with, but that doesn't mean that the lame rationale of fanatics doesn't make a statement about people that get their information from them.
Can you do that for me, Catshark? Can you please show me how the puddle example represents a fair analogy of the physics for the anthropic principle... ?
... or will you prove my point?
For example, does the analogy fairly represent the diametrically opposing runaway nature of all of the vast array of the the anthropic coincidences? ...
Can you please show me how the puddle example represents a fair analogy of the physics for the anthropic principle... ?
Well, first I'd have to stop a bit to show you how to read. My subject was not the whole of the anthropic arguments, but "the most silly of anthropic arguments." The one I cited:
[T]he location of our planet in relation to the sun -- the perfect distance to avoid scalding off our skin or freezing it the sic bone -- shows a designer as well.
is indeed the silliest (or at least close). The whole "the Earth orbits the sun at just the right distance" is a "puddle argument" par excellence.
I remember you from talk.origins where you acted like an obnoxious jackass unable to make sense and taking your frustrations out on others. You're not going to do that here, where I am the "moderator" and have no warrant to allow the incapable a forum.
Have a nice life . . . somewhere else.
Post a Comment
Can you please show me how the puddle example represents a fair analogy of the physics for the anthropic principle... ?
Well, first I'd have to stop a bit to show you how to read. My subject was not the whole of the anthropic arguments, but "the most silly of anthropic arguments." The one I cited:
[T]he location of our planet in relation to the sun -- the perfect distance to avoid scalding off our skin or freezing it the sic bone -- shows a designer as well.
is indeed the silliest (or at least close). The whole "the Earth orbits the sun at just the right distance" is a "puddle argument" par excellence.
I remember you from talk.origins where you acted like an obnoxious jackass unable to make sense and taking your frustrations out on others. You're not going to do that here, where I am the "moderator" and have no warrant to allow the incapable a forum.
Have a nice life . . . somewhere else.
<< Home
